Glenn Greenwald
Politics • Culture • Writing
Interview with The Young Turks' Cenk Uygur
Interview
July 30, 2024
post photo preview

Interview: Cenk Uygur

AD_4nXfF79oAgdBraBuUxxv8ltfkd1egylcxSeok6J_jxKE4lkxL_MbtIrSRMtvwggI79Eu21IbcPgkOLnvTgIK6c1f_uHNHClvWLLOf8_-OdvUw2Im8jw49Sxroby43F_QQA-VosUOxEepa6rigKAely66nRCrIQ4G-VkUa40V20g?key=RYmctqW0yAzME3e7eAn-bg

My next guest – this one is going to be exciting for me – I'm excited to welcome, Cenk Uygur. He is the founder of the Young Turks. I formerly worked for the Young Turks in a previous life. I always respected and appreciated the autonomy that I was given within the Young Turks to do my own thing, even when it rustled some feathers and maybe everyone didn't always agree, so, Cenk has my admiration for that. And Cenk actually technically ran for president for the Democratic primary nomination in 2024. Largely, he says, because he was so insistent that Joe Biden was going to be a disaster electorally. So, I want to check in with Cenk and see what he makes of the current DNC machinations to corner Kamala in this bizarre, private, process and see if that, satisfies the grievances that he articulated. 

 

M. Tracey: So, Cenk, welcome to System Update with Glenn Greenwald although I'm not Glenn Greenwald, I'm Michael Tracey, and I am filling in for the time being. So how are you? 

 

Cenk Uygur: I'm good. And I'm familiar with both of your work, so I'm pretty sure I know. Yeah. I'm good. Thanks for having me on. 

 

M. Tracey: As we said, you ran for president. Obviously, you never maintained that you stood a particularly good chance of winning the nomination and that wasn't really the point. The point was you wanted to force the issue and get Democrats to realize that if they pressed ahead with Joe Biden, they were going to be in for a nightmare, that Donald Trump could romp, that Joe Biden didn't have the capacity to run a vigorous campaign. 

AD_4nXdteBHJZN0uIe7eGIpcAOzOxNALeHZzYLdJvDEuAMkmfdd2IdCrDZnG8IzAV_P_mIhkWKN3WoQ1Tb-zyrrxhCoI56dw-U3ZGpRLa1ry9LH0z2YHQnHPLFup85dErK2GYOngtfztD1FHjdXwAgBcP-ue3x0yvuDMVZqoUC-b3Q?key=RYmctqW0yAzME3e7eAn-bg

Your name was on one of these ballots, along with Dean Phillips, Marianne Williamson and, of course, Joe Biden, but conspicuously missing from that list of candidates was Kamala Harris. So, one of the points that I've been making is that Kamala Harris is being ushered to the nomination through a process that has remarkably small Democratic input from voters. She hasn't had to win a single vote, a single primary. She got a grand total of zero delegates in 2020 and zero in 2024, at least, if you go by state and territory primary election outcomes. So, I thought we were going to get this open convention process where they could have a mini primary or something truncated to actually gauge the will of the electorate. And in fact, Joe Biden was denouncing these insider maneuvers against him just in the past couple of weeks, he said that they would thwart the will of the primary voters. We're now even told that the DNC is going to have a virtual nomination, still a virtual roll call before the convention, basically negating the whole purpose of the convention, which they were going to do with Biden, now they're going to keep doing with Kamala so that nobody can even contest it, apparently, on the floor or the whole purpose of a convention has now been overturned. So, what do you make of it? I mean, does this satisfy your criticisms of how the primary process was conducted now that Kamala is just having the red carpet rolled out for her? 

 

Cenk Uygur: Well, let's start with a fun fact. I received more votes for president than Kamala Harris. 

 

M. Tracey: That’s a very fun fact. 

 

Cenk Uygur: Yeah. And not only am I just an online talk show host, but I'm a naturalized citizen. So, that's why I was only on seven ballots. That's a civil rights issue somebody should get back to someday. But that was, of course, not the primary reason that I ran. I ran, as I stated from the beginning, in almost every interview that I did, it was an act of desperation because I felt like we were all on board the Titanic and we all saw the iceberg. Or at least a lot of us saw the iceberg, apparently, and I was actually surprised later in the process to find out that blue MAGA existed and that they didn't see the iceberg at all until the debate. But I saw it. I know a bunch of people saw it, and I thought, well, it doesn't look like anybody's going to do anything about it. So, I'm just going to lunge into the captain's quarters and try to move the wheel, because otherwise we're toast and Donald Trump is going to win and God knows what happens to democracy, etc., etc.. But you know what? All the folks who decided to try to make a difference, whether it was like any strange bedfellows – I don't know anyone who criticizes Nancy Pelosi more than I do and so me and Nancy Pelosi on the same side, that is weird – and Ezra Klein and James Carville and David Axelrod and by the way, let's also note, Axelrod, top adviser to Barack Obama, James Carville, top adviser to the Clintons and no one got the memo. I'm like, it's the Obamas and the Clintons telling you there’s something wrong with Joe Biden, and you knuckleheads aren't getting it right. So, there are old fights, Michael, between progressives versus the establishment. And in this particular election, I sense I'm one of the few Democrats who actually think that democracy is on the line. It led to completely different coalitions, people who were perfectly happy to lose to Donald Trump and people who really, really didn't want to lose to Donald Trump. So, me, Carville, etc. were the ones who didn't want to lose to Donald Trump. Blue MAGA was like, who cares, as long as we obey Democratic leadership. That's what “Morning Joe” taught me, Oh, I had to bow my head, the top, value of the Democratic Party is obedience, right? I'm like, man, you guys have lost a thread. You completely forgot what the Democratic Party was supposed to be about. 

So, am I satisfied with the result? Well, I'm enormously satisfied that Joe Biden is out of the race, because we went from about a 0% chance of winning to about a 50% chance of winning. So hard to not be satisfied with that. What about the process of democracy? Was that fulfilled here? Of course, not, but, look, democracy has a number of issues in current day American politics and then I'm going to get to “Yes, but that's the best we can do.” Right? So, number one, come on, the donors control everything. We don't have a real democracy anyway, right? And I talked about this in my book, “Justice is Coming”. You know, a person in Northwestern did a 20-year study, 1800 policy issues. The bottom 90% of Americans have zero effect on public policy. Absolutely zero. Okay? The top 10% don't control everything, but when they want something, they get it 45% of the time. So, already is hilarious.

Reid Hoffman, today, gave $7 million to Kamala Harris and demanded that Lina Khan be fired. And guess what? She'll be fired. That's AIPAC. And when, you know, bought all of Congress, Netanyahu, notorious war criminal, one of the most evil men of my lifetime, getting standing ovation after standing ovation. So what? Democracy? 

Secondly, when you get into the primaries, the Democratic primaries are a joke and have been for a long time. Under the bullshit rubric of unity, notice they never have unity around progressives. There's never any unity other than corporate democratic leadership. So, and this was a sham primary, again, I know, because I was in it and, in Florida, they just canceled the election. North Carolina, Tennessee, they didn't just take me off. A lot of states took me off because of the naturalized citizen issue. That's a totally different thing. But they took Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson off of the balance in North Carolina and Tennessee. So, a joke of a primary, and I kept saying the whole time and mainstream media just didn't pay any attention because running against Joe Biden was a violation of etiquette. And so, I was a bad guy. I was a radical for wanting democracy. And I would say, if you're going to try to defend democracy in a general election, wouldn't it be nice if you had won in the primaries and people in mainstream media were like, how dare you bow your head to Joe Biden? He's the most young, dynamic guy that anybody's ever seen. 

But, Michael, at this point, that ship has sailed. So, then the next layer of it is, okay, I call for an open convention, as Ezra Klein did and others did. And that's obviously the last vestige we have of democracy at this point. And, at this point, Kamala Harris has gotten the majority of the pledged delegates. No one's even running against her. I mean, this Democratic Party, it's just incredibly frustrating. So, she's going to be the nominee. Let us at least go to the convention. No, no, they're lying about how Ohio this and we can't get on the ballots that. So, they're going to do a virtual roll call on August 7 and snuff out any delegates changing their mind before the convention because the DNC is authoritarian by nature, so they just can't help themselves. But with a straight face, they'll say they're wanting to protect democracy and these same guys who wanted to keep their job because Biden hired them were willing to totally risk democracy and have given Donald Trump about a 99% chance of winning. 

 

M. Tracey: So Cenk this was a letter that Joe Biden delivered to congressional Democrats on July 8. This is the same day that he had his infamous Defiance Morning Joe column. Here's what he wrote in that letter. And maybe I'm on my usual because I actually read the letter and I remember it. It was only a couple of weeks ago. I know everything. We just throw down the memory hole at warp speed nowadays.

AD_4nXcV274TzX4CUmAEes6Z8TdsC5J7_FepRfjbn5Hibrd3ewyCjpoEeeBK3BF7gCgB9TxtHPiWsChwzoZhOmSquOW7feBnIW98L3BAMmBLpUiGJM9LP2e3RxktRgorgag42kfUkiGwn6xHzBQo2BSnxv8RyzwHKjG_Xz6bYro4Qg?key=RYmctqW0yAzME3e7eAn-bg

AD_4nXe_o76QC9N41hmkRxAlnhOl1LwuB88MPWDEwZu8gWNx-sRIWIRFOJn20RZjSYsI2sLoPVm9Q2mEVCy_X5ve6DNXdzSWHwuNthvKMYocZPZBf3UGkJa9fJnVKPh_xyb7IgZ7mTYmFNEANsvqp7WVr5dW-xYD9K1xlisx3MQUjg?key=RYmctqW0yAzME3e7eAn-bg

But he says, “It was their decision to make. Not the press, not the pundits, not the big donors, not any selected group of individuals, no matter how well intentioned, the voters – and the voters alone – decide the nominee of the Democratic Party.” And this is the kicker: “How can we stand for democracy in our nation if we ignore it in our own party? I cannot do that. I will not do that.” 

So how are the Democrats, with a straight face going to start screaming, as they have incessantly forever. You apparently agree on the substance of this point; I might quibble a little bit, I think a lot of the rhetoric around democracy and Trump overturning it tends to be a bit histrionic and overblown, but that's like more of a substantive conflict we may have. But in terms of the consistency of the Democrats own messaging, Joe Biden himself is the one who said that it would be undermined if they allowed this insider putsch to go forward. So, are we just going to memory hold this letter? Is Joe Biden really now going to be so cast by the wayside that everybody supposed to forget? Ezra Klein, not Matthew Iglesias, Thomas Friedman, The Washington Post, Vox, name your Democratic aligned pundit or media outlet, are they all going to forget that? You know, two and a half weeks ago, Joe Biden said that if you go through with this ouster of me, it means that our own party, the Democratic Party, is thwarting democracy. I mean, I feel crazy. 

 

Cenk Uygur: Yeah. Look, Joe Biden wrote that same letter for the same reason that he said, You know what? I demand to have a primary in Florida. I can't believe they canceled that election. And I demand that all everybody be put back on the ballot in North Carolina and Tennessee during the primaries. And I demand that we do debates during the primaries so the candidates can be tested and that the voters get what they want – Oh, right. You didn't do any of that? No. He's monumentally full of crap. He loved that. The primary was totally authoritarian, totally rigged, to not only make sure that he was a candidate, but that he was protected and hidden in a basement and that he wouldn't have to actually run against any of us. I mean, look, they were hiding him from me, Marianne Williamson and Dean Phillips. They knew he was going to lose! If you can't beat us in an open debate or in an open and fair contest, of course you're going to get your ass handed to you even by a moron like Donald Trump. So, that letter is garbage. It's trash. He never meant a word of it. So, I don't really care about that letter just because I already know that Joe Biden's a hypocrite. But look, that goes to the point that I'm making. So, I'm one of the few people who actually believe it, because I think Donald Trump had fake electors and, and that's a real coup attempt against democracy. And he's a spoiled little brat, and he wanted to take his toy and go home when he lost. And so, he's a super dangerous guy to have in charge and just never believed in democracy. Praises dictators at every check. So, but I have proven that I'm not a hypocrite on that, that I actually believe in democracy all the way through the process. And I actually believe that he's a danger to democracy. That's why I did the desperate thing that I did, which helped a little bit in setting the party in the right direction. But everyone else who pretended this is the most important election of our lifetime and democracy was on the line. They're like, yeah, we don't mind losing as long as we're obeying Joe Biden. Those guys apparently never meant…

 

M. Tracey: So, let's delve into this notion that Donald Trump represents some profound threat to democracy. This couldn't be more standard rhetoric among Democratic partisans. And you say you believe it. I believe you that you were sincere in your contention on that and I will also acknowledge that you're consistent in matching your actions with your words, because you took the rather drastic steps you've been running yourself to try to make clear that you thought the threat was so severe that it compelled you to throw your own hat in the ring. So, I fully acknowledge that. But I don't know. Should we step back for a moment? Does Donald Trump throwing a hissy fit after the 2020 election and trying to come up with cockamamie theories as to how Mike Pence could potentially take a different set of electors than the one sent by the states, and that was denied by Pence, and then he, you know, he whips up a mob of yahoos who really had no ability or even seeming intention to overthrow the United States government, I mean, temporarily delaying a legislative proceeding on January 6, 2021 – never even had the ability or the possibility of in any way implementing a coup in the United States government. That's outlandish rhetoric to underscore the preexisting grievances that people have about Donald Trump. So, I agree – and people on the right get mad at me all the time because I don't buy into the election fraud stuff that I don't feel has ever been remotely empirically proven – but Donald Trump throwing a tantrum and then leaving power? And now running again. I mean, so let me ask you this. What would Trump do if he were to win this time that would actually sabotage democracy? Would he not obey the Constitution and leave power after a second term? Would he defy the 22nd amendment? I think that's the correct amendment. Like what tangibly would he do that would flush democracy down the toilet? That's what I'm not clear on, the specifics of what people are alleging when they make this argument. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
2
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Answering Your Questions About Tariffs

Many of you have been asking about the impact of Trump's tariffs, and Glenn addressed how we are covering the issue during our mail bag segment yesterday. As always, we are grateful for your thought-provoking questions! Thank you, and keep the questions coming!

00:11:10
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Breaks Down Trump's DOJ Speech on Fox News
00:04:52
In Case You Missed It: Glenn Discusses Mahmoud Khalil on Fox News
00:08:35
Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted

For years, U.S. officials and their media allies accused Russia, China and Iran of tyranny for demanding censorship as a condition for Big Tech access. Now, the U.S. is doing the same to TikTok. Listen below.

Listen to this Article: Reflecting New U.S. Control of TikTok's Censorship, Our Report Criticizing Zelensky Was Deleted
TONIGHT: Submit Your Questions for the Friday Mailbag!

We look forward to seeing what’s on your mind. Please feel free to submit more than one question.

August 14, 2025

Thank you Glen for your fearless voice on Gaza. My support and respect for you is ongoing.

16 hours ago

Why do you always have this negative obsession with Israel and why do you only have guests that support your distorted opinion. At least get guests that disagree with you like Ben Shapiro. Do you have the same opinion about the killing of Christians, Druse, and Gays in Islamic countries. There are a billion Muslims and a few million Jews in the world, and it take a Gay Jew to add fuel to the hatred of Israel. How sick is that.

post photo preview
Should Obama Admin Officials Be Prosecuted for Russiagate Lies? Major Escalations in Trump/Brazil Conflict
System Update #498

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

The Russiagate fraud is receiving all sorts of new attention and scrutiny thanks to documents first declassified and then released by Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. As we reported at length last week, these documents were quite incriminating for various Obama officials, such as former CIA Director James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, FBI Director Jim Comey and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, as they reveal what was a deliberate attempt to weaponize intelligence findings for purely partisan and political ends in 2016, namely, to manipulate the American electorate into voting for their former Obama administration colleague Hillary Clinton as president, and more importantly, defeating Donald Trump, and then repeatedly lying about it to Congress and the American people. 

Yesterday, it was reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi is not only investigating, which is kind of meaningless, but what's not meaningless is that she's also apparently empaneling a grand jury to investigate whether there was prosecutable criminality at the highest levels of the Obama administration. We'll examine that obviously important question. 

Then, we’ll examine what's driving all his complex escalation of Trump’s decision for 50% tariffs on Brazilian products and what's at stake, and the potential consequences for all sides. 

AD_4nXeM7_lvrgdg_5Q9HFyUAtiZmWcpNFbv5Y5SlIIi4PzkGFrNyl7a32vxRkND5L9ugAgbJXX9MBL9c3Yac2CNxE5Xv4dDiigLQUx75j4d5gokXZt3PW088MjMKVwVxIcV9pI2Cu4hXz-IRwukRmzz5bU?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

AD_4nXcMLHddBcYrOQkGBrftza6Qmzy1fTdJQYf__iGj6ghLK6A5bXi0gHsAdFB4QQg9QIS86OS8NB9osGCnH9eBJ-eq249C6MDSOU7yW1FeA7Fc3dHzrytPwkzWr928FUUPA3BRlx4Q2CPAJI7vGYnjUtg?key=PiLZZVDB8mI7afwDZI6o3g

I believe it's been obvious, pretty much from the very beginning of the Russiagate hoax, the Russiagate fraud, which I'll remind you, again, was driven by the core conspiracy claim that the Trump campaign officials collaborated and colluded and conspired with the Kremlin to hack into the DNC email server as well as John Podesta's email and disseminate those emails to WikiLeaks and by the broader conspiracy theory that Trump was being blackmailed by Vladimir Putin with sexual material, compromising financial information, personal blackmail as well, and that therefore the Kremlin was basically, once Trump got elected running the country, was a completely unhinged and deranged conspiracy theory from the start for which there was no evidence. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump Admin Unleashes More Policies That Prioritize Israel Over American Citizens; The Smear Campaign Against Gaza Aid Whistleblower with Journalist Mel Witte
System Update #497

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it in podcast form on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast provider.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXfb6_8u1Lpq1OnbUDY01-uKWOMTGYJr_VpZMwCTb2IniIqJxHTDhet_15t7Rqbxygnw3T8WFswmonhZm8gOvAMEOfIgdgNwYWk7wn8lW2g-pqcGYMzY4I-YMCwjT4_0_UvrAYj-Fai4K0F4nRBO8Q?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

That the U.S. government and multiple state governments are devoutly loyal to Israel is hardly a secret. Anyone who pays even minimal attention to American politics knows that. The Trump administration has severely escalated this framework. The administration does not just send billions of dollars and massive amounts of arms to Israel, but they go much further: they have been routinely punishing American citizens and jeopardizing American interests to serve and protect Israeli interests. 

Our guest is Melissa Witte. Last week, I praised her work and independent journalism. Mel Witte is a strong believer in the America First ideology that was sold by Donald Trump, whose candidacy and MAGA movement she has supported. But unlike many, if not most, Trump supporters, she actually took seriously the core promises of America First, and she has been scathing in her denunciation of the Trump administration for deviating so brazenly from them, but also quite relentless and meticulous and detail-oriented and evidence-based in her reporting on all of these matters. We have wanted her on our show for some time and she is our guest for this show. 

AD_4nXfb6_8u1Lpq1OnbUDY01-uKWOMTGYJr_VpZMwCTb2IniIqJxHTDhet_15t7Rqbxygnw3T8WFswmonhZm8gOvAMEOfIgdgNwYWk7wn8lW2g-pqcGYMzY4I-YMCwjT4_0_UvrAYj-Fai4K0F4nRBO8Q?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

Foto editada de homem de terno e gravataO conteúdo gerado por IA pode estar incorreto.

I don't think people realize how many policies there are already in place in the United States that punish American citizens and deprive American citizens of certain benefits and certain rights if they'd refuse to either sign a loyalty oath to Israel, where they agree never to boycott the state of Israel, even though they're allowed to boycott every other country on the planet, even other American states, you just can't boycott Israel. 

There are also many programs that will dismantle crucial programs beneficial to American interests in order to shield Israel from criticism or to claim that, by allowing protest against Israel, an institution is being antisemitic. And it doesn't matter how valuable these programs are, if they're associated with an institution that Israel supporters dislike for having allowed some protests against Israel, they will dismantle and defund the program. Let's start with the second policy that happened on Friday night as an example, just to illustrate how extreme this has become. 

Here's Paul Graham, a very successful investor in Silicon Valley, who has been very supportive of Republican and conservative policies, but also quite outspoken about the Trump administration's financing of Israel. On August 3, 2025, he said this:

AD_4nXd1KxbYwNTldwdVTbxmNs7o6aXiCSWEnfwaYH1L594H51aluoFUZfDOfLGeb3nxVxQShRi2zuz89da_TuPJMaIoHzLtg-i8x7GAQKp1eSzJJA5YEKYZJie0vIfLAXn9Waq9jiaJOXl6FU2_aBUWRp4?key=BwcFiBmu5qlNx-80kubn7Q

 Terrence Tao is probably the most important and accomplished mathematician on the planet. Maybe there are two or three people who compete with him. He's an Australian American citizen. He works inside the United States, on research programs funded by the U.S. government, which the government funds because applied mathematics is one of the most crucial fields to all sorts of programs that the United States needs to compete with China, from AI and cryptography to detecting financial fraud or managing financial transactions. 

The Allies were able to break Nazi codes using cryptography because of mathematicians during World War II. That's the equivalent of who this person is and what this program does. Yet, the Trump administration just announced that they're defunding it, not because they say that it's wasteful or that it's not producing benefits. And it's no part of some broader attempt to defund research programs at universities. The Trump administration is funding all sorts of research. Instituting programs at universities is something the U.S. government has always done for its own benefit. 

The only programs they're defunding are ones that they claim are attached to institutions like UCLA, which they claimed are antisemitic. They claim that about Harvard, filled with Jewish students and Jewish administrators, five of the last seven presidents of Harvard are Jewish, yet somehow the Trump administration decided that's an antisemitic institution because they allowed protests against Israel. Same with UCLA. Anyone who knows UCLA knows how robustly represented Jewish students and Jewish faculty members are. 

Read here what Terence Tao said on his social media account about why this was done. This was on August 1. 

 Again, this is so ironic. The conservative movement spent a full decade mocking claims of racism, mocking claims that people on college campuses need anti-discrimination protection, then the Trump administration gets in and makes it one of their very top priorities to declare that there's a racism epidemic in the United States, but only against one group. There's only one genuinely marginalized, true victim group in the United States, and that's American Jews and the Trump administration has been doing everything, no matter how much it harms American citizens or American interests, to purge the world of this one form of bigotry that it claims has pervaded all American institutions. And it will sacrifice anything to do so. This is not new. This is just how extreme these things can get in the framework of American politics. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
Stephen Miller's False Denials About Trump's Campus "Hate Speech" Codes; Sohrab Ahmari on the MAGA Splits Over Antitrust, Foreign Wars, and More
System Update #495

The following is an abridged transcript from System Update’s most recent episode. You can watch the full episode on Rumble or listen to it as a podcast on Apple, Spotify, or any other major podcast platform.  

System Update is an independent show free to all viewers and listeners, but that wouldn’t be possible without our loyal supporters. To keep the show free for everyone, please consider joining our Locals, where we host our members-only aftershow, publish exclusive articles, release these transcripts, and so much more!

AD_4nXcVfmDdHrQ-Zpha3--J66DT8UosaZB6QyVMRKKiDc8Pc2H964SPdSLx9gna_y2ysGMem-Xi15VbLqaGVV7Maed8gr8ZLSxbMYn8cSuV6G0zDRkpROzpYBVRwH_J8C9Vc2jmBXiAk1Raeq68gE03_xk?key=VHGDu0SWVvqcMVQQb5VmgQ

One of President Trump's most powerful advisers, Stephen Miller, last night claimed that I had posted what he called "patently false" statements about the Trump administration’s policy. Specifically, earlier in the day, I had pointed out – and documented, as I've done many times – that the Trump administration has implemented a radically expanded "hate speech" code that outlawed a wide range of opinions about Israel and Jewish individuals and, even worse, that they have been pressuring American universities to adopt this expanded "hate speech" code on campuses to restrict the free speech rights, not of foreign students, but of American professors, American administrators and American students. It's a direct attack on the free speech rights of Americans on college campuses. 

I also pointed out – as I have covered here many times – that the Trump administration has also adopted a policy of deporting law-abiding citizens, not for criticizing the United States, but for criticizing Israel. All of my claims here are demonstrably and indisputably true. Yet after I pointed them out yesterday, and various MAGA influencers began responding to them and promoting them, White House officials began contacting them to convince them that my claims weren't true. When that didn't work because I was able to provide the evidence, the White House late last night dispatched one of its most popular officials – Stephen Miller – to label my claims “patently false." 

The policies in question, adopted by the Trump administration, especially these attacks on free speech on American college campuses through hate speech codes, are of great importance, precisely, since they do attack the free speech rights of Americans at our universities, and the actual truth of what the Trump administration should be demonstrated. So that's exactly what we're going to do tonight. 

Then: The emergence of Donald Trump and his MAGA ideology in the Republican Party led to the opening of all sorts of new ideas and policies previously anathema in that party. All of that, in turn, led to vibrant debates and competing views within the Trump coalition, as well as to all new voices and perspectives. One of the most interesting thinkers to emerge from that clash is our guest tonight: he's Sohrab Ahmari, one of the founders of Compact Magazine and now the U.S. editor for the online journal UnHerd. We’ll talk about all of that, as well as other MAGA divisions becoming increasingly more visible on economic populism generally, war and foreign policy, and much more. 

AD_4nXcVfmDdHrQ-Zpha3--J66DT8UosaZB6QyVMRKKiDc8Pc2H964SPdSLx9gna_y2ysGMem-Xi15VbLqaGVV7Maed8gr8ZLSxbMYn8cSuV6G0zDRkpROzpYBVRwH_J8C9Vc2jmBXiAk1Raeq68gE03_xk?key=VHGDu0SWVvqcMVQQb5VmgQ

Sometimes, government policy is carried out with very flamboyant and melodramatic announcements that everyone can listen to and understand, but more often it's carried out through a series of documents, very lengthy documents, sometimes legal documents, that have a great deal of complexity to them. 

Oftentimes, when that happens, the government, if it has a policy or is pursuing things that are unpopular, especially among its own voters, can just try to confuse things by claiming that people's descriptions of what they're doing are untrue and false and trying to just confuse people with a bunch of irrelevances or false claims. A lot of people don't know what to make of it. They just throw up their hands because most people don't have the time to sort through all that. Especially if you're a supporter of a political movement and you hear that they're pursuing a policy that you just think is so anathema to their ideology that you don't want to believe that they're doing, you're happy to hear from the government when they say, “Oh, that's a lie. Don't listen to the persons or the people saying that. That's not actually what we're doing.”

Yet when that happens, I think it's very incumbent upon everybody who wants to know what their government is doing to actually understand the truth. And that is what happened last night. 

I've been reporting for several months now on the Trump administration's systematic efforts to force American universities to adopt expanded hate speech codes. Remember, for so long, conservatives hated hate speech codes on college campuses. They condemned it as censorship. They said it's designed to suppress ideas. 

Oftentimes, those hate speech codes were justified on the grounds that it's necessary to protect minority groups or that those ideas are hateful and incite violence. And all of this, we were told by most conservatives that I know, I think, in probably a consensus close to unanimity, we were told that this is just repressive behavior, that faculty and students on campus should have the freedom to express whatever views they want. If they're controversial, if they are offensive, if they are just disliked by others, the solution is not to ban those ideas or punish those people, but to allow open debate to flourish and people to hear those ideas. 

That is a critique I vehemently agree with. And I've long sided with conservatives on this censorship debate as it has formed over the last, say, six, seven, eight years when it comes to online discourse, when it comes to campus discourse, free speech is something that is not just a constitutional guarantee and according to the Declaration of Independence, a right guaranteed by God, but it is also central to the American ethos of how we think debate should unfold. We don't trust the central authority to dictate what ideas are prohibited and which ones aren't. Instead, we believe in the free flow of ideas and the ability of adults to listen and make up their own minds. 

That's the opposite of what the Trump administration has now been doing. What they said they believed in, Donald Trump, in his inauguration and other times, was that he wanted to restore free speech. Early on in the administration, JD Vance went to Europe and chided them for having long lists of prohibited ideas for which their citizens are punished if they express those views. And the reality is that's exactly what the Trump administration has been doing. 

I want to make clear I'm not talking here about the controversies over deporting foreign students for criticizing Israel. That's a separate issue, which is part of this discussion, but that's totally ancillary and secondary. I've covered that many times. That is not what I'm discussing. 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals