Brad CHALLENGES progressive star Brian Tyler Cohen in EXPLOSIVE interview!

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Isn't it kind of enticing, as long as nothing actually comes of it, to be a victim here? [00:00:04] Speaker 2: I will just say, like, I don't particularly enjoy any of this. [00:00:10] Speaker 1: Are these left-wing influencers being censored by the Trump administration, or are they just being held accountable? That's what we're going to take on today as I challenge progressive commentator Brian Tyler Cohen, who joins me shortly after he spoke out against the White House, putting him on a list of media offenders under the leftist influencers category on the official WhiteHouse.gov website. Now, I should be clear that I think it's very inappropriate and improper, to say the least, for an administration to put blatant personal attacks or a list of media outlets or reporters that it doesn't like on the White House, especially using such juvenile and direct language. But they've already been doing this for mainstream media outlets, including even Fox News in some cases, where they list on the official White House website their media offenders and publicly criticize them. They've now added Brian Tyler Cohen and David Pakman, as well as a number of other left-wing influencers, for what they say the Trump administration says is sharing misinformation. But did they actually, in fact, share misinformation about the Trump administration? And are their First Amendment rights really under attack if this is just public criticism and no actions taken against them? We're going to tackle all of this with Brian Tyler Cohen. Let's get into it. All right, joining me now, we've got the progressive YouTuber and political commentator Brian Tyler Cohen, author of The Day After, How to Wield Power in a Post-Trump World, the forthcoming book linked in the description. You can preorder now. Brian, thanks for being here. Brad, thanks for having me. So you're here under interesting circumstances, I think it's fair to say. The White House has added you to a list of media offenders on the official WhiteHouse.gov website. And I'll read the entry they put about you. Leftists posing as unbiased news sources lied about the reorganization of the United States Forest Service. Brian Tyler Cohen, a known liar, went so far as to claim President Trump was dismantling the U.S. Forest Service. So I guess where I'm coming from on this is that I think it is extremely gross and creepy to use the WhiteHouse.gov official apparatus to attack media people you don't like. You and I are not on the same page politically, but that's not really relevant to that principle here. But I guess why is it more bothersome to you that they're doing it like this rather than just Caroline Leavitt saying something at the White House podium? [00:02:42] Speaker 2: I mean, look, if Caroline Leavitt also said something at the White House podium, these are also their official channels. And I think I think two things. One is this is the federal government using the tools available at its disposal to attack people going from law firms and universities and media companies and tech CEOs all the way down to comedians, podcasters, content creators. I mean, talk about punching down. If you are that afraid of dissent that you have to use government tools, the WhiteHouse.gov website to do that. I think that's a pretty clear testament to the fact that you're operating from a position of weakness and not strength. The second thing is, is like, look, they they actually have the legal right to do this. Is it right? Is it moral? Is it justifiable? Not in my opinion, no, but they have the legal right to do it. My question then for conservatives is, OK, when you voted for this guy because he was channeling your populist anger, when he was saying that he was going to be the guy to focus on housing and rent and groceries and the cost of eggs. Only to then come in office, raise the price of everything, not tackle inflation, fail to release the Epstein files, get us engaged in another war that you swore would never happen. Focus on building a ballroom and an arch and a walkway and repaving the Rose Garden and retrofitting a Qatari jet and encrusting the Oval Office in gold. Is this focus on content creators now as your newest project, what these people voted for? Is that what you want your tax dollars to go to when you hire Donald Trump to actually focus on the little guy to enact an America first agenda? Because there is nothing that feels America first about this when all of the problems that Trump ran on exploiting have been exacerbated. And now his focus is on punching down on content creators using the WhiteHouse.gov website. [00:04:40] Speaker 1: Well, so it's certainly punching down when you're the president of the United States. And I agree with you that that beefing with influencers, even one to give you credit, massively influential online voices like yourself, you know, you're not some small fry is is obviously punching down and is not addressing Americans concerns. But I guess what I'll say, though, is they would argue they're just saying saying their side of the coin, right? They haven't taken any action against you. That would be a violation of the First Amendment. They're just having their say. And it's not a polite say, but they're pushing back using their free speech. [00:05:12] Speaker 2: Totally. They have the legal right to do this. And and my contention with this is is we have seen the extent to which the White House focuses on some group of people and then does fall into the trap or engage in the slippery slope of taking action against those people. It's you have to put this into context like we've we've seen what happened to Letitia James and James Comey and Jerome Powell and Tim Walls and Jacob Frye and and all of these other politicians, judges, you name it, who have been subject to vindictive prosecutions. And I'm not even just saying this as my opinion. There have been judges who've come out and said that the Trump administration is engaging in vindictive and vindictive prosecution. That's what this administration focuses on. And so this isn't happening in a vacuum. It's not like the administration just says, hey, we're going to make a list and do nothing with it. This is an administration that makes lists and then takes action against the people on those lists. And so I'm not I'm not ignorant to what can and may come next. [00:06:17] Speaker 1: Yeah. If they came after you with some kind of criminal charge or anything like that or a lawsuit, that would be a very different story. [00:06:23] Speaker 2: Leaning on the social media platforms. I mean, you know, look, this administration is not with President Biden doing that. [00:06:28] Speaker 1: They very much leaned on the social media platforms to take down specific posts, the RFK Jr misinformation posts. They were contacting the social media companies saying, you can get this post down. [00:06:39] Speaker 2: There's a difference between getting a post down if you're seeking to tackle disinformation, which is what content moderation is, versus suppressing the voices of an entire subset of people because you don't like dissenting opinions. [00:06:52] Speaker 1: I mean, well, the Trump administration thinks that you're spreading misinformation. And so let's pull up that post who said breaking Trump orders the dismantling of the U.S. Forest Service. All regional offices are being shut down and the research program destroyed. That's a tweet with nine million views from No Lie with Brian Tyler Cohen. I mean, the second part of that tweet is objectively not true. They're not destroying the research program. They're reorganizing the Forest Service, but they're not cutting any research funding or research positions with this reorganization. So, I mean, aren't you spreading misinformation to millions of people? [00:07:26] Speaker 2: And so, look, I put out hundreds, if not thousands, of pieces of content every week and every month. I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect. And there are going to be tweets and posts that are incorrect. And I do my best to fix things that are incorrect. It's never done on purpose. And it's always, if I have the ability to do so, to correct it. My goal is not to misinform people. My goal is to make sure that people have accurate information. By virtue of the sheer size of my platform and the amount of news that's coming out, you're not going to be 100% correct. And I'm not above admitting that I'm not perfect in what I put out. With that said... But you haven't corrected this one, though, as of today. That I'm not sure about. And I'll go back and dig into that. That is actually on an account. I have multiple accounts. And obviously, not everything is run by me, specifically. [00:08:24] Speaker 1: You have to take accountability for it, though. 100%. [00:08:27] Speaker 2: It's my platform to take full accountability for that. With that said, two things on that. One, grounds for inclusion in a media offenders list on whitehouse.gov. And two, grounds for inclusion in a media offenders list at the hands of an administration that cannot not lie if their lives collectively depend on it. I mean, like, the audacity of Donald Trump's administration to try and take the moral high ground when he is physically incapable of not telling the truth almost every time he opens his mouth. I mean, right now, I think the last thing he said was, like, California is engaged in widespread voter fraud because Spencer Pratt didn't advance to the runoff in Los Angeles, California. Right. Like, the progressive bastion of the United States. And he's saying that must be evidence of voter fraud, that a Republican-backed candidate didn't advance to the runoff. There is no lie too small for him to tell. He has no scruples when he lies. He will lie as easily as he breathes. And so, look, my whole business is making sure that I can garner the trust of people. Again, I'll be the first to admit that I'm not perfect. I try really hard to be. But I'm not perfect. I mean, I totally take your point about Trump. [00:09:50] Speaker 1: Like, he has no fact-checking moral high ground. I agree. But we obviously are only accountable for ourselves. 100%. I will say that I have noticed over time a pattern with some of the accounts, because you're right, you put out a lot of stuff, that you do tend to spin things up to really alarm people in a way that sometimes is justified, but sometimes seems not to be based on the facts. I want to read you a post that got 18.9 million views from October of 2025. The Supreme Court appears ready to side with Trump in bringing back gay conversion therapy. This practice involves physically abusing teenagers to try to turn them heterosexual, including with electric shocks and chemically induced nausea. So the reason that post is very wrong is that that case was just about talk therapy, and yet you invoked electroshock and physical torture. The case never included that. [00:10:46] Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I can't remember that specific case from late 2025. Again, I'm happy to look into it and come back and discuss. I just can't remember, you know, a case that happened almost a year ago or that specific post. But with that said, again, if anything is inaccurate, it's my platform and I take responsibility for it. I try to be as accurate as I possibly can. And I think by virtue of the sheer amount of content that I put out on a daily basis or that's put out on my platforms, you know, you're going to have instances where stuff is proven to be untrue. [00:11:26] Speaker 1: But I guess so the question then, oh, sure, go ahead. Oh, well, I was just going to say that. At the same time, like I told you, I don't think this is appropriate. I don't think this is okay. But can you admit, though, that it's also kind of awesome for you? Like, it is an amazing marketing cycle. You're going to get an outpouring of sympathy and attention. You're already plugging the book, which is, I'm sure, going to be a massive success. You've got the super cool Twitter header that says media offenders, Brian Tyler Cohen on the White House.gov. That goes hard. So, I mean, isn't it kind of enticing as long as nothing actually comes of it to be a victim here? [00:12:05] Speaker 2: Look, I will just say, like, I don't particularly enjoy any of this. Like, I have my friends who will come to me and say, like, oh, you know, Trump gives you so much to talk about. But the negative far outweighs the positive in all of this. And, like, the amount of stress and the amount of, like, hits to my mental health and all. I used to be really good at compartmentalizing. I'm not that good at compartmentalizing anymore. Is it beneficial to be able to point to this and get attention in this economy? Okay. Would I trade it if we had a functional, competent government that was actually focused on decent things like combating climate change, that the whole world has some hope of living on a habitable planet in the future? A million times out of a million. What I will say about this moment and being on that list is I feel fortunate to be able to use this moment and this opportunity to do what I think a lot of other institutions have failed at doing. We have seen law firms and universities and tech CEOs and legacy media outlets all get caught in the crosshairs of the Trump administration and immediately capitulate to him because it was easier for them to do so. And it was more financially advantageous for them to do so. And it's been really frustrating from my vantage to see that because, like, CBS is a massive media conglomerate. They have all the resources in the world to fight back against Trump, and they chose not to. ABC, Disney, again, a massive, massive multinational media conglomerate, had all the resources in the world to fight back when they sued George Papadopoulos for defamation in a laughable lawsuit. They chose not to. They chose to give him $16 million instead. Paul Weiss, a major law firm, all the resources in the world, certainly no shortage of attorneys to litigate this case, chose to capitulate instead. And so when I saw my name on this list, obviously, I can look at that and I can say, man, it will be easy for me to just lay low, protect myself and try not to get into any more trouble. I'm sure my family would have appreciated that more because this isn't fun for them. You know, I get emails from strangers that I'm sure you can figure out what those emails are all about. So the attention isn't great. And it would certainly be easier if I chose to do nothing. But I viewed it as an opportunity to do what all of those other institutions and entities didn't do, which is actually stand up and fight back against what this administration is doing. And if that means wearing it as as a badge, then I'm perfectly content to do so. And if it and if and if if courage is contagious, my goal here is to make it so that other content creators see this and say, hey, that that looks like something I want to be on. Give me that attention. Give me the badge of honor that is being included in Trump's media offenders list. And I think that that between myself and David Pakman, we've been pretty effective at doing that. And I want I want this to turn into a thing where it's like we dare the Trump administration to continue putting more people on that list because they're going to wear it as a badge of honor. They're going to use it to promote themselves. They're going to use it to make their voices even louder, to grow their followings, whatever benefits can be conferred by being on this list. I want to make it so that the Trump administration realizes that they fucked up. And whereas they could buy off media companies and tech CEOs and law firms were not owned by any institution that the government can use to leverage to get what it wants. Independent media is independent. And so I think that they fucked up by by targeting content creators. I think that it was a rare instance of them not understanding how the attention economy works. And if I can use this platform to to kind of poke them in the eye and show them that that this backfired on them, then I'm perfectly content to do that. [00:16:09] Speaker 1: No, that's totally valid. And I would say that even to my pro Trump friends or I know some people still in the administration that it's like if your goal was somehow to hurt Brian Tyler Cohen or to reduce his significance as a voice, putting him on this list with no like actual damage or harm or action taken against you will absolutely achieve the opposite of that. Right. It will draw more sympathy, more attention and hopefully for you help those book sales get up. So Brian Tyler Cohen, thank you so much for joining me, guys. You can check out the day after linked in the description and Brian, hopefully we can talk again sometime soon. [00:16:43] Speaker 2: Brad, I appreciate it and I appreciate, look, I appreciate like what what you're building here and enabling civil conversations with people across the aisle. I think I think I think in an in an attention economy where you really garner a lot of benefit by by playing to the extremes that that you trying to host like civil conversations and being reasonable and rational is is definitely a steeper hill to climb. But I think I think what you're going for, what you've done is admirable. So I appreciate I appreciate you being a sane voice in this ecosystem and for allowing me a few minutes to talk today. [00:17:18] Speaker 1: Yeah, absolutely. Thanks so much. All right, guys, that's it for today's debate. Thanks so much for tuning in. Make sure you're subscribed to the channel if you're new here. Regardless, hit the like button. If you made it this far, you must have enjoyed something about this video. And regardless, we'll be back with more real soon.