Tucker Carlson Podcast

Tucker Carlson sat with Catherine Austin Fitts, a former investment banker and government official, to explore the global financial system and its effects on personal freedom and wealth. Fitts is known for her fantastic claims about financial corruption and control, and this conversation dives into some wild and controversial theories, or conspiracy theories, about the elite world around us. They discuss everything from missing government money ($21 trillion) to secret societies and the risks of digital currencies. While some of Fitts’ points are backed by data, others are more speculative, but one way or another the US budget doesn’t add up and no doubt, some of what she says may not be too far from the truth.

Financial Coup d'État and Missing Funds

Fitts starts by talking about a huge amount of money—$21 trillion—that she says went missing from U.S. government accounts between 1998 and 2015, especially from the Department of Defense and Housing and Urban Development. She calls it a “financial coup,” meaning she thinks this cash was secretly taken to pay for hidden projects, like underground bases or even space programs…yes, wild, we’ll get more into those below.. There’s some documented truth here: a researcher named Dr. Mark Skidmore found $21 trillion in accounting adjustments that weren’t properly explained and seemingly have no home on the books. The reason this money is missing is because she claimed that the “elite” and the central bankers effectively “gave up”on the US in the early 1990’s and were looking for ways to fund a new or parallel civilization with the most obvious use-case being survival of a mass-extinction event.

Role of Central Banks and the BIS

To understand her wild hypothesis, Fitts first says that you need to understand the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which she describes as a all-powerful meta bank that other central banks answer to. She explains that the BIS has special rules that let it hide money movements, enabling it to facilitate transfers of large some of money between entities. The BIS is real—it’s based in Switzerland and helps central banks work together, setting rules like the Basel Accords to keep banking stable. It does have some legal protections, but they’re seemingly standard for international groups. Fitts’ claim that it’s covertly moving money around lacks solid proof (to her own admission) and isn’t a mainstream view, it goes without saying.

Digital Control Grid and Financial Freedom

Fitts warns about a “digital control grid,” where things like central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) could track and control every dollar you spend. She’s worried it could turn into a “digital concentration camp,” with no privacy or freedom left. She points to the BIS experimenting with tech and bankers talking about enforcing rules digitally. CBDCs are real—countries are testing them—but whether they’ll spy on us is still up in the air. Fitts says to fight back by using local banks or buying gold and silver to keep some independence. In a pre-COVID and AI world, this sort of idea might have been seen as far-fetched, today it seems pretty plausible.

Breakaway Civilization

One of Fitts’ wilder ideas is the “breakaway civilization.” She postulates the “missing money” mentioned above goes to a secret group building a separate society with emergent technology. This society functions partly (and will solely in the case of a mass extinction event) in underground bases using hidden transport systems. She guesses there are 170 underground bases in the U.S. alone. These bases are also supported by some kind of novel energy technology, again she offers no evidence of, but a few anecdotal stories. It’s a sensational story, like something from a science fiction film, but there’s no real evidence to support it discussed in the podcast at least.

Wealth Building through Living and Financial Equity

Trying to offer a bit of hope, she encourages people to think about wealth in a different way—not just financial asset, but what she calls “living equity.” This means building strong families, communities, and traditions that money can’t buy. She’s all about keeping things local and community support, rather than relying on sizable global systems. Fitts ties this concept to freedom (which she warns is under assault), saying a strong community can stand up to tough times better than a bank account alone.

PodLands Final Take

Catherine Austin Fitts’ chat with Tucker Carlson is absolutely insane if true or even partially true. The $21 trillion accounting mess is real, but what happened to the money is unclear—secret bases or just bad paperwork? Her takes on the BIS and a breakaway civilization are mind-blowing, again - if true. We want to write off all of this, pretend we never heard it, or maybe only saw it in a James Bond movie, but we are talking some master mind criminal type activity if any of this is true. This talk leaves you with big questions: Who’s really running the financial system really, and what does it mean for us? If you’re curious, check out Fitts’ site, Solari.com, for more of her thoughts. Whether you buy any of what’s she’s selling, is up to you. But it created a compelling listen, and maybe that was the point.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS…

Tucker Carlson interviews Dan Caldwell, a Marine Corps veteran and former senior advisor to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who was fired from the Pentagon under controversial circumstances recently. Caldwell, known for his opposition to military action against Iran, provides a candid perspective on U.S. foreign policy, the risks of war with Iran, and the internal dynamics of the Pentagon.

The Dangers and Costs of War with Iran

Caldwell makes a strong case against U.S. military action targeting Iran’s nuclear sites. He argues that while a credible military option is necessary to support diplomacy, a war with Iran would be prohibitively costly in terms of American lives, financial resources, and regional stability. He highlights the vulnerability of U.S. military personnel, diplomats, and civilians in the Middle East, noting the presence of numerous U.S. bases and embassies that could become targets. Imagine the possible spiral if Iran killed US military located at bases across the middle east. The bloodshed would be…significant.

Caldwell also points out the risk of Iran disrupting global oil supplies by targeting the Strait of Hormuz, which could spike oil prices and trigger a global economic crisis at a time when we are still trying to fight inflation. Beyond immediate military and economic costs, he warns of the potential for terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, drawing parallels to 9/11 and citing the presence of Iranian agents who may have entered the U.S. during the Biden administration. Caldwell stresses that even Gulf allies like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, traditionally hostile to Iran, are now prioritizing diplomacy over war due to the economic and human toll a conflict would impose. This theme underscores Caldwell’s belief that diplomacy is the preferable path to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons without plunging the region / world into chaos.

The Real Reason for the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

Caldwell provides a critical assessment of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. He argues clearly and articulately that it was a strategic blunder driven by misguided assumptions, and he’s not talking about WMD. He contends (like many othes have) that the invasion was solely motivated by the neoconservative belief that toppling Saddam Hussein would spark democracy across the Middle East. This, of course, ignored the regional power dynamics that made Iraq a counterbalance to Iran. By removing Hussein, the U.S. inadvertently strengthened Iran, transforming Iraq from a bulwark against Iranian influence into a de facto ally. Caldwell notes that this outcome was predictable, as Iraq’s Shiite majority naturally aligned with Iran post-invasion. The invasion’s failure to deliver promised stability, coupled with its empowerment of Iran, has had lasting consequences - the money spent, the bloodshed, ISIS and the impotent state of Iraq today. In short, Iraq was a disaster, but one we should learn from.

The Military Power of Iran

Caldwell offers a nuanced assessment of Iran’s current military capabilities. He acknowledges its weakened state but emphasizes its enduring strengths that we NEED to be aware of. He does note that Iran has suffered significant setbacks, including the loss of Syrian ally Bashar al-Assad, defeats to Hezbollah, and targeted Israeli airstrikes. However, Iran retains a formidable conventional arsenal, particularly its missile and drone programs, which Caldwell describes as a cornerstone of its national defense strategy. Caldwell warns that these capabilities make any military strike on Iran risky, as they could enable retaliatory attacks on U.S. and allied targets. He also highlights Iran’s effective proxy forces in Iraq and elsewhere, which further amplify its influence despite recent losses. The complexity of confronting Iran militarily is something Americans need to understand because there will be a cost.

The Global Coalition Iran Has Formed Because of U.S. Policies

Caldwell argues that “stupid” U.S. foreign policy errors have driven Iran right into a coalition with Russia, China, and North Korea, creating a united front against American interests. He contends that these countries, despite their divergent ideologies and historical tensions, have been pushed together by U.S. policies that treat them as a monolithic “axis of evil.” This approach, exemplified by the Bush administration’s rhetoric, ignored natural antagonisms, such as Russia’s concerns about Islamic radicalism or China’s resource-driven ambitions in Siberia. Caldwell suggests that the U.S. could have exploited these tensions to isolate Iran but instead unified these nations through sanctions and confrontational diplomacy. For instance, Russia, which once cooperated with the U.S. to limit arms sales to Iran, now aligns with Tehran due to shared opposition to American hegemony. In short, U.S. strategic errors have bolstered Iran’s global standing, complicating efforts to counter its nuclear ambitions and regional influence.

Is U.S. Foreign Policy Driven by Evil or Stupidity?

Caldwell grapples with whether U.S. foreign policy failures stem from malicious intent or sheer incompetence, leaning toward the latter. He suggests that attributing these errors to a deliberate conspiracy gives policymakers too much credit, as much of the dysfunction he observed in the Pentagon resulted from “bureaucratic inertia and intellectual laziness”. He describes a tendency among officials to stick with familiar strategies, like supporting Ukraine or pursuing regime change, rather than admitting past mistakes and adapting. However, Caldwell acknowledges that ideology, particularly the belief in American global hegemony, plays a role in perpetuating these policies. He cites the resistance he encountered to Trump’s non-interventionist stance, driven by both careerists and ideologues who view U.S. dominance as a moral imperative, without giving it much more thought than that. This bloat and laziness is costing us a fortune in blood and treasure, obviously.

The Impact of the Iraq War on Veterans

Drawing from his service in the Marine Corps, Caldwell describes the devastating toll of the Iraq War on veterans. He recounts the loss of three friends killed in action, a half-dozen seriously wounded, and approximately 20 who died by suicide or service-related injuries. These statistics, he notes, are common among infantry units, with some units experiencing higher suicide rates than combat deaths. Caldwell also highlights the strain on families, with divorce rates in some combat arms units reaching 90% due to relentless deployment schedules. The futility of the Iraq War, evidenced by the fall of areas he and many others patrolled to ISIS and the ultimate pointlessness of it all have made many, many veterans anti-interventionists. This is a pattern that we have seen throughout history - most people that serve in war are smart enough to be very anti-war. Seems like wisdom.

Caldwell’s Ousting from the Pentagon

The podcast spends the last thirty minutes discussing Caldwell’s abrupt firing from the Pentagon, which he attributes to his opposition to war with Iran and his threat to to the establishment. Caldwell has been accused of leaking classified information to the media. He vehemently denies the allegations, noting that he was never polygraphed, his phone was not examined, and he even retained access to classified systems until the moment he was escorted out. He suggests the accusations were a pretext, weaponized by those within the Pentagon and broader foreign policy establishment who resented his non-interventionist views and his role in supporting Hegseth’s reforms. Caldwell also defends two colleagues, Darren Selnick and Colin Carroll, who were similarly ousted, arguing they were targeted for challenging entrenched Pentagon practices. He speculates that the leaks likely originated from career staff hostile to Trump’s agenda.

Conclusion

Caldwell’s ousting underscores the fierce resistance to reform within the national security establishment, particularly from those advocating for regime change in Iran. His story is a call to prioritize diplomacy and American interests over reckless interventionism, urging a reevaluation of policies that have repeatedly failed the nation and its veterans. The War Machine in Washington is gearing up. It’s our belief that Trump was voted in to avoid wars and curtail the size of government. Caldwell told the story about his ouster, but the story is much bigger. While we appreciated the discussion and the larger point, Caldwell’s personal story just didn’t keep us engaged. It probably should have, maybe it was just the presentation style or the lack of new or unexpected information that just didn’t do it for us. While Caldwell seemingly deserves our sympathy, his story will be remembered as a clarion call or a minor foot note. Time will tell.

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker sits down with Curt Weldon, a former U.S. Congressman from Pennsylvania. They dive into Weldon’s controversial questioning of the 9/11 report, which has led to political retaliation and scrutiny. He reveals how governmental failings may have allowed the attacks to happen and discusses alleged cover-ups within intelligence agencies. Weldon sheds light on the FBI's intimidating tactics against him, the political maneuvering around Osama bin Laden, and calls for accountability and transparency in 9/11 investigations, challenging the narratives that have persisted for decades and have been largely unchallenged.

Questioning the Official 9/11 Narrative

Weldon expresses strong skepticism about the 9/11 Commission report, labeling it a “cover-up 1,000%” and lacking credibility. He argues it omitted critical intelligence, particularly the Able Danger program, which he claims identified Al Qaeda cells, including the New York cell, a year before 9/11. This program, a military intelligence initiative, used data mining to link open-source and classified information, aiming to detect terrorist activities. According to Weldon, Able Danger identified hijackers like Mohamed Atta, but the 9/11 Commission did not investigate this, a claim supported by external reports (Able Danger and 9/11 Intelligence). He also mentions Louis Freeh, former FBI director, stating in a 2005 op-ed and on Good Morning America that 9/11 could have been prevented, reinforcing doubts about the report’s completeness. Weldon’s frustration is evident (it feels like he’s yelling through the whole interview), noting the report’s failure to address pre-9/11 intelligence, like the millennium after-action report stolen by Sandy Berger, which he accessed at the National Archives.

Personal Involvement and Whistleblower Accounts

Weldon’s involvement in national security is central to his story. As vice-chair of the Armed Services Committee, he pushed for a fusion center to share intelligence, a recommendation from the Gilmore Commission, which he helped establish post-1993 World Trade Center bombing. He recounts meeting with Able Danger team members—Scott Philpott, Tony Schaefer, Eileen Pricer, and Eric Kleinmith—who showed him charts identifying Al Qaeda cells globally, including the U.S., before 9/11. These whistleblowers tried three times to share information with the FBI and Justice Department but were blocked, with Weldon naming the person at Justice who canceled meetings. He also mentions Tony Schaefer’s book Operation Darkheart, where Schaefer detailed briefing Philip Zelikow, the 9/11 Commission executive director, but faced career harassment, including office shutdowns and a cease-and-desist order after publishing, with the government buying and destroying 9,500 copies. Weldon’s personal connection to firefighters, like Ray Downey (who died on 9/11), whom he met in 1993, underscores his commitment, and sense of responsibility for not preventing 9/11.

Allegations of Government Misconduct

Weldon accuses the CIA and FBI of obstructing 9/11 prevention and covering up failures. He claims the CIA blocked the fusion center (central intelligence sharing across agencies), with deputy director George Tenet opposing it in 1999, while the FBI initially supported it but later failed to act on Able Danger information. Additionally, in a fascinating exchange, Weldon discusses Sandy Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, stealing pre-9/11 documents from the National Archives in 2003, pleading guilty to 11 felonies but receiving a misdemeanor plea deal. Berger’s actions, including forming Stonebridge with Madeleine Albright to represent Chinese corporations, are seen as treasonous by Weldon. Weldon’s allegations extend to post-9/11 activity; he claims intelligence agencies hid Osama bin Laden’s location in Iran, with multiple sources. He doesn’t state the details around who witheld information and why but claims to have multiple sources.

Personal and Political Repercussions

Weldon’s pursuit of 9/11 truth led to significant personal and political fallout. In 2006, the FBI raided his daughter’s home and a Democratic lawyer’s office in his district. They were ostensibly investigated for lobbying contracts, but no charges were ever filed, and the boxes the FBI seized were returned unopened months later. This all took place only three weeks before his reelection campaign in 2006. Weldon who had been in congress 20 years and always won soundly, believes this unwarranted FBI action cost him the election. At that time he feared for his safety, noting two friends who were also suspect of the 9/11 story died of fast-moving cancer, suspecting agency involvement.

Call for a New Investigation

Weldon advocates for a new presidential commission to reinvestigate 9/11, emphasizing transparency and accountability. He believes it should include firefighters, architects, engineers, and families. He claims 3,000 architects would come forward to challenge the cause of the WTC building collapses on 9/11. He cites Bravo 7, a firefighter-produced film with audio of Oreo Palmer, a battalion chief, reporting controllable fires on the 78th floor before Building 7 collapsed, contradicting NIST reports, with the University of Alaska refuting NIST’s findings. Weldon argues for declassifying 9/11 documents, comparing it to Kennedy assassination disclosures. He sees 9/11 as the biggest scandal in U.S. history and urges Trump to appoint a new 9/11 commission.

Conclusion and Implications

Weldon’s interview with Carlson is a firey and fast moving discussion of his belief in a 9/11 cover-up, supported by personal experiences and whistleblower accounts. His allegations of government misconduct, particularly around Able Danger and intelligence sharing, do align with external reports questioning the 9/11 Commission’s completeness. However, there are all kinds of conflicting thoughts about the collapse of the building, Bin Laden’s where-abouts, and of course…who knew what BEFORE 9/11. This was a compelling watch, but we couldn’t help but feel possibly that Weldon’s raw emotion and really seething anger was tied mostly to the investigation on his family and end of his political career. HOWEVER, it was also that raw emotion and his supposed modest financial situation that make you think that just maybe he’s telling the complete truth. Watch it. The 9/11 story hasn’t been completely told, one way or the other.

THE PODSCORE: 4.5 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker sits with Alex Jones, a prominent figure in alternative media, who is known for his conspiracy theories, predictions and of course, for Sandy Hook. A couple of notes…we are not followers of Jones and were only marginally aware of what he said and did during and after the horrible shooting at Sand Hook. From a high level, we find his conduct around that issue despicable, but have not followed the details closely. If he weren’t on Tucker’s extremely popular podcast, we wouldn’t cover him at all. That being said, over the years he has made some claims that are rooted seemingly in some truth and to censor even covering his appearance would take us back to the time of kicking people off of old Twitter, Facebook bans, etc…we don’t want to go there. So, while not very familiar with Jones’ work, below is our review of this podcast. Note: Jones filmed this podcast in the days before what might be a final verdict on the ongoing operation of his “InfoWars” site / business.

Alex Jones’s 9/11 Prediction

Tucker begins by claiming Jones predicted the 9/11 attacks on his show before they occurred, specifically warning in the summer of 2001 that planes would be flown into the World Trade Center and blamed on Osama bin Laden. He states, “In the summer of 2001, you go on TV timestamped and say they’re going to someone’s going to fly planes into the World Trade Centers they’re going to blame Osama bin Laden…” Jones mentions that his crew found earlier shows in March and April 2001 where he was even more specific, alleging CIA involvement. Despite this, post-9/11, no official investigation, including the 9/11 Commission, contacted him to ask how he knew, which he finds suspicious. Note: We looked into this and found Jones mentioning Osama Bin Laden and the World Trade Center but never found evidence of Alex Jones specifically saying that planes would be flown into the World Trade Center at the direction of Osama Bin Laden.

Globalists and False Flag Operations

With Trump surviving multiple assassination attempts and with nationalism rising across the globe, Jones believes that establishment and globalist leaders are increasingly desperate. He believes that they will turn increasingly to more brazen attempts to regain control of the international order and specifically, the direction of the United States. Notably he expresses concern about potential false flag operations. He says, “I just want to make a prediction… I do think a lot of the really crazy bitter ethnic hate that you see on social media is fake… it’s designed to convince people that there’s like a lot of roiling ethnic hatred that doesn’t really exist…” He cites examples like Patriot Front, suggesting manufactured division, and warns, “The last ingredients is the false flag on a big illegal alien demonstration or a black church… where innocents are murdered by a crazy person a crazy person or maybe an actual crazy person used or whatever…” He believes this will set off a new deep-state and globalist assault on personal freedoms and a direct assault on the Trump administration.

Government Agencies Targeting Jones

Jones has faced significant legal issues from lawsuits by Sandy Hook families, accusing him of spreading conspiracy theories that the shooting was staged (which we think is repulsive - he has claimed that he was just articulating the thoughts of others). Anyway, these lawsuits, culminating in 2022, resulted in billion-dollar judgments against him, with a $1.5 billion penalty in Connecticut and $49 million in Texas. He argues these were “show trials,” with judges finding him guilty beforehand and limiting his defense, saying, “I was found guilty by the judge and the Connecticut show trial… HBO’s producing it, cameras putting makeup on the judges…” Jones sees these as attempts to silence him, not seek justice, and notes the families raised hundreds of millions off his name, with Justice Department funding adding to the pressure.

Jones alleges extensive surveillance and targeting by government agencies, particularly the FBI and CIA. He claims, that Obama named him a “level” three national security threat in 2013. This, he says, led to a decade-long federal investigation, where the FBI discussed his case weekly. Undercover videos and court testimonies, confirm attempts to “take him down” civilly when criminal charges didn’t stick. Jones claims that they couldn’t find anything criminal on him so we went to the Sandy Hook people with law firms… and developed a civil case. Tucker and Jones would spend about forty-five minutes on his case. We will hit on it again in some of the themes below.

Free Speech Concerns

Jones tried to frame the cases against him as a critical battleground for free speech in the United States. He argues, “So this is why this is important this is the most open and shut start to finish operation we’ve ever seen with all this money directly from the Justice Department. This, he says, sets a precedent to silence dissenters, with Democrats admitting in court they wanted InfoWars shut down, not just fined. Carlson notes, “The first thing uh in countries that descend into darkness that happens is speech is controlled and there are political police who put people who speak out against the regime in jail…”

Jones sees his demonization, with PR campaigns and media attacks as a way that th deep-state / globalists are silencing dissent noting, “They built a straw man once I was censored off the internet… then when I wasn’t defended other than than people like you it set the president to then come after everybody else including President Trump…”

Broader Societal Implications

In the last few minutes of the podcast, the conversation extends to global risks, particularly nuclear war and transhumanism. On nuclear war, Jones discusses Iran-Israel tensions, saying, “Well Iran’s plan B for the globalists… Obviously the neocons are still pushing for an attack on Iran. If it escalates he claims that “Israel will nuke Iran and then all hell’s going to break loose and in most scenarios India and Pakistan start nuking each other Saudi Arabia’s got nukes…”. In essence, he worries that the US still can’t say no to Israel and that the deep-state is still very much aligned to the original neocon plan developed thirty years ago, a “New American Century”.

On transhumanism, Jones warns of more elitist plans, “You’ve got this super advanced sectors of technology literally in underground bases and facilities… they want to turn humans into a commodity that’s why Obama calls it the end of history where there are no more cycles where everything’s controlled…” He references Aldous Huxley, noting, “Aldis Huxley who wrote Brave New World in 1932, his brother Julian Huxley was the head of the World Eugenic Society… Brave New World is an instruction manual of what they want to do…” In A Brave New World humans are manufactured to serve specific purposes with effectively 90% of the population serving the top 10%.

Spiritual Battle

Jones frames current events as a “spiritual battle,” describing a societal awakening against elite control. He says, “It’s like no one is even awake…we’re sleepwalking into Armageddon…” He sees the clash against globalists as one between good and evil, with people waking up to globalist manipulations and efforts to keep the populace docile through media and technology. Jones, who has been speaking against real and imagined globalist plots for thirty years is somewhat optimistic saying, “I’m seeing more and more love in people’s eyes more and more spiritual connection to God, more and more of that quiet place of just serenity…”

Conclusion

Jones is as controversial as they come. If there is truth to his claims that he’s been illegally targeted by the Justice Department and leftist law firms, then we want to learn more…but we just don’t know. Again, we are not Jones followers or experts, and his claims are often controversial and lacking empirical consensus but he’s convincing at moments and at times, correct, from certain points of view. For instance, his 9/11 prediction is supported by timestamped recordings, but they aren’t exactly what he (and Tucker) present them to be. Spiritual and false flag themes are speculative, lacking hard evidence, while nuclear and transhumanist fears tie into geopolitical analyses, but are seemingly far fetched. While Jones was on the absolute lunatic fringe thirty years ago, we will admit that given the current climate and what we continue to learn about corruption and ineptitude in government, he’s moving further away from the fringe…or maybe fringe is moving closer to him. In either case, this is a good listen if you are interested in him and his case, the rest is rushed and there is a lot of conversation about old news, like 9/11.

THE PODSCORE: 3 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker sits down with Anson Frericks, a former Anheuser-Busch executive and author of Last Call for Bud Light, to dissect what went wrong with Anheuser-Busch, once a proud American beer giant. They dig into how a company rooted in Americana lost its way, particularly with the infamous Dylan Mulvaney Bud Light fiasco, and the rise of European-style stakeholder capitalism, DEI agendas, and a disconnect from customers. Frericks, who lived the decline firsthand, lays out a story of cultural drift, bad decisions, and a failure to own up to mistakes. The first 30 minutes, in particular is a master class on how large investments firms and their clients have become over-involved in corporations and are able to force adherence to push social agendas.

The Fall of Anheuser-Busch: From American Icon to Corporate Mess

Frericks gives a sharp, succinct overview of Anheuser-Busch’s history and story of Americana. It was founded in the 1850s by the Busch family, was a classic American success stoy. The carefully cultivated brand used to bring to mind football, backyard BBQs and baseball. The Busch family ran it for generations, keeping it tied to St. Louis and the heart of the country. But in 2008, a Belgian company, InBev, swooped in and bought it for a hefty price. What followed was a slow unraveling. The headquarters moved to New York City, the culture shifted from making great beer to cutting costs, and European execs started calling the shots. By 2023, Bud Light—once America’s top beer—had tanked 50% in sales after the Dylan Mulvaney partnership blew up (more on that below). But Mulvaney was not the start of the problem, rather than pinnacle. Frericks blames a decade of missteps, from bloated debt after buying other beer brands (like Modelo and SABMiller) to chasing trendy social agendas that ticked off their core drinkers.

Stakeholder Capitalism: A European Idea That Screwed Over Customers

The conversation gets meaty when Frericks explains how “stakeholder capitalism” took root. Back in the 1970s, economist Milton Friedman said businesses should focus on shareholders—make money by serving customers with great products. Simple. But Europe pushed a different vibe: companies should serve “stakeholders”—a vague mess of activists, governments, and random social causes. Frericks says this idea, hyped by World Economic Forum types like Klaus Schwab, infiltrated U.S. firms after the 2008 financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street, when capitalism needed a PR facelift. Big asset managers like BlackRock, managing trillions (including your 401k), started pressuring companies to adopt ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) and DEI goals, partially as a means to restore corporate images following the financial crisis. Anheuser-Busch jumped on this train around 2018, ditching its merit-based roots for diversity dashboards. Tucker points out just how Larry Fink and others like him got rich, while brands and customers suffered.

COVID and George Floyd: When Companies Lost Their Collective Minds

Frericks explains that in 2020 COVID had companies like Anheuser-Busch making hand sanitizer instead of beer, Delta flew medical supplies and GM churned out ventilators. In the service of a justified “good” everyone lost part of their core mission—serving customers—because “stakeholders” demanded they solve society’s problems. And for something like COVID, it was probably justified. But then…George Floyd’s death flipped the script.. Suddenly, systemic racism was the new crisis, and firms like BlackRock pushed corporations to fix it. Over 70 U.S. companies donated $200 billion to Black Lives Matter, more than Portugal’s GDP, while shareholder proposals—like forcing Apple to do racial equity audits—popped up everywhere. Frericks says this was nuts: Apple’s job is making iPhones, not playing social justice warrior. Tucker agrees, calling it a distraction from the real looting—elites (like Fink) getting richer while the middle class got screwed.

The Dylan Mulvaney Debacle: A Self-Inflicted Wound

On April 1, 2023, Bud Light launched a campaign featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney. She was even featured on the Bud Light can. Days later, a video surfaced of VP of Marketing Alyssa Heinerscheid—a Harvard grad - calling Bud Light’s drinkers “fratty” and “out of touch.” Cue outrage: Social media lit up and in a key moment - Kid Rock shot up Bud Light cans with an AR-15 which was seen by millions. Sales plummeted quickly day by day and substitutes like Coors Light and Miller Light were right there for consumers. Weekly sales drops (10%, 20%, 30%) were featured on the news an further fueled a long, successful boycott. Heinerscheid was not immediately fired (she was eventually) and the PR messages sent out by the CEO were vauge and filled with corporate speak. Budweiser sales would stay in the tank for years and the brand has still not recovered.

Corporate Cowardice: No Accountability, No Recovery

Frericks and Tucker rip into Anheuser-Busch’s leadership, especially CEO Brendan Whitworth, a former CIA guy who looks like G.I. Joe but acts like a puppet. After losing $40 billion in market cap and $2 billion in profits, Whitworth’s CBS interview dodged the Mulvaney question with corporate mush. Alyssa got put on leave (she’s now with Saudi golf’s LIV tour), but Whitworth’s still there, coached by a European board in Belgium that doesn’t get America. Frericks says the fix was easy: fire Alyssa, apologize, and refocus on beer.

DEI and ESG: A Money Grab Masquerading as Virtue

Frericks calls DEI and ESG a racket. Post-2020, chief diversity officers popped up everywhere, making big bucks to enforce pronoun rules and quotas. BlackRock charged more for ESG funds that tanked compared to regular ones, while consultants like McKinsey sold debunked “diversity wins” studies. Companies like Philip Morris (Zyn’s owner) still push hardcore DEI with transparent hiring quotas —20% Asian hires, 40% women, and Stonewall LGBTQ+ partnerships—while Anheuser-Busch chased Human Rights Campaign scores for ESG cred. Tucker’s pissed: why’s a nicotine pouch company lecturing about sex ed? Frericks says it’s not sincere—just a way to impress New York elites and European boards. The winners? Larry Fink and a few billionaires. The losers? Everyone else, especially customers.

America vs. Europe: A Clash of Values

The root problem, Frericks argues, is a cultural mismatch. Anheuser-Busch’s European owners (InBev) brought a stakeholder mindset that clashes with Budweiser’s brand AND are firm believers in corporations pushing social agendas. In fact, they killed a deal with Black Rifle Coffee—too “controversial” for loving cops and vets—but greenlit Mulvaney (unthinkable in retrospect for sure). Tucker sees it as foreign values wrecking U.S. icons—Jeep’s now Dutch-owned, pushing tiny cars, for example. Frericks suggests selling Anheuser-Busch’s U.S. arm back to Americans (maybe Warren Buffett) and moving HQ to St. Louis.

Who Wins? Maybe Our Enemies

Tucker throws out a theory: maybe this chaos benefits America’s rivals. China and Europe win if the U.S. trashes its meritocracy and middle class with divisive social engineering. Frericks nods—BLM didn’t help Black folks, trans activism doesn’t make anyone happier, and Bud Light’s collapse didn’t serve shareholders or drinkers. It’s a system with no clear winners except maybe foreign powers watching us implode. Frericks agrees but more directly ties the chaos to a decades-long shift away from what made America great—free speech, capitalism, and a focus on building stuff.

Conclusion

Frericks and Tucker tell a wild tale of Anheuser-Busch’s fall—from a beer-loving, middle-class-building giant to a cautionary tale of corporate drift. The Dylan Mulvaney mess was just the tip of a spear forged by European ownership, stakeholder capitalism, and a leadership class too cowardly to fight back. They see it as part of a bigger rot in American business, where DEI and ESG distract from making good products, and elites seem hell-bent on undermining the country that made them rich. What we loved about this episode is that it hits on so many cultural, political and economic issues told through the lens of real case study of a real American brand. It’s worth your time.

THE PODSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Scott Bessent, the U.S. Treasury Secretary. Bessent, a former Wall Street guy turned economic policymaker, explained how these tariffs are meant to shake up America’s economy, bring back manufacturing, and put the working class first. The conversation covered a lot of ground—everything from how tariffs could fund tax cuts to how they might change global trade and even what keeps Bessent up at night as Treasury Secretary. It’s a big-picture chat about Trump’s economic vision, with Bessent laying out why he thinks America is about to go a fundamental renaissance that will reshape the country for the better.

Tariffs as a Tool for Economic Transformation

Right off the bat, Bessent acknowledges that Trump’s tariff plan is a significant shift for America. He says Trump’s been talking about this for 40 years, and now it’s here—a mix of old-school ideas like using tariffs to protect U.S. industries (think Alexander Hamilton) and a new twist where Trump uses them to negotiate with other countries. Bessent compares it to Reagan’s early days, when things were rocky as the federal government fought inflation, but paid off big by 1984. The goal? Boost the American worker and fix what he calls the “China shock”—when cheap imports gutted jobs starting in 2004. He argues that tariffs will force companies to bring factories back to the U.S., creating jobs and reversing decades of decline for the middle class. He also acknowledges that tariffs are a needed revenue stream and the current turmoil is saving the US billions on a declining 10 year treasury bill.

“If tariffs are so bad, then why do they have them?” - Scott Bessent on US trade partners’ tariffs on America.

Bringing Manufacturing Back to America

A central part of the Trump plan is getting the U.S. to make “stuff” again. Bessent points out how we’ve stopped producing things like medicine, semiconductors, and ships—stuff that matters for national security. He accurately notes that COVID exposed how fragile our supply chains were (and still are), and tariffs are the part of the fix. The idea is simple: slap tariffs on imports, and companies will move their factories here to avoid them. This is also important for national defense and health when you think you about industries like steel and pharma. He’s confident we’ve got the workers for it, especially with AI and automation making “smart factories” possible. Over time, he predicts tariff revenue will drop as manufacturing ramps up, but tax income from new jobs will take the place of the tariff. In either case the deficit and debt should shrink.

Tax Cuts and Tariff Revenue

One of the juiciest promises is using tariff money to cut taxes for regular folks. Bessent says a 20% tariff might only raise prices by less than 1% for consumers, with foreign producers eating most of the cost. He cites a study from Trump’s first term showing minimal price hikes from China tariffs. The cash rolling in—potentially $300 to $600 billion a year—could fund things like no taxes on tips, Social Security, or overtime, all aimed at helping the bottom 50%. But here’s the catch: Congress has to play ball to turn that revenue into tax cuts, and Bessent admits the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) won’t give them credit for it upfront. Still, he’s betting the real money will speak for itself.

The Stock Market and Economic Health

Carlson asks if the stock market’s a fair gauge of the economy, especially with recent dips tied to the tariff news. Bessent brushes it off, saying the drop was more about tech stocks (like the “MAG-7”) reacting to China’s AI moves than Trump’s policies. He quotes Warren Buffett: “short-term, the market’s a popularity contest; long-term, it weighs real value”. Bessent’s focus is on solid fundamentals—low taxes, cheap energy, less red tape—not day-to-day market swings. He’s not sweating Wall Street’s ups and downs; he’s all about Main Street getting a turn to thrive, even if the top 10% who own most stocks take a hit.

Pushback from China and the World

Foreign reaction to tariffs is a big deal, and Bessent dives into how China might respond. He says China’s in a weak spot—too reliant on exports, stuck in a deflationary slump, and unable to retaliate much because they need our market more than we need theirs. His dream? A rebalance where China consumes more and makes less, while we do the opposite. Europe’s trickier—Germany’s export-heavy economy might struggle, but Bessent thinks they’ll adapt. Overall though, he’s more excited about companies moving to the U.S. than country-level whining, betting that firms like Taiwan Semiconductor will continue to adapt and build here.

Government Spending and DOGE

Bessent ties tariffs to a broader push to shrink government bloat, spotlighting the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk. He’s enthusiastic about cutting waste—think Florida’s lean $125 billion budget versus New York’s bloated $235 billion for the same population. He believes DOGE can trim federal spending (inflation-adjusted) within four years, freeing up labor for private-sector manufacturing. He gushes about DOGE hires like Tom Krause, who’s spotting tech flaws at the IRS for free, and says this isn’t about killing government—it’s about making it work better with less.

Bessent’s Worries as Treasury Secretary

What keeps Bessent up at night? He’s a risk guy, so he’s always gaming out worst-case scenarios: a new pandemic, a war, or interest rates spiking (the 10 year hit 5% in January 2025, which spooked him). He’s also nervous about rolling over America’s huge debt pile and whether DOGE’s cuts or tax bills get stalled. As the “bond salesman” pitching U.S. debt to the world, he’s confident his case is improving—tariff cash and spending cuts are dropping rates (from 5% to 4%), saving billions. But he knows it’s a tightrope, and geopolitical wildcards like Iran or Taiwan or a worsening situation in Ukraine could derail the best laid plans.

Ukraine and Global Diplomacy

A curveball comes with Bessent’s trip to Kyiv to pitch an economic deal tying U.S. and Ukrainian success—loans and know-how, not just aid. He’s frustrated Zelensky balked, calling it arrogance from a guy whose country runs on U.S. cash. Bessent sees it as part of Trump’s peace plan: lock in Ukraine economically, then nudge Russia to the table. He’s hopeful it’s a hiccup, not a bust.

Conclusion

Scott Bessent’s chat with Tucker Carlson paints a picture of a Treasury Secretary all-in on Trump’s tariff gamble, sold as a fix for America’s working class and populace overall. He’s betting big on bringing factories home, cutting taxes with tariff cash, and slashing government fat, all while dodging global blowback and market jitters. It’s a high-stakes play—Reagan 2.0, he hopes—with Bessent juggling optimism and worry as he pitches America’s economic reboot to the world. This is a must-listen for anyone worried about the current uncertainty in the stock market or just trying to understand the bigger picture. Bessent is articulate, logical and yet, relatable. Add this to your playlist now.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (out 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Robert Lighthizer, former U.S. Trade Representative known for his trade expertise. The episode delves into the importance of tariffs in revitalizing the American manufacturing sector. Lighthizer highlights the slow decline of the working class linked to trade deficits and globalization, arguing that the middle class's struggles stem from flawed economic trade policies. Lighthizer also critiques how foreign ownership impacts America's economic stability, advocating for rebalanced trade practices to restore equity and support regional communities. This is a critical listen at a time when it appears that the Trump administration is really serious about rebalancing “fair trade” and abolishing the notion that current trade is actually “free”.

Failure of the Current Trade System:

Lighthizer asserts that the existing U.S. trade system, built on principles of free trade and globalization, has fundamentally failed. This failure is evidenced by persistent trade deficits, estimated at $800 billion to over $1 trillion annually, which represent a massive transfer of wealth from the U.S. to foreign nations. The net international investment position—a measure of U.S.-owned assets abroad versus foreign-owned assets in the U.S.—has deteriorated to a staggering -$23.5 trillion, up from -$3 trillion two decades ago.

This imbalance contradicts the theoretical promise of trade, where nations specialize in what they do best, mutually benefiting from exports and imports. Instead, the system has evolved into one where the U.S. maintains an open market while other countries, notably those with industrial policies like China, exploit this openness to amass wealth and assets, often at the expense of American interests. Lighthizer blames the “triad of stupid” (NAFTA, WTO entry, and China’s most-favored-nation status) for dramatically accelerating the decline of the US middle class since the 1990s. This theme sets the stage for the argument that systemic change, rather than minor tweaks, is necessary to reverse the damage.

“It’s the Trifecta of Stupid…we do NAFTA. We do the WTO…And then dumbest of them all, we give most favored nation status to China.”

Economic and Technological Decline:

A second major theme is the erosion of U.S. economic vitality and technological leadership, linked directly to the loss of manufacturing due to unchecked globalization. Lighthizer highlights a stark decline in GDP growth: from 1960 to 1980 and 1980 to 2000. The U.S. saw 14 years each of 3%+ growth, but since 2000, only three such years have occurred, with the last significant instance 18-19 years ago. This slowdown coincides with the rise of “hyper-globalization” in the 1990s, suggesting that free trade policies have stifled rather than spurred economic progress.

Technologically, the U.S. has lost dominance in fields it once pioneered—personal computers, semiconductors (now only 8% of global production), rare earth elements, solar panels, and nuclear energy. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s finding that the U.S. trails China in 57 of 64 critical technologies (up from three 15 years ago) underscores this regression. Lighthizer emphatically argues that innovation is tied to manufacturing, arguing against the notion that the U.S. can innovate while outsourcing production. The manufacturing decline is framed as a national security risk and an economic liability, necessitating a return to domestic industrial capacity to reclaim both growth and technological edge.

Plight of the Working Class:

Already hit upon but highlighting on its own is Lighthizer’s main cocern is the devastating impact of the trade system on America’s working class, particularly the two-thirds of workers with only a high school education. He notes that this group has faced stagnant wages for 25 years, shrinking job opportunities, and a life expectancy drop of eight years due to “deaths of despair” (alcohol, drugs, suicide)—a shift from a one-year gap in earlier decades. Communities once sustained by manufacturing have been hollowed out, with poverty rates soaring to 35-40% and college graduation rates plummeting. The wealth distribution has skewed dramatically, with the top 1% now holding more wealth than the middle 60%, a historic first that signals the end of the egalitarian middle-class ethos that defined America. Tucker and Lighthizer agree that this kind of disparity can destroy a nation.

Tariffs as a Solution:

Lighthizer’s (and Trumps) proposed remedy to these issues is the reinstitution of tariffs, framed as a tool to achieve balanced trade and offset foreign industrial policies beyond mere tariffs—like subsidies, currency manipulation, and labor suppression. He outlines three methods to balance trade: Warren Buffett’s export-import certificates, a capital access fee on returning foreign investments, and tariffs, with the latter favored for its simplicity, flexibility, and existing global infrastructure. Tariffs are not just about matching foreign rates (e.g., Europe’s 10% auto tariffs vs. the U.S.’s 2.5%) but countering broader unfair practices to prevent chronic trade surpluses in countries like China and deficits in the U.S. The speaker anticipates short-term disruptions—supply chain adjustments and potential price hikes—but dismisses systemic inflation fears, citing Trump’s first-term tariffs (which yielded only 1.3% inflation) and China’s deflation despite high barriers. The goal (as Lighthizer presents it) is a manufacturing renaissance, higher wages, and a wealth shift from elites to workers. He briefly goes on to discuss that tariffs that coincide with tax cuts, spending cuts, regulation cuts and increased energy output combine to forge an entirely new (or old) economic model for the US.

Geopolitical Challenge of China:

Near the end the duo spent a fair amount of time on existential threat posed by China, intertwining economic policy with national security. China is depicted as an adversary leveraging trade deficits—hundreds of billions annually—to fund military expansion (the world’s largest army and navy), territorial aggression (South China Sea militarization), espionage (thousands of FBI cases), and technological theft. Lighthizer, to his own admission, does not believe that China is a benign actor and we didn’t get the sense that he does not trust them. They aim for a totalitarianism, communism and China homogeny. The US should defend against this at all cost.

Conclusion:

Lighthizer’s trade concepts and a bold call to action to reinvigorate the US middle class is clear and appreciated. He blends economic analysis with a populist defense of the working class and a strategic warning about China. He paints a picture of a nation betrayed by decades of free trade dogma, resulting in wealth outflows, economic stagnation, technological lag, and a hollowed-out middle class—trends exacerbated by policies from the 1990s onward. Tucker, even to his own admission at the end of the podcast, is a cheerleader of Lighthizers, so you aren’t getting any hard-hitting questions here. However, what you do get is a cogent, logical, detailed explanation of what Trump wants to do with Tariffs and the bigger economic vision. If only the administration could get a little bit clearer in getting the message out. This is a must-listen for those who actually want to hear a sober POV on how the administration views Tariffs and associated social and economic issues.

THE PODCSCORE: 4 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker faces off with Chris Cuomo, who is, as you know, a former CNN anchor and current News Nation host. Cuomo shares his views on what it means to be an American amidst political divides. The duo debates the media's evolution and the influence of figures like Joe Rogan. Topics like the Epstein files and governmental transparency ignite some good, but “mostly” rationale debate. They also touch on the complexities of New York City’s challenges, questioning safety for LGBTQ+ students, and explore the moral implications of transhumanism and AI. Free speech and Ukraine also get a fair bit of air time. It’s worth a listen and so nice to hear these former shock news anchors sit and have a deliberate, non-corporate-influenced nearly three hour discussion that is more than soundbites and shilling.

Personal Redemption and Resilience:

Carlson and Cuomo frame their exits from corporate media as redemptive arcs, and we think that they are. Cuomo has been actually tolerable since he left CNN. In fact, in many instances in this discussion, he seemed like the more grounded one. Cuomo reflects on his CNN firing, where loyalty to his brother Andrew cost him his job (he claims that he will not cover his brother’s run for Mayor of New York City, btw). Carlson, as he often does, positions himself as a post-corporate “free man” who is able to tell the truth…while we think that is true, Carlson has certainly made his own truth at times. Regardless, both highlight how shedding institutional shackles fosters authenticity. There is no doubt about that and there is little question to this reviewer this conversation showcased that authenticity frequently throughout the episode.

Critique of Corporate Media and Rise of Independent Platforms:

The duo spend time (really throughout the episode) in different places attacking corporate media, with Cuomo decrying its culture where “it’s okay... to destroy you by a standard I would never want imposed on me”, and Carlson calling it “disgusting” where “everyone lies all the time”. They applaud independent media’s ascent, epitomized by Joe Rogan, who Carlson says operates “completely outside the conventional structure”, and Cuomo sees as part of a power shift “back to people” . While they agreed on this general premise, Carlson celebrates unchecked freedom, while Cuomo warns of conglomerates scooping up independents, potentially rebuilding the same type of narrative pressures they believe an independent press should run away from.

“It’s OK in the media for me to destroy you by a standard that I would never want imposed on me.” - Chris Cuomo

Transparency and Hidden Power Structures:

The ongoing delay in release in the JFK and Epstein files (among others) ignite a debate on transparency, with Carlson alleging a “very serious force” blocking release, citing Senate interventions and figures like Mike Pompeo, suggesting a conspiracy beyond mere bureaucracy. Also, Tucker, specifically calls out Senator Tom Cotton as someone who has an interest in blocking the release. Tucker claims to have first-hand knowledge of this. Cuomo presses him to call out Cotton publicly. It seems like Tucker did …during the episode. Anyway, Cuomo adds that there is institutional self-preservation—“there is clearly information... that are going to make the CIA look bad”. He was less confident that there was any type of “grand plot”. As this discussion went on it was apparent that both agree transparency builds trust, and we don’t have that. Still there were differences…Carlson’s insistence on a shadowy elite contrasts with Cuomo’s call for evidence over speculation.

Cultural Identity and Division:

Defining American identity splits them sharply and was one of the more interesting parts of the conversation. Carlson demands a unifying American principle, arguing immigration and DEI destroy meritocracy and without much else to unite Americans, he sees that as an existential threat. He sees chaos from unchecked borders and race-based policies. There was a pretty uncomfortable part of the conversation where Tucker called for temporarily halting ALL immigration, not just illegal immigration. This is the type of stuff that people rightfully use to assert that he has some overly nationalist tendencies. He deftly claims is not about race but about saving the union and he claims his love for immigrants like his “best friend”, but while he might even have cogent points, its an absurd and not helpful proposition. Cuomo pushed back on this but didn’t really nail him to the wall with it like he could have. Anyway, this immigration discussion turned into a DEI and merit discussion where there were predictable lines drawn. Both supposedly believe in merit but Cuomo calls out the corrective nature of DEI. Carlson wins this part of the discussion hands - down. Pure merit is the only way we can instill ethic and preserve the integrity of a state not unified by much else. Their debate mirrors broader cultural fault lines, with Carlson fearing disunity and Cuomo trusting adaptation within the current structure.

Moral and Foreign Policy Disagreements:

Moral divides surface on transgenderism, abortion, and Ukraine. Carlson calls aggressive transgender policies a “spiritual attack”and abortion “the most obviously evil thing”, rooted in natural law, while Cuomo defends acceptance and reproductive rights as personal freedoms. Tucker always approaches abortion as a Christian issue, you can decide what that means to you in the context of its relevance to the debate. On Ukraine, Carlson says clearly that NATO’s three year effort in Ukraine to date is a failure. “We couldn’t beat Russia” is something he says over and over again. This clashes with Cuomo’s moral support for sovereignty against Putin. Carlson has claimed for a long time that the US has no business spending that type of money in Ukraine to encourage the slaughter of millions only satisfy a story that Russia is evil and NATO needed to expand to its front yard. He also bemoans the warmongers in Washington and the military industrial complex. None of this is new to regular listeners. Cuomo didn’t add much new to the conversation either, but none-the-less both positioned their sides well.

Conversation as a Unifying Force:

Despite clashes, they end the conversation by stating that they value dialogue—“Conversation is the cure”—as a counter to division. Of course, we are hearing that from two of the guys that have helped sew more division in the past decade than many others. None-the-less, in a media landscape of silos, it was good to see these media vets get together and DISCUSS what they truly believe the score is. Cuomo was more balanced in the dialog but Tucker always gets around to his point (after some meandering). So, we feel it was fairly balanced.

Conclusion:

Different styles, different viewpoints, different constituencies but one one fact - its good that they have these discussions. Cuomo was flat out wrong about some things (genetic differences) and Tucker was way over the line on some things (LEGAL immigration) but they talked and they talked a LONG time. We need more of that. Listen.

THE PODSCORE: 5 (OF 5) MICS

Tucker chats with Chris Josephs, creator of the Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker, sheds light on the shocking world of political stock trading. He reveals how Nancy Pelosi's trading strategies consistently outperform professional investors, raising concerns about insider knowledge and trading. Josephs discusses various financial scandals that expose the corruption within Congress and delves into the financial impacts of political decisions on the market. The conversation highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability among politicians when it comes to their investments.

Who is Christopher Josephs and What Is the Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker?

Josephs opens the podcast by explaining that the The Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker is a real tool he created after catching wind of the obscene returns that she and others in congress were getting in the stock market. It monitors the stock trades of Nancy Pelosi (and other politicians), pulling data from mandatory financial disclosures required by the STOCK Act of 2012. The tracker’s slogan, "invest like a politician," is both a catchy hook and a biting critique, highlighting how politicians’ trades often outperform the market—Pelosi, for instance, was up 54% in 2024, beating the S&P 500 by over 25%. Josephs started this project after quitting a finance job in New York, moving to Bali, and later teaming up with co-founders in LA during the pandemic to build an app that originally let users follow friends’ stock portfolios. The Pelosi Tracker emerged as a side project during the GameStop craze, when social media buzz about politicians’ suspiciously timed trades—like Pelosi’s—caught his attention.

How Did It Start?

The idea took root around 2020, sparked by earlier efforts from an X account called Unusual Whales, which began calling out politicians’ trades. Josephs started investigating these trade further and developed the Pelosi Tracker in 2022 after noticing patterns like Pelosi’s massive Tesla call options purchase (up to $5 million) right after Biden’s 2020 election, just before the Build Back Better infrastructure bill boosted electric vehicle stocks. He saw an opportunity to use technology and social media to expose this, turning it into a full-fledged app. It’s not just a gimmick—over $300 million is now invested alongside Pelosi’s trades, with users profiting $30 million since 2021.

Why Does It Matter?

The tracker shines a light on political insider trading. Look at the details of Pelosi’s trades: she bought Tesla leaps (high-risk, high-reward options) in late 2020, netting 40-50% gains as EV-friendly policies rolled out, and later scored a 140% return on Nvidia leaps in 2023 after buying $5 million worth—moves that seem too well-timed to be luck. The podcast cites Richard Burr’s pandemic - era scandal as well… as Senate Intelligence Committee chair, he sold $1.65 million from his retirement account in February 2020 after private briefings, right before the market crashed, saving himself millions. These examples fuel the perception that politicians use privileged info for personal gain, which obviously erodes public trust in institutions. We have felt this viscerally—how can leaders be so corrupt?—and the tracker quantifies it: Pelosi outperformed 95% of hedge fund managers in 2024, per Bloomberg.

What’s Being Done About It?

The podcast explores solutions and reforms, echoing your disbelief that this is allowed. Proposals include banning politicians from trading stocks (AOC’s recent Restore Faith in Government Act), requiring blind trusts, or at least barring trades in industries they oversee—like Markwayne Mullin owning Raytheon while on the Armed Services Committee. The STOCK Act already mandates disclosure within 45 days, but Josephs advocates for same-day reporting for transparency. However, efforts like a 2024 Senate bill (from Josh Hawley and Jon Ossoff) stalled over concerns about forcing politicians to sell private businesses, a step too far for some. Despite the tracker’s success—$500 million invested across all politician portfolios—it hasn’t prompted Pelosi’s office to respond, though she’s defended it as “free market” participation in press conferences.

“In 2024, for example, she was up 54%. The was up like 26%”

This is a fun podcast to listen to and yet, a sad one. We all intuitively knew this was happening, at least Josephs build a tool for the rest of us to profit from it. Hopefully no one profits in the future.

THE PODSCORE: 3.5 (out of 5) MICS

Tucker sits down with Luke Gromen, a finance and macroeconomics expert known for his insights on gold, uncovers the massive shift of gold between nations as a precursor to a new global financial system. He dives into the secrecy surrounding gold ownership, questioning why Fort Knox can’t be audited. Gromen also challenges the narratives pushed by the intel community against gold owners and raises eyebrows about Warren Buffett’s role in the banking industry. This timely analysis reveals gold’s critical status amid the evolving economic landscape.

The podcast begins with a provocative statement from Gromen when says, “since 2014 national central banks have grown their gold “piggy banks” by about $600 billion dollars”. On the other hand, they have NOT added their net treasury reserve. In fact, those have declined by about $300 billion. This is a significant shift from the past 50 years or so, so what is going on?

Thanks for reading PodLand’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Tucker and Gromen give us a somewhat interesting history of gold before getting back to the key question…what is going on with central banks and gold and more recently why have we seen so much gold trading around the globe? As of this writing gold sits near an all-time high as it closes in on $3,000 dollars per ounce. Gromen explains that when countries physically move “monetary” gold, a lot of it can be done in secret. In an interesting exchange, Tucker and Gromen “Google” gold storage by country, they both agree that the list is absurdly incorrect. For example, France is listed as having more physical gold than China…which they agree is patently untrue.

This got them to the topic of Fort Knox and the ensuing audit. How much gold does the US really have? Gromen makes the point that he believes that the US has avoided auditing Ft. Knox in part because its focuses attention on gold. The US dollar was removed from the gold standard in 1971, and this action was effectively a default on certain loans backed by gold. So, “talking about gold” was something that an entire generation of US leaders wanted to avoid. With all of the flows and price action related to gold recently…gold is undoubtedly…back in the news.

More to the point, there has been significant gold inflow to the United States, particularly from the UK. The belief in the market is that incoming tariffs from the Trump administration will impact the price of the gold in the short term as traders position their gold holdings accordingly. However, that is only a short - term issue. However, both Gromen and Tucker believe there is a separate tactical and strategic reason why this might be happening. Gromen believes that the US may revalue its gold which is currently on the books at 42 dollars to the current amount (around $2900). This would be done in large part to payback debt WITH GOLD and the put the US in better position to rebuild its industrial base. And in turn, this industrial base would be in better position to support US defense which is more and more dependent upon China for production, as we have learned, from the Ukraine War.

“The Flows of Gold Into the US are Likely Front Running the Price of Gold”

Generally, Gromen observes that with the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and with national debt so high, the US has seen industries hallowed out, except for those close to “money”. He cites a fascinating discussion that JD Vance had with Jerome Powell in this topic in 2023. Gromen goes on to state that the US is now vulnerable because it can’t fund a war with an enemy who is our industrial supplier. So, Gromen believes that the US will put on Tariffs, lower taxes, reinvest in factories (not just financial assets) and encourage foreign nations to invest into US stored gold…this would be effectively another way to pay down debt with gold.

The last thirty minutes of this podcast went from interesting to mind blowing. Gromen was succinct and specific as explained how the macro-economic changes in the US will change how we work, live, prosper and interact on the international stage. In short, he sees the US moving from a (primarily) financial-based into economy a better diversified economy (that can at least produce its own artillery shells). This rebalance of the US economy, he believes will once again prosper the middle class and create new incentive structures that broaden opportunity beyond finance, government and technology.

At the close they discuss what a “retail” investor might do with this information. Well, Gromen recommends holding 5-10% of net worth in gold bullion as a safeguard against inflation, particularly as Treasury bonds lose purchasing power—a pressing concern for boomers reliant on entitlements. Looking ahead, gold could climb 2-4 times its current value, potentially reaching $6,000 to $12,000 per ounce, to realign with historical norms where the US covered 40% of foreign-held U.S. debt (now just 9%). Don’t take this as financial advice, by the way.

So, we landed on a positive podscore for this podcast, but you’ve got to make it through the first 30 minutes or so, which is rather slow as they focused on the history of gold and so forth. Stick with it.

THE PODSCORE 3.5 (of 5) MICS.

Tucker sits down with Luke Gromen, a finance and macroeconomics expert known for his insights on gold, uncovers the massive shift of gold between nations as a precursor to a new global financial system. He dives into the secrecy surrounding gold ownership, questioning why Fort Knox can’t be audited. Gromen also challenges the narratives pushed by the intel community against gold owners and raises eyebrows about Warren Buffett’s role in the banking industry. This timely analysis reveals gold’s critical status amid the evolving economic landscape.

The podcast begins with a provocative statement from Gromen when says, “since 2014 national central banks have grown their gold “piggy banks” by about $600 billion dollars”. On the other hand, they have NOT added their net treasury reserve. In fact, those have declined by about $300 billion. This is a significant shift from the past 50 years or so, so what is going on?

Thanks for reading PodLand’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Tucker and Gromen give us a somewhat interesting history of gold before getting back to the key question…what is going on with central banks and gold and more recently why have we seen so much gold trading around the globe? As of this writing gold sits near an all-time high as it closes in on $3,000 dollars per ounce. Gromen explains that when countries physically move “monetary” gold, a lot of it can be done in secret. In an interesting exchange, Tucker and Gromen “Google” gold storage by country, they both agree that the list is absurdly incorrect. For example, France is listed as having more physical gold than China…which they agree is patently untrue.

This got them to the topic of Fort Knox and the ensuing audit. How much gold does the US really have? Gromen makes the point that he believes that the US has avoided auditing Ft. Knox in part because its focuses attention on gold. The US dollar was removed from the gold standard in 1971, and this action was effectively a default on certain loans backed by gold. So, “talking about gold” was something that an entire generation of US leaders wanted to avoid. With all of the flows and price action related to gold recently…gold is undoubtedly…back in the news.

More to the point, there has been significant gold inflow to the United States, particularly from the UK. The belief in the market is that incoming tariffs from the Trump administration will impact the price of the gold in the short term as traders position their gold holdings accordingly. However, that is only a short - term issue. However, both Gromen and Tucker believe there is a separate tactical and strategic reason why this might be happening. Gromen believes that the US may revalue its gold which is currently on the books at 42 dollars to the current amount (around $2900). This would be done in large part to payback debt WITH GOLD and the put the US in better position to rebuild its industrial base. And in turn, this industrial base would be in better position to support US defense which is more and more dependent upon China for production, as we have learned, from the Ukraine War.

“The Flows of Gold Into the US are Likely Front Running the Price of Gold”

Generally, Gromen observes that with the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and with national debt so high, the US has seen industries hallowed out, except for those close to “money”. He cites a fascinating discussion that JD Vance had with Jerome Powell in this topic in 2023. Gromen goes on to state that the US is now vulnerable because it can’t fund a war with an enemy who is our industrial supplier. So, Gromen believes that the US will put on Tariffs, lower taxes, reinvest in factories (not just financial assets) and encourage foreign nations to invest into US stored gold…this would be effectively another way to pay down debt with gold.

The last thirty minutes of this podcast went from interesting to mind blowing. Gromen was succinct and specific as explained how the macro-economic changes in the US will change how we work, live, prosper and interact on the international stage. In short, he sees the US moving from a (primarily) financial-based into economy a better diversified economy (that can at least produce its own artillery shells). This rebalance of the US economy, he believes will once again prosper the middle class and create new incentive structures that broaden opportunity beyond finance, government and technology.

At the close they discuss what a “retail” investor might do with this information. Well, Gromen recommends holding 5-10% of net worth in gold bullion as a safeguard against inflation, particularly as Treasury bonds lose purchasing power—a pressing concern for boomers reliant on entitlements. Looking ahead, gold could climb 2-4 times its current value, potentially reaching $6,000 to $12,000 per ounce, to realign with historical norms where the US covered 40% of foreign-held U.S. debt (now just 9%). Don’t take this as financial advice, by the way.

So, we landed on a positive podscore for this podcast, but you’ve got to make it through the first 30 minutes or so, which is rather slow as they focused on the history of gold and so forth. Stick with it.

THE PODSCORE 3.5 (of 5) MICS.

SUMMARY:

Tucker talks with Mike Benz, an expert on USAID and its global ramifications, reveals startling insights about the organization's troubling activities. He describes USAID as a 'rent-a-riot operation,' raising crucial questions about its involvement in movements like Black Lives Matter. The conversation probes the ethical implications of foreign aid, especially funding for controversial initiatives like transgender surgeries abroad. Moreover, Benz exposes how USAID orchestrates unrest globally while influencing media narratives, demanding greater transparency and reevaluation of U.S. foreign policy.

"People Have Been Lied to In This Country...They’ve Been Told This Was Humanitarian Aid…and they Cosigned It!”

REVIEW:

Benz immediately tells us that USAID is important for soft power and has a role to play in US Foreign Policy and humanitarian efforts, so he, despite years of looking for truth in this area, is not elated at what is being found. This is such a great place for him to start from because the Democrats are foaming at the mouth telling the public how dismantling this organism will harm aid to people, cause repression, etc etc. Some of that is true (to an extent, but the real purpose is US “soft power”) in the short term but this is “an open heart surgery”. When the operation is done the American People can see what is happening within “The Blob”.

“There really is a USAID Truman Show That Most of the World Lives in!”

Tucker brings up the point that the American public may lose faith once all of this is fully disclosed. This is also very concerning to Benz because he “believes in soft power” and he also believes that the advantaged life we have in the US is supported in some ways because USAID enables parts of our ways of life through this global tool. So, he tries to distinguish between some of the USAID’s benefits from it’s “halo” of disturbing deeds or completely unexplainable deeds, like funding “transgender dance festivals” or rap music meant to sow discord and revolution in Bangladesh.

Benz seems agonized throughout the episode as he considers the loss of influence and soft power will impact US power globally. Tucker consistently pushes back by contending that we have over-extended dramatically. Carlson also considers the moral quality of defending many of the activities done under USAID’s name.

Tucker makes the point that some of these covert operations funded by USAID sound a lot like some of the US discord that has been sewed in the US over the past 15 years. Benz and Tucker spend some time on this issue, postulating that some of these same activities happening over seas have been seen here. Tucker brings up Charlottesville and potential government involvement in stoking that riot. Both agree that USAID had nothing to do with that issue, but also agreed it was very likely that such a template was borrowed for domestic issues. Tucker doesn’t let this issue go and believes that the moral issues inherent in USAID and the CIA / FBI etc are not worth most benefits of soft power.

“When It’s Too Dirty for the CIA Give It to USAID”

After some more handwringing the duo finally gets to a place where they move past the nuance of what USAID activities are acceptable and which are not (foreign influence maybe, domestic influence = never). Again, throughout the first hour, Benz really struggles with the beast he has helped unleash. One way or another, we think that will get worked out in the coming months and years. He just keeps making the point that we can’t stop “all” of these USAID activities. However, in circling the wagons on this issue they get to a key point of agreement on what should NOT happen going forward. In addition to the domestic and foreign influence dilineation, both Tucker and Benz agreed that the Corporate influence needs to be expunged from soft power so that long term US National interests are maintained and not Corporate stakeholder short terms goals.

The waste, corruption, fraud, and just “bad ideas” inherent in USAID are just shocking. But there is a soft power purpose and a very inefficient humanitarian delivery mechanism that deserve to be reallocated elsewhere as this monster agency is deconstructed. That said, this first step in DOGE’s effort to save the tax payers billions, hopefully trillions) is necessary, uncomfortable and painful for some. We’ve never seen such transparency in government and embracing it is a better policy than worrying about a temporary setback in conducting unsavory, unethical and dangerous activities around the globe. Lastly, it appears USAID supported Russiagate and COVID to name a couple of issues that impacted the homeland…that sort of activity can never happen again. DOGE is just scratching the surface and doing the necessary work. USAID will take a while to untangle; Benz has done a great job of the years trumpeting the issue…he needn’t get shaky knees now.

THE POD SCORE: 5 Mics (of 5)…we don’t give these perfect scores often. Listen.

Tucker talks with Jefferson Morley, a respected journalist and author on the JFK assassination, dives into the secrets surrounding the JFK documents and the struggles faced in their declassification over 63 years. He discusses the CIA’s potential cover-ups and the significance of Donald Trump’s executive order. Morley also explores whether Lee Harvey Oswald was merely a patsy and reveals insights on the MLK files. This engaging conversation sheds light on the complexities of historical narratives and the need for accountability in uncovering past government actions. 

The Good:  Look, anytime you get a Presidential Executive Order just a week prior and then get some time with a JFK Assassination Expert, it’s going to be interesting. Morley has been covering the assassination for over 30 years and clearly knows his stuff. Additionally, he's not an overt conspiracy theorist; rather, he is a reporter that can cite most of the facts and figures and (importantly) documents tied to the event. 

He had an excellent take on what and how the documents should be released. He stated that he believes most of the types of documents on JFK are known to exist and generally what they are, but of course he / we don't know the details around what those documents say. He also believes that the documents are mostly physically accounted for. In other words, they should be found quickly and within the 15 day time-frame outlined in the EO. Tucker and Morley agreed that the most obvious coverup was MLK and that those documents are more scattered, as are the RFK documents, and its right that they will take longer to pull together. 

Morley offers cautious optimism that we'll learn something new but also offers a couple of red flags to watch out for in terms of the types of documents we should see released. Generally, he believes that after the plan is delivered to the President in the initial 30 day window the full release of information should follow in in the next month or two. So, it seems, we are not far off from learning "something". While not offering theory on the assassination of JFK, he does state that if the media presents whatever is in there as "much-ado-about-nothing", then we should worry.

The Bad:   Very short. Morley's answers are pretty measured and while the update on process of document release and what to expect is interesting, there wasn't much more here than an appetizer.

THE POD SCORE:  3 Mics (of 5)

"CIA officials began lying about whay they knew about Lee Harvey Oswald within hours of President Kennedy's murder!"

Tucker talks with Matt Taibbi, an investigative journalist renowned for his insights into Russiagate and his Substack, Racket News, discusses the unprecedented secrets Donald Trump is revealing. He queries the ethics of pardoning figures like Fauci related to pandemic accountability. The conversation highlights the rise of independent journalism, the potential reformation of news in the digital era, and the pressing need for media credibility. Taibbi emphasizes unanswered questions about Trump’s presidency and the consequences of governmental secrecy on public trust.entrepreneur known for his candid views, dives into the emptiness of Silicon Valley's elite and the future landscape under the new Trump Administration. He discusses the potential loss of America's global leadership and critiques regulatory obstacles stifling innovation. Chamath also addresses the clash between climate agendas and AI development, while emphasizing the crucial need for America's self-sufficiency in technology. With his insightful perspectives, he advocates for merit-based growth and accountability in shaping a hopeful future.

The Good:  IF you don't know Taibbi, he is emerging Journalistic Institution.  You should know him...now.  This episode plays an updated list of Taibbi's greatest hits - all of which are reopened for full examination under the new Trump administration.  Early in the episode Tucker asks him for his top ten list of investigations that he would like answers to, and it is delicious.   Taibbi hits hard on "who has been in charge for the past year".  The assumption (and fact) is that Biden was incapable of having actually led the country, so who was?  Additionally, Taibbi is keen to learn the truth behind Biden's laptop (this one is coming out already), the Russia Hoax (progress here too), EVERYTHING having to do with COVID, the real story behind J6 (lots of strange antogonist activity in the crowd) and the LACK of investigations in the attempted assassinations of Donald Trump.  Additionally, he's still curious about the Nordstream Pipeline, the death of a Democratic Staffer around the time of the DNC email leaks.  The collapse of mainstream news has opened up the floodgates for experienced journalists and honest young ones to get us back to real journalism.  In sum, he and others are calling for a "Twitter Files" of the whole federal government.  With such new transparency on the precipice, he calls this the new "Golden Age of Journalism"

The Bad:   We love Taibbi but the dude has always been a bit awkward and while super smart, super informed, he's better at the written word than the spoken.  Still, great job, as always.

THE POD SCORE:  4.5 Mics (of 5)

"Even in a third-world country we got more information about stuff that was going on than we got last year in the United States of America..."

Tucker talks with Chamath Palihapitiya, a tech entrepreneur known for his candid views, dives into the emptiness of Silicon Valley's elite and the future landscape under the new Trump Administration. He discusses the potential loss of America's global leadership and critiques regulatory obstacles stifling innovation. Chamath also addresses the clash between climate agendas and AI development, while emphasizing the crucial need for America's self-sufficiency in technology. With his insightful perspectives, he advocates for merit-based growth and accountability in shaping a hopeful future.

The Good:  Chamath is such a well-rounded guest who brings humanity to  conversations with Tucker that span everything from family to politics to business and everything in between.  The thread that runs through this podcast is Chamath's new found awakening which challenges his preconceived notions of what success was (money, power, etc).  Additionally, he has become a supporter of Republican policies and President Donald Trump after realizing in 2020 that he was being lied to with regard to COVID / DEI ? regulations and more.  After great success at Facebook and as an investor, Chamath speaks openly about the devastating impact of California's regulatory state.  He believes that Silicon Valley no longer takes risk...social media platforms are not useful risks.  He partly blames the state and US regulation for shutting down innovation through regulations that slow business down in YEARS.  He feels grateful to America but he is mourning its current state.  The same goes for California...which he longs to fix.

The Bad:   Not a lot bad to say about this episode other than...we'd like to see Chamath just leave California like many of the friends in his "poker game". That said, he's fighting the good fight.

THE POD SCORE:  4.5 Mics (of 5)

"I was moving markets every time I spoke publicly!"

Sean Davis, known for his insightful analysis, dives into the chilling aftermath of the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. He raises critical questions about the identity of the shooter, Thomas Crooks, and the apparent incompetence of the FBI and Secret Service. Davis highlights the challenges in congressional oversight and the lack of accountability in governmental agencies. The conversation also touches on broader themes of political motivations and the moral implications of violence in society.

"It Sounds LIke There Has Been No Progress Whatsoever!"...None!"

The Good:  Bringing this topic up over and over again until we get answers is a public service.  It remains shocking to us that six months after the shooting of Donald Trump we have ZERO answers.  Davis presents information that, while mostly known, is well organized and he and Tucker ask the proper questions.  The last 30 minutes they hit on a range of subjects from drones to gun control to religion, which was a nice shift but the issue might have been that they just didn't have enough to talk about with regard to the assissination attempts.

The Bad: Apologies to Sean Davis but it almost seemed like he was in awe to be sitting with Tucker.  That's probably not true but anyway, it seemed that way to us.  More importantly, we still just don't have answers which is bad but as noted in the "good" thanks to Davis for continuuing to ask them.

THE POD SCORE:  4 Mics (of 5)

Michael Shellenberger, an environmentalist and author, shares his insights on California’s wildfires and the societal issues entwined with them. He explores the alarming rise of fires, questioning government responsibility and the impact of homelessness and drug use. The discussion critiques the fire department's focus on equality over meritocracy and addresses the failures in journalism regarding environmental crises. They also dive into the connection between chaos and crime amidst disasters, and touch on the mysteries surrounding unidentified aerial phenomena.

"Well, You Know, It Turns Out That Meth-heads Love to Start Fires."

The Good:  An incredible discussion with hte irrefutable Shellenberger, this episode of Carlson is an all timer.  A CA native, Shellenberger says that nearly half of fires in LA county are started by homeless people, many of whom are struggling with drug addiction.  The conversation goes to discuss the city's unpreparedness, the fall of California, the collapse of woke-ideology, Trump and ends with UFOs / UAPs and the drone mystery.  Various reference to the Twitter files remind us that conspiracies are real.  Shellenberger remains one of the best reporters out there today.

The Bad: The only bad thing we can think of is that the episode didn't go three hours and that Tucker seems to think he knows what the drones are specifically but won't spill the beans.  We'll have to wait and see if Trump actually tells us.

THE POD SCORE:  5 Mics (of 5)

Bernard Hudson, a former CIA counterterrorism officer with 28 years of experience, shares gripping insights into the agency's inner workings and the complexities of U.S. foreign policy. He discusses the disastrous implications of the Iraq invasion and accountability within intelligence agencies. The conversation highlights the unique challenges facing Tulsi Gabbard's nomination for Director of National Intelligence, including fears of establishment pushback. Hudson also addresses accusations of potential surveillance on Congress and the need for greater transparency and trust in government actions.

"They Are Ferocious Opponents of Desclassifying (the JFK Files)"

PODLAND SCORE:   2.5 (of 5) STARS. 

Positive marks for hitting on current themes, investigations into Senators, and getting the insights from a 28 year CIA Insider.

Negative marks - The guest (Hudson) absolutely felt like a CIA-shill, or just too low level to know what is really going on.  He didn't bite on any of Tucker's attempts to challenge covert CIA actions.  It felt like a nothing-burger.  Tucker has done much better

Jeffrey Sachs, an esteemed economist and professor at Columbia University, critiques Joe Biden’s presidency as potentially the most destructive in U.S. history. He argues that Trump could reverse this damage. Sachs discusses U.S. involvement in regime change in Syria and the implications for Middle Eastern stability. He warns of escalating tensions with both Iran and China, suggesting a looming threat of nuclear conflict. Additionally, he reflects on the need for increased transparency regarding foreign policy and the historical influence of the Israel lobby.

"After 9/11 Wesley Clark Was Shown a Peice of Paper That We (the US) are going to have seven wars (We are on 6, Iran will be #7)

"The President's Most Important Tool to Tame the Administrative State"

"They are Extremely Resistant to Democracy!"

"The Left Innovated To Build a Fourth Branch!"

"Restore the Colorblind Meritocracy That We Were Promised". "Dismantle the State!

"I Don't Read ANY Of It!"  You Know When Someone Is Lying To You...The Media Is!

Only Trump Can Stop World War 3!

The Situation Biden and Harris are Leaving Us Is Extremely Dangerous!