Trump's Primetime Speech is About Setting a Trap for Democrats

[00:00:00] Scott Galloway: Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway. [00:00:06] Jessica Tarleff: And I'm Jessica Tarleff. [00:00:08] Scott Galloway: So before we get started, we're going to be back at the 92nd Street Y this September, and tickets are on sale now. Use the link in the show notes to get your tickets today, and make sure you subscribe to our YouTube page to stay up to date on all the political news. All right, let's bust into it. President Trump is expected to make a big primetime speech tonight covering, among other things, the latest on Iran and election integrity. Thank God, election integrity. One advisor says it will be a potpourri, and Trump himself says he has really big news. He alluded to it earlier this week. Let's listen to a clip. [00:00:41] Speaker 3: Your big announcement on Thursday night regarding election machines and integrity. Can you give us sort of a sneak peek about what to expect? [00:00:47] Speaker 4: Well, I'd rather save it. It will concern that subject, and we'll have a couple of other things to say, but I'd rather save it, but it's really big news. It's really, really big news, and our country has to shape up. But what we're going to be talking about Thursday is it doesn't get bigger, because without free and fair elections, you don't have a country. We'll be discussing other things, too, but it's going to be a very big announcement, yeah? [00:01:16] Scott Galloway: There you go. What do you think the announcement is? [00:01:21] Jessica Tarleff: Well, it's that now the Chinese interfered in the election. So we've moved on from Venezuelans, Russians, liberals, liars, leakers, whatever, to the Chinese. If the reporting thus far is right, and Reuters has been all over this, and Reuters is very reputable. And it hinges on the fact that China purchased publicly available voter data and did nothing with it. So the crackpot theory du jour, which I did think was going to be about Venezuela, because Trump likes to talk about election rigging from Venezuela and that Maduro knew about it and that he was going to trade the information to get out of prison. So I actually thought we were going in that direction, but we were going to a new part of the world. And the idea is that the intel community juiced the intel to make it look like Moscow interfered in the 2016 election, which, lo and behold, it did. I'm not saying it swayed the election, but it did. There are people in jail as a result. Take a look at the Mueller report. And then they buried the intel indicating that Beijing interfered to help Biden in 2020, which makes absolutely no sense because I don't think there's a person or another world leader that she loves more than Donald Trump, right? Who shows up and just kisses ass for three days straight and says things like, I wish I could be in charge as long as you. So I guess the good part is that as of now, or the latest reporting that I saw, the networks are not going to take it live. They're not going to interrupt their primetime programming. And I think part of that is probably that this is not an emergency because he announced it days ago. It's like if you need an Oval Office address, usually you make your case as to why you need it. And people feel, you know, some pressure, right, to make sure that you're there for it. And I think that they're sensing as well that they could end up in trouble again, right, where you have to do days and days of coverage explaining all of these voter fraud theories, none of them that came to fruition going through every election interference case and how many times they lost in court and were humiliated. And, you know, he's not going to get the Save America Act through J.D. Vance acknowledged as much. But this is what authoritarians do when they want to sow confusion and distrust of the system. And just like you're listening to him and he's sitting in the Oval Office and you think if the country's got to shape up, how did you get control of the presidency, the Senate and the House? Like, you're winning. So, like, it's so annoying. And but we're going to have to watch it or I'm going to have to watch it. So that's mostly who I feel sorry for. You're like, I will be out. I will be out and about. [00:04:25] Scott Galloway: Yeah. Yeah. A hundred percent. It's it's just ironic that we've spent five years litigating what is the most scrutinized election in American history. About 160 million Americans voted in 2020. And there were dozens of court challenges, statewide recounts, audits and investigations, including many run by Republicans or presided over by Republican or Trump appointed judges. And none produced evidence of fraud on a scale that could have changed an outcome. It's it reminds me of Doge, and that is the government came out with a clean bill of health from the clinical Doge audits and found there was a remarkably low amount of waste, fraud and abuse, which is their favorite tagline. And our election system is purposely run somewhat inefficiently or distinct and it's very heterogeneous, the the process and mechanism, because what they want is no ability to weaponize or infiltrate the entire election. In other words, there's safety to having 50 diverse systems run by different statewide officials in different formats. We can't have a democracy if one of the two parties has the same election or post-election speech, and it's one of two things. It's either we won or it was rigged. And to your point, it's just insane. They control the three houses of government. Now, is there election interference from abroad? Yes. My understanding is it's mostly benefited Trump. But that's not to say we shouldn't be serious about it. But when you have Governor DeSantis falling into this bullshit and spending three million dollars on an election fraud task force, you know, that's money that could go elsewhere. And I do think it's a political loser. Only two percent of the American public, according to Gallup, say that election interference is their top priority. You know, most for most people, it's around affordability, gas prices and the like. But this is I'm almost sort of at a point where, you know, we attack our institutions so much. I do think it's unhealthy. But in terms of short term electoral dynamics, I think him continuing to focus on it, probably a loser for him. [00:06:31] Jessica Tarleff: Well, I think it's I mean, there are a couple of things I more than I wanted to say about it. Like, you know, we're watching all of these confirmation hearings this week and Democrats continually ask Republican nominees who won the 2020 election. And yesterday I was having a conversation. I was on special report and we were talking about Jay Clayton, who in another time would be a nominee that everyone, maybe not everyone, but could get like 70 plus votes. Right. To be confirmed as the DNI to replace Tulsi Gabbard. But he's up there saying he didn't know that Tulsi was in Fulton County when it was on the front page of every major broadsheet. And he won't answer the question. He says that Joe Biden was certified the winner, but won't say that he actually won the election. And one of my colleagues said, why does this stuff matter? Why are you guys so obsessed with it? We're not the ones that are obsessed with it. The president is giving a primetime address on an issue that was settled in January 6th, 2021. That that's what's going on here. A guy who has, you know, who staged an incredible comeback. He did not have the landslide victory that he would tell you that he did. But he pulled off something really amazing in 2024 and came back and won a free and fair election. And his obsession with this will be at least to some degree the downfall of his party because they he has made them all into stooges. He has made them all look like clowns. And I love when John Ossoff said that to Jay Clayton's face where he said, like, how does it feel to be humiliated like this? It's the ritual humiliation of being in bed with Trump. Then the second thing I wanted to raise before we moved on to the next subject is I doubt in this address that he's going to talk about reinstating all the funding to fight foreign influence that he has cut. Right. Like the CISA program that Chris Krebs ran, the ODNI, the National Intelligence Group's Foreign Malign Influence Center, the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. They all got gutted because, A, I guess in reality, Trump knows that there wasn't election fraud and B, because he just doesn't care anyway. He's not actually concerned. He's just like a toddler that's still mad that you took away his toys a couple of years ago. So I just wanted to add that. [00:09:01] Scott Galloway: So moving on. [00:09:02] Jessica Tarleff: OK. [00:09:04] Scott Galloway: Over 100 House Democrats have voted to end aid to Israel. The proposed amendment to a State Department funding bill that would cut billions in funding was thwarted by Republicans in a 314 to 104 vote. Jess, this still sends a pretty serious message and is a big shift from U.S. lawmakers. Even Nancy Pelosi backed the measure to stop aid. What do you think is behind this shift? [00:09:28] Jessica Tarleff: Bibi Netanyahu? I think. There's that. There's that. Yeah, I think it's a pretty big factor. And I think, you know, this being one of the last votes that Nancy Pelosi takes before she retires, I think is quite meaningful. You know, big, longtime friend of Israel, that there were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, that there were moderate Democrats in swing districts who took this very difficult vote. I think all means a lot. And I'm not sure. Did you catch Rahm Emanuel's speech last week in Tel Aviv? Yeah. I think that what Rahm did, and I really want to hear what you thought of it, but he, I think, gave these 103 Democrats. I shouldn't say 103, because some of them were just going to do this anyway, but gave a good chunk of this cohort and the senators who voted against sending offensive weapons aid like Slocken and Ossoff and Warnock the cover that they needed. When he's now talking about, you know, Bibi essentially being rogue, that we need a 23-state solution, that we should stop talking about this as a two-state solution, that there has to be a regional answer to this, which, you know, it's a small facet. But the Abraham Accords was a piece of that, right, at least from the economic angle. And I think you're going to see a lot more of this. And Bibi read the tea leaves, too. You know, he said, we don't need the aid. So, it's like saying, I didn't want to go to your party, right, before you didn't get your invitation in the mail. The question I have kind of looming is, what happens with defensive aid, right, for the Iron Dome? And, I mean, we give defensive aid packages to countries all over the world, right? That's one of the ways that we are the global policeman or policewoman. So, not sure what the future of that is, but this is a huge shift. And I was kind of surprised, also, that it was only Thomas Massey on the Republican side, that there weren't a couple others, with what a hot topic Israel has been, and also, you know, this America First foreign policy. So, what did you think about Rahm's speech? [00:11:35] Scott Galloway: Well, Rahm is sort of Andrew Yang with more experience right now, and that is, you have to admire that he's out early. He's not playing this reluctant bribe bullshit, which I hate, where, you know, I'm having coffee with a senator tomorrow here, not because he finds me fascinating, but because he's running for president, and he wants Jessica Tarloff and Scott Galloway to talk about it. [00:11:58] Jessica Tarleff: Well, he's having coffee with you, not with Jessica Tarloff. So, I think he wants money, too. He knows I don't have it. [00:12:04] Scott Galloway: There you go. So, but Rahm is at least out of the closet and says, I'm running for president. Also, to Rahm's credit, he's waiting in dangerous waters. He's talking about real issues. And that is important. Instead of, I would describe every one of the Democrats that's running for president as a reluctant bride cosplaying Obama at gatherings, you know, talking about needing to come together and being very indignant about Trump. But very few of them want to talk about actual ideas because it means prioritizing, and every idea has winners and losers. And right now, they're like, oh, no, don't talk about Social Security. You know, they just, they want to speak in bumper sticker and big, like, we need to come together, and Americans are not as divided as we're being. Just, okay, enough already. What the fuck are you going to do about our deficit, specifically? And Rahm, Rahm has probably more, I mean, Rahm arguably is one of the most qualified people to run for president since Secretary Clinton in terms of his background. Also, just with respect to Israel, the real politic of it is that the politics are shifting because demographics have shifted. Israel's received, I think, about $174 billion since 1948, and that's more than any country in history. But the reality is it's no longer a bipartisan or no longer enjoys bipartisan support in the electorate, especially among younger voters, because of what they perceive as oversettlements and overly aggressive U.S.-Israelian military stance. An individual in Netanyahu is constantly on a war footing trying to save his own political ass. So Washington is, to be blunt, catching up to a generational change that's been underway for years. Also, it's to Israel's benefit, it's just time. Israel, just as recently as in the 80s, was a $30 billion economy. Now it's $600 billion. They can afford their own shit. And sending $3 billion to Israel, quite frankly, it isn't worth, it isn't worth the optics because, A, they can afford it themselves. And also, it's a bit misleading because that $3 billion we send to them, they then turn around and spend on Northrop Grumman or Boeing. So it's really more of a $3 billion package to the military-industrial complex in the U.S. Because it's not like they take that money and give it to aid for seniors in Tel Aviv. It's spent on U.S. military equipment. And Israel can afford its own military equipment right now. They're essentially, I would argue, now the superpower in the Middle East. It's not worth, the juice isn't worth the squeeze. It's not worth the optics and the tumult. And what a lot of people would argue is legitimate concern that we're funding a government that sometimes doesn't represent our values for $3 billion. So I think it's good for Israel. And I think it makes sense, given where the electorate is, to stop this funding. It's just not a big loss. But Israel was very dependent upon us in the last century. Quite frankly, I think in terms of Middle East policy, we're probably, in Middle East power, we're probably more dependent on Israel now than they are on us. So in some, I think it's time. It feels like it's the right move for both parties. [00:15:24] Jessica Tarleff: Yeah, I agree. I think the generational point is an important one. And this is a way for some older lawmakers to signal that they are sentient, right? Like that they know what's going on here and that they're listening to their constituents. It was, you know, BB was supposed to come next week for Lindsey Graham's funeral. That's being pushed back. He was also going to meet with President Trump. There are questions now around Marco Rubio has been attacking the ICC. Mom Donnie has said that if BB came here, he would, you know, comply with the ICC ruling that BB is a war criminal. Like there are going to be lots of questions around BB for as long as we have him, I guess is what I'm trying to say. And I'm hopeful that the elections push him out finally and, you know, he can face justice or whatever is coming to him. But mostly Israel can have some leadership and get, you know, Ben Gavir out of our faces, stop the settlements, be productive, you know, cooperative members of the Middle East. And their reputation can go back up in the eyes of Americans, not so we can give them the $3 billion. And Miriam Adelson can cut that check anyway, right? I mean, maybe she is right now. She said, oh, I saw the vote. Like, no worries. I got you. But this is an unsustainable path for U.S.-Israeli relations. And it's a very tough spot for liberal Zionists in particular, which we've been talking about, you know, since October 7th, basically. Support for the show comes from Mint Mobile. Transparency can either be a blessing or a curse. Nobody likes finding out their swimsuit is basically transparent and sunlight only after they arrive at the beach. But when you're buying a new phone plan, transparency is key. That's why Mint Mobile's wireless plans have no gotchas. Mint Mobile offers high-speed 5G data and great coverage. Right now, plans are $15 per month, even their unlimited plan. Just sign up online and you can keep your same device and number, and you can put the money you save towards a new swimsuit. To get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month, go to mintmobile.com slash moderates. That's mintmobile.com slash moderates. Cut your wireless bill to $15 a month at mintmobile.com slash moderates. That's it. There's no catch. Upfront payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12 months. Plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. Includes up to a 20 gigabyte hotspot. Capable device required. Availability, speed, and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com. [00:18:27] Scott Galloway: So back to Washington. The confirmation hearing of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche continues today, and it will feature outside witnesses, including Danielle Bensky, an Epstein survivor. Yesterday, Representative Thomas Massey and a handful of other Democrats have now introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act 2 to hold the DOJ accountable for its mishandling of the case. And here was Vice President Vance admitting the quiet part out loud on Joe Rogan's show. [00:18:53] Speaker 5: But if people want to say we mishandled the Epstein release, guilty. We did mishandle it, especially the communications of it. What do you think should have been done? I think that we should have just dropped everything at the very beginning. And like obviously it takes a little time to review the stuff, to find the stuff, to redact things where you have victims and so forth. But we should have just done it as quickly as possible. But some of the stuff that was redacted, some of the names that were redacted, weren't victims. So, yeah, I've looked into this and it is sometimes hard to draw a distinction between victim and co-conspirator. What DOJ tried to do was kind of make that judgment as best they could and release as much as possible. [00:19:32] Jessica Tarleff: So, yes, some of these women were groomed, right, by Galeen Maxwell. This happens in criminal rings like that. But it was a very interesting contrast between what Todd Blanche was saying on the Hill and what J.D. Vance was saying in the studio in Austin. Because Todd Blanche was basically saying, we did this right. Three million is the right number. We have done everything. We have complied with the law completely. We have been respectful of the victims. And J.D. Vance is echoing what he said in the Situation Room, in the incredible reporting and regime change from Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan when they had their, you know, Epstein powwows. And he was like, this is a huge problem for the administration and get it all out there, right? Like as much as you can safely, because this is a stench that is going to haunt the administration in perpetuity. And that is all back in focus. Danny Bensky, the survivor who's testifying today, you know, harrowing stuff, talking about how, you know, her name was one of the ones that should have been redacted and wasn't. And the humiliation of everybody, colleagues, family, kids, knowing what happened to you. And then Blanche even said that they were taken down and fixed within 24 hours, which isn't true. And she said there's still survivor's information out there today that the DOJ was supposed to have kept secret. And she thinks she was talking about as well how dismissive Todd Blanche is personally of the victims and his refusal to meet with them. So I think that this is a right now a slow moving train wreck and has the potential to become fast moving. The more attention is paid to it, which I assume is the point of bringing the Epstein Transparency Act part two by Massey. [00:21:26] Scott Galloway: I teach a session in my course on crisis management and it's just sort of the most basic learning is it's not the crisis or the crime. It's the cover up that gets you into trouble. Martha Stewart didn't go to jail for insider trading. She went to jail for lying to federal investigators. Every time the government or the administration dribbles out another explanation, it cements the suspicion that powerful people play by different rules. And institutions don't collapse because they're imperfect. They collapse when people conclude that the rules only apply to everyone else. And Ossoff has done a great job with semantics on this. And that is rather than going after the billionaire class, the kind of Warren, Senator Warren or Bernie, Americans don't like to demonize success. That's not a winning strategy for for the Democrats. What he started saying is the Epstein class. And that is really smart. That creates a real distinction that rich people, you know, all rich people are not bad people. But there is a group of people in America of which many seem to have associated with the president that believe they get to play by a different set of rules because of their because of their power. It's as if they want to look as guilty as possible. And I still think one of the most powerful images of the of this administration will be when former Attorney General Bondi sat there as all these women stood up behind her who had not even been in contact by the DOJ. And that is it's not the Department of Justice. It's the Department of Delay and Obfuscation by the personal attorney of the president hoping that this will just go away if they keep slowballing the thing. So this is I mean, it's just really basic in crisis management. Acknowledge the issue. Top guy or gal takes responsibility and you overcorrect. And they have done none of that here. And it's it does keep, you know, I as it should. It's the keep, you know, it's the gift that keeps on giving to the administration because this does seem to be that red line that a lot of Republicans say is is unacceptable. And, you know, I hope I hope it continues to be in the news and that I hope and I hope there's some sense of justice. You know, Elizabeth Holmes is in prison. Jelaine Maxwell is in prison. What's interesting is that we always tend to find someone with ovaries to put in prison. And I'll also add that it seems like the president is pretty quick to fire women in his administration and not men. Anyways, I'm not that not that misogyny is going to come as a surprise to anyone observing this this administration. But again, it's just they they've handled it so poorly just from a strategic viewpoint because every time they do something, it's like they might as well just say, I'm trying to cover up something because I'm guilty. Any additional thoughts on this? [00:24:24] Jessica Tarleff: Um, no, not really. I mean, I think you about covered it and it did make me think about the firing point that you made. Did you see Pete Hegg Seth's testosterone video yesterday? [00:24:35] Speaker 6: Today, I'm authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members, ensuring you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best. [00:24:48] Scott Galloway: Are you kidding? Every I've been asked to go on every network tonight to talk about it. Somehow I've turned into the testosterone guy. [00:24:54] Jessica Tarleff: Because you talk about the T levels, which I think is responsible and transparent of you. But he wants gender affirming care for our soldiers, for our fighters, which is my takeaway from it. [00:25:09] Scott Galloway: But if you want a more lethal fighting force, which I think is a good thing. But again, we have a secretary of defense who opts for optics and some performative masculinity as opposed to maintaining the U.S. military is the strongest and most lethal fighting force in history. The issues around the military right now to create the lethality that he wants are, one, recognizing the asymmetry of warfare and moving from expensive platforms where we're scared to lose a B2 so we don't take risks with them, to drones, AI-driven technology, and quite frankly, a guy or a gal that may not have a lot of testosterone but graduated from Carnegie Mellon and know how to put together a drone with a Hellfire missile and use AI to take out the enemy. That is the future of warfare. It is not Rambo. We have special forces, men in their 20s and 30s, who are not lacking for testosterone. That is not the problem. The other bigger problem is that 70% of young men who go into a recruitment office, traditionally we think of joining the Army as your last resort, your last stop. 70% of young men now who show up into a recruiter's office do not qualify to join the Army as an enlisted person because they're either obese or can't pass mental health tests. If the Secretary was really serious about creating a more lethal fighting force, he would think about the human capital he needs to draw. And he would be addressing the loneliness crisis and creating a more attractive training and educational system that continued to draw best and brightest into the armed services at every level. At an officer level, if you go to Annapolis or West Point or the Air Force Academy, you see the finest young men and women that our nation has to offer. The gap in our fighting force is morale and our inability to attract the best and brightest at a young age, out of high school. And instead, he's talking about T-levels. And as someone who is on testosterone therapy, and I've been on it for five years, I went on it under the supervision of a doctor because I heard it was good for your brain and your heart health. It would make you stronger in the gym and, quite frankly, just make you feel a little bit younger. And I think hormone replacement therapy has been a wonderful innovation for men and mostly women of my age. But it has to be done under a doctor's supervision. And it has nothing to do—testosterone doesn't—there's even issues. Testosterone doesn't even necessarily make you more aggressive. It makes you seek status more. And a young person in the military, a combat soldier, has more than enough testosterone. This is just so—it's, again, it feels like, are they just trying to make a cartoon out of this shit? These are not the problems the military should be focused on right now. Higher T-levels is not going to do anything in terms of the lethality of our workforce. If he wants to incorporate a series of options around additional health care coverage that makes a healthier fighting force, fine. But the way warfare is conducted now, it's more behind a computer than behind an AR-15. Those are the skills we need. We need really talented young people. And again, the problem with our young men in our armed forces and everywhere is not a lack of testosterone. It's a lack of connection. Anyways, another TED Talk. [00:28:28] Jessica Tarleff: Oh, I feel a little bit of shame for just making a gender-affirming care joke. But I did notice that he makes this announcement the day that we're ramping up our attacks in Iran. And it's like, could you be a serious secretary of defense for 20 minutes, right? And like, talk about what we're doing abroad. And also, you know, no conversation about the women that serve in our armed forces and how kick-ass they are in doing a little, you know, three-minute ode to penis, basically, which is what I thought of it. I also thought it was AI. I thought there was no way that that video could have been around. Yeah, I was like, oh, my God. I showed it to Jesse, and I was like, I thought this was fake at first. And he was like, no, but it's pretty crazy. [00:29:16] Scott Galloway: I'll be curious to get your view on this. New York has become the first state to ban the building of AI data centers. Governor Hochul signed an executive order this week, which puts a one-year moratorium on new construction. So the backlash against AI data centers has been growing. And I know a piece of this is about increased electricity prices in the state. And this executive order is popular in New York. I have some views on this, but, Jess, I'll let you go first. What are your thoughts on the governor's ban of data centers? [00:29:51] Jessica Tarleff: Well, I want your views on this. [00:29:53] Scott Galloway: Sure. [00:29:54] Jessica Tarleff: Okay, you go first, and then I'll see if mine are done. [00:29:57] Scott Galloway: This is populist bullshit. Data centers have become an empty vessel to pour anger around income inequality. And I understand that people are correctly concerned that AI is benefiting a small number of people while raising their electricity costs. But the reality is most data centers that are approved use less water than 3% of the golf courses are going to use 20 times more water than the envisioned data centers that are going to be constructed. They offer vocational jobs. The civic officials approving these things aren't stupid. A data center doesn't call the police department or the fire department or need ice, and they pay property taxes. There's concerns around spiking electricity prices, which I think are real concerns that need to be addressed, perhaps taking some of that revenue and offsetting electricity costs if it strains the grid. The notion around noise pollution and environmental concerns I think are vastly overblown. This is a populist movement pushing back on correct concerns around income inequality and the worst brand managed in history or the recent history, and that is data centers which have decided to make Kevin O'Leary their spokesperson, which is like making a hijacker spokesperson for United Airlines. So, look, we are in an arms race with China, 130 billion of data center investments has already been delayed or blocked this year. Data centers do consume power, so did factories, ports, and airports. Every generation has infrastructure it hates until it realizes that prosperity depends on it. If I were a local official or advising the governor, I would say, okay, offer to fast track the approval of these things in exchange for them paying up front a decade of property fees and any additional spikes in electricity that can be directly related costs to these data centers that is then rebated to households. Because I believe that what you're about to see is the supply crisis be flipped to a demand crisis. Now, what do I mean by that? If you look at AI, everyone's been talking about the fact that there's too much demand for too little infrastructure. But if you look at what's happened in just the last 60 days, several of the demand generators, whether it's Meta or XAI, that supposedly we're going to have these incredible LLMs that would demand a ton of backend inference and compute, have realized they're not creating the demand they'd anticipated. And they are now flipping to supply and renting out their supply to the only two sources of demand, and that's Anthropic and OpenAI. So I think we're quickly moving from a supply crisis to a demand crisis. And I think it's an opportunity for local civic officials to say to these CEOs who have access to cheap capital, pay up front your property taxes or guarantee them for 10 years. Make sure that you offset any electricity bills and we'll fast track this thing. Because here's the thing, this might be an opportunity for local municipalities to get some much-needed tax revenue on planned projects that may never come to fruition. Because generally what I have found in business is also true in life, and that is the shit you're most worried about isn't what gets you. And the fact that we are obsessing over the data center and supply chain shortage of inference and compute to meet the demand of AI is the same way we obsessed over Y2K or Greece collapsing its bond market. The shit you worry about, you begin to prepare for incrementally, and there's a lot of investment around innovating around that fear, and you solve it. I think new chips, new technologies, new compute is going to require less energy. In sum, this is populist bullshit. Get that money, approve them, make sure it doesn't spike electricity demand, demand, but take advantage of the other side of this trade and get access to some of that cheap capital. It is a populist movement right now that is totally, whose concerns are totally overblown. Your thoughts? [00:34:00] Jessica Tarleff: Yeah, so your populist bullshit was my virtue signaling and how I was thinking about it. Kathy Hochul, I think, has had an incredible turnaround from someone who folks thought was reasonably vulnerable to a Democratic challenge, didn't beat Lee Zeldin. [00:34:16] Scott Galloway: She's cosplaying mom Donnie. She's riding on his cootails, in my view. [00:34:20] Jessica Tarleff: And she was very smart to early endorse him. Right. Like, she has played all of this pretty perfectly. Said, like, I'll give you the things. [00:34:29] Scott Galloway: 3K child care. [00:34:30] Jessica Tarleff: Universal child care. 3K, no, you can't raise taxes on individuals. Pied at a tear tax, no problem. Like, she's got him leashed up, right? Save for what went on with stacking the rent board. And the only person who was against the rent freeze actually quit. So, this feels like a little bit too much of a mom Donnie guiding versus a Kathy Hochul guiding, which I think is the right way to run the state. And I was looking at Abigail Spanberger, the governor of Virginia. So, Virginia has the most data centers of any state in the country. And Spanberger, who was also under pressure from the left, was like, no way. We're not halting. It'll hurt us economically, and it poses a huge national security risk for us. And obviously, the Virginian economy operates differently than the New York economy in terms of the national security facilities and all the infrastructure that's built there. But I look at the person who's running that state and say, she should probably be leading. It also took me back a little bit to 2019 when AOC and the lefties chased Amazon out of Queens. Do you remember this, that they were going to make this huge investment? And there were concerns over the tax subsidies. And I understand that. But we lost hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs because Amazon didn't come here in 2019. And a ton of the economic growth that's going on in this country is rooted in AI in these data centers. Now, I'm not yet at a place where I'm going to say that the sound complaints and the water quality and all of that is completely overblown and everything is right. Like, Aaron Brockovich and Disciples of is going to find a lot of stuff about these things. But cutting it off with a full moratorium seems like a big overreaction and this virtue signal. And it's really interesting to look at. I don't know if you saw this, but Dario Modi, the CEO of Anthropic, just gave a million dollars to Public First. It's the super PAC seeking to slow down AI development with new regulations. It's his first significant political donation. I'm sure that is virtue signaling as well to some degree, though he has spoken a lot about the concerns that he has with what's going on with how rapid AI development. And this frontier is going to be hugely important for the midterms and then again for 2028. So those are my two thoughts. [00:37:03] Scott Galloway: Speaking of a lack of nuance, let's check in on the growing parasite outbreak around the country. Officials have now confirmed at least 1,600 cases of cyclosporiasis, with over 5,000 being investigated. It's reached at least 34 states. The CDC has determined a likely link between cases in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia, but it's still investigating whether a particular food item like lettuce or salad greens is the source of the surge in the cases. Look, I'll go first here. I think this links back to the same thing, and that is, folks, a lack of appreciation for the confidence and investment in government will give you literal diarrhea. And that is, as of mid-July, the CDC is aware of more than 1,500 cases. And on July 1, 2025, the CDC's Foodborne Surveillance Network, which has an awesome name, Foodnet, dropped a number of pathogens that require states to track from 8 to 2. Only Salmonella and E. coli remain mandatory. Cyclospora, Listeria, Campylobacteria, Shigella, Vibrio, and Yersinia all became optional. Cyclospora had been tracked continuously since 1997, meaning 28 years of monitoring, which ended the summer before the biggest outbreak on record. Folks, connect the dots, and since early 2025, the administration has kept more than 3,000 positions from the CDC, roughly a quarter of the workforce. And what do you know? We have measles outbreaks and explosive diarrhea. The agency has had no permanent director for more than six months. And the administration also, wait for it, dissolved the CDC's Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria. And they blame, the reason they defend, how they defend the cuts is accusing these places of bloat and bureaucracy and using their favorite tagline, wasteful and duplicative spending. The pattern isn't limited to one parasite. A second one, the flesh-eating New World screwworm, showed up in U.S. livestock in June for the first time in nearly 60 years. This is a larvae that bury into the flesh of living animals. That sounds pleasant. [00:39:12] Jessica Tarleff: Top dirty to me. [00:39:14] Scott Galloway: There you go. The USDA is fighting it by releasing millions of sterile flies in Texas. That's an interesting remedy. Mexico and Canada both restricted U.S. cattle imports over the spread. It goes back. I don't think Republicans nor Democrats recognize that when you don't have a diplomatic corps, a memo of understanding isn't worth the paper it's written on, as we're saying. That when you get rid of talented experts that actually understand parasitic disease, you're going to have outbreaks. We keep thinking, oh, we don't need these people or it's waste, it's waste and bloat. And we've substituted, we've substituted fealty for competence, thinking that that'll work out. So we're going to have more of these things bubble up where we realize, oh, wait, you do need people to actually land planes from a tower at the airport in the government. You do need people who track outbreaks. You do need people that look at extreme weather in areas where people are camping. You do need talented, thoughtful diplomats who understand how to deal with diplomats on the other side and develop an agreement that is actually has teeth and is binding. We we are learning the hard way that a lack of respect for expertise and commitment, which pollutes in a good way our federal government, that it comes at a cost when you neuter it and you show a lack of respect for it. And this is just one, one way of hundreds, if not thousands of ways. I believe the American public is going to figure out of the next 24 months that the best performing organization in history, despite its blow, despite its inefficiency, despite your bad experience of the DMV, the best performing organization in history has been the U.S. government. And when you treat it with this lack of investment and respect, you're going to pay a price. [00:41:10] Jessica Tarleff: I'm largely not mature enough for this conversation because it is quite serious, not just the treatment part of it. If you have long term explosive diarrhea, but what we can do to repair the government, I'll just say I was at Moynihan station last night, 7:30 p.m. Going to go down to D.C. Everybody's getting their dinners, right? That incredible food court chopped. Not one person in line. And I was watching everyone at the other counters. Like I was at a Mexican counter getting tacos every single person. [00:41:47] Scott Galloway: Speaking of diarrhea. [00:41:48] Jessica Tarleff: No, but that's like controllable diarrhea, I guess. But everyone was saying no lettuce on my taco. No lettuce on my taco. And the one behind the counter eventually was like, I'm not giving anyone lettuce. I'm not touching the lettuce. I'm not giving it to you. I mean, the line at the ramen place stretched on for like 30 people. It was 95 degrees. And people are like, I'm going to eat ramen rather than have a salad at this point. [00:42:12] Scott Galloway: There you go. So let's end on a positive note. Let's talk a little bit about the World Cup. [00:42:18] Jessica Tarleff: Well, it's not that light for you. Are you bummed? Aren't you sad about England? [00:42:23] Scott Galloway: Oh, I've suppressed it. [00:42:26] Jessica Tarleff: Oh, sorry. [00:42:27] Scott Galloway: Yeah, that was hugely disappointing. I'm going to the final on Sunday. I've been to the last four World Cups. I think I don't care. Well, I don't care. I'm not that into sports. I played sports in college, but I decided to reallocate all the time. I was spending on watching sports into fitness, and I think it's been the right choice. But the World Cup, every four years, I got madly into the World Cup. And I think this World Cup, I've been to, this is my fourth, has been the best. And I was cynical of it because I think FIFA is so incredibly fucking corrupt, and Trump getting involved in that ridiculous peace prize and all that bullshit nonsense. And this World Cup hasn't been without flaws. I do think the Egyptian team was robbed, and Trump getting involved, and the U.S. team absolutely vexed them. But on the whole, this has been, this is done, the World Cup has done what the U.N. was supposed to do, and that is make us feel better about each other, bring us together. The way I would describe the World Cup is a group of cousins who just adore each other and have a great time together, get together for a sleepover, despite the fact that their friends aren't, or their parents aren't getting along. And seeing all these Germans in Kansas talking about how amazing is this thing called Waffle House is, and seeing how wonderful these teams are, and seeing on a baggage claim carousel the Norwegian fans rowing, to see everyone singing Sweet Caroline, including the Norwegian fans in the Miami game that I was at. And then to see the British fans, and joining in on the rowing, did positive demonstration of masculinity, strength, service, knowing how to lose, affection, you know, acknowledging the role of your family and your fans. I just think it's been an outstanding World Cup, and despite Team England losing, which was devastating, and not that anyone cares. But I'm so appreciative of Team England's infrastructure and players, because following them through the tournament, including going to a couple games with my boys, has just been such a joyous experience for us. So, anyways, thank you, Team England, and go Spain on Sunday. But it's been a fantastic World Cup, and I think if there's a message from it, it's stating the obvious, that Americans are wonderful people. And so are the citizens of these other nations, and that we are less divided than we think. It's essentially a group of old fucking men who won't leave, who are dividing us. That there's much more that we share than differentiates us or divides us. And it took a soccer tournament to kind of let that bubble up. But I think this has been an enormous win, not only for the U.S. and the teams, but for nations. And just one final stat that I love, every team in the World Cup except the U.S. has national health care. Any closing thoughts on this, Jess? [00:45:25] Jessica Tarleff: Well, I've really enjoyed it. You know, dug into the personal stories. I don't like the sport as much as I love learning about people's relationships and the backstories and who trained who. And, like, did you see, um, who, how do you pronounce the hot shot, the young Spanish guy, Limani? [00:45:45] Scott Galloway: Yamal, yeah. [00:45:46] Jessica Tarleff: Did you see that when he was five months old, he took a photo with Messi when Messi played for Barcelona? Like, that's, that's the stuff that you love about sports and the 39-year-old versus the 19-year-old and maybe the passing of the torch. And we desperately needed some good PR and we got it between the Knicks and the World Cup. Um, I just loved this summer of sports and fandom. Um, and. [00:46:15] Scott Galloway: Well, this is the thing about sport is I think it's probably the last meritocracy in that is we ignore biology in terms of decision making and pay the price for our, our octogenarian politicians. But once you hit your 30s in sport, the biology reminds you that it's time for turnover and it's time to make room for youth. And, uh, there was also a great picture of Beckham with, like, a 14-year-old Harry Kane. Yeah. But it's a lesson, it's a lesson for our leadership that you need to make room for a new generation of leaders. All right, Jess, let's leave it there. [00:46:51] Jessica Tarleff: Cool. I'll see you next week. Have a great time at the game. See you next week. [00:46:54] Scott Galloway: Thanks. [00:46:57] Speaker ?: Bye.