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!

President Trump fired his National Security Advisor earlier today, Mike Waltz, from his key position in the West Wing, and instead relegated him to a largely ceremonious and meaningless position, far removed from the West Wing in New York City, where he will be the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. There's no doubt that what we now call Signalgate contributed to this firing – that was when Waltz accidentally added the vehement anti-Trump journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, to his Signal group to plan a bombing campaign on Yemen – but there are also likely ideological and substantive factors driving this demotion. 

All of this comes at a very critical time in American foreign policy: the U.S. is heavily bombing Yemen, Trump is trying to facilitate an end to the Russian/Ukraine war, and Israel and its supporters in the United States are pressuring the U.S. to bomb and attack Iran. Beyond that, Trump today announced that his long-sought-after minerals deal with Ukraine has been signed, but will it, as Trump promised, create a whole new security and military commitment for the United States to protect Ukraine? If that's what we're doing, why not just put them into NATO? 

Then: the conservative culture warrior Matt Walsh of The Daily Wire went on Tucker Carlson's show this week – and for whatever reason – they decided to spend the first 10 minutes or more of their conversation talking about whether same-sex couples should be able to adopt children. Walsh, and perhaps Carlson (though it wasn't totally clear), seemed to agree that adoption by same-sex couples is an abomination that must be banished. Much of this is just re-hashed right from a culture war debate that the country has already long ago resolved in favor of same-sex couples. But one argument that Walsh made is worth some attention: it concerned the millions of children worldwide and the tens of thousands in the U.S. who are lingering in orphanages, shelters and foster care systems either because their biological parents died, abandoned them, or were simply unfit to raise them, often for drug and alcohol issues or abuse issues or molestation or other reasons. 

And Walsh actually said, when Carlson asked, that it's preferable to leave such kids where they are in those shelter–orphanages and foster cares, with no parents, no family, few chances of ever being adopted, and expelled onto the street when they turn 18 with essentially no skills or support. It's better to leave them there, he said, than it is to have them adopted by stable, loving, same-sex parents. Walsh said, in fact, that it's far worse for kids to be in such homes where gay people lurk than to linger in foster care or shelters, and that studies, which he did not name, prove his argument. 

I know there is some support for this view because when I noted it on social media earlier today, a lot of people rose in support of Matt Walsh's view. It is true that it's a marginal view. All 50 states in the United States have abolished their ban on same-sex adoption. But I do think that his argument, given the platform where he made it and the adamancy and vehemence of his claims, is worth examining. 

Earlier today, the embattled National Security Advisor of Donald Trump, Mike Waltz, was fired or is about to be fired from his position as National Security Adviser, which is essentially the key position when it comes to foreign policy. You're the one who's in the president's ear every day on foreign policy, you're his top advisor when it comes to foreign policy, you are in the West Wing right next to the Oval Office speaking to the president multiple times a day, you obviously build a great amount of influence. They put a national security expert, someone they think is a national security expert, in that role, whose advice and counsel they want to use on a daily basis. 

Although Waltz wasn't fired outright from the Trump administration, he was fired from his position as National Security Advisor and given a gigantic demotion where he's moving from Washington to New York City, where he'll essentially occupy the very ceremonial position of U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. 

This is a position that Nikki Haley, another neocon like Mike Waltz, held in the first Trump administration, you really don't do anything in that position other than raise your hand when the State Department tells you to and veto what the State Department tells you to and approve what the state department tells you. You've got a lot of parties in New York. I mean, it's actually a nice, comfortable, sort of gig, but it's not a very important one, to put that mildly. 

And so, maybe you can't technically call it a firing because Waltz is tactically working for the Trump administration, but, in terms of his influence, that has come to an end. 

Just to be clear, this circulated in many media outlets earlier today, it was presented as Mike Waltz was fired as a National Security Advisor or removed as a National Security Advisor. Then it was made official by Trump's announcement on his social media platform, Truth Social, where he said this:

When I was a lawyer, I used to write very aggressive and mean, insulting, condescending articles and then, I loved, at the end, saying, “Thank you for your attention to this matter” and then just sign my name like “Cordially, Glenn Greenwald." Trump has obviously become an admirer of that phraseology as well. He's constantly now making these big, bombastic statements. Threatening Iran, he'll say, “Iran, you better stop this immediately, you know what the consequences are for you, we can destroy your country. It'll be like, thank you for your attention to this matter.” 

So, anyway, that's Trump drawing attention to this matter by announcing with very nice, generous language that Mike Waltz has been severely demoted. 

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!

Our esteemed host, Glenn Greenwald, is out today. So, I'll be guiding you through the show. My name is Lee Fang. I'm an independent journalist based in San Francisco. 

Yesterday marked the hundredth day of President Donald Trump's second term in office. Like many Americans, I tried to keep an open mind for all his very well-established faults, Trump has forged a very new political identity for the Republican Party. One that has drifted away from deference to the business elite and more towards populist economics. 

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to protect entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Trump and Vance declared last summer at the RNC that multinational corporations would no longer take precedence over the interests of average Americans. 

On foreign policy, Trump bristled at the established order and signaled a strong interest in ending America's forever wars, especially the bloody conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Trump promised peace on day one of his administration in Europe. 

For a moment after the election, he also seemed committed to negotiating peace in Gaza. His envoy for the region, Steve Witkoff, temporarily delivered a cease-fire, a momentary end to the Israeli military's bloodshed in the confined territory, and a release of hostages and prisoners on both sides of the conflict. 

There were other glimmers of positive reform. Trump and DOGE promised to clear out the many bloated government contractors like Booz Allen and McKinsey, and Trump promised to end discriminatory DEI programs. Meanwhile, he announced a new golden era for free speech after years of suppressed speech from pandemic policies to stifling cancel culture, there was hope for a new embrace of free expression from this White House. 

But the last 100 days, with some exceptions, have exemplified failure after failure, a series of false promises, lies, and mismanagement. Worst of all, the administration has lurched towards some of the most brazen forms of corruption and authoritarianism in modern American history. 

Rather than cracking down on corporate power, we see tariff exemptions and mass pardons for corporate crime handed to Silicon Valley, Wall Street and for major Trump donors. 

Rather than an era of free speech, we see a ruthless crackdown on campus expression, unconstitutional arrests of students for criticizing Israel and new speech codes that safeguard the country of Israel. 

Rather than a break from the corruption of Hunter Biden, we see new era of graft and influence peddling, especially the self-enrichment of the Trump family using cryptocurrency. 

Rather than the moment of peace, we have so far seen the resumption of Israel's war in Gaza and no end in sight to the brutal conflict in Ukraine. 

Rather than an end to the weaponization of government, we see partisan weaponization of the government on an industrial scale. 

On this episode of System Update, we'll bring on Leighton Woodhouse, a writer on Substack, to further discuss Trump's 100 days. We'll also discuss the latest clampdown on speech related to Israel with Lara Friedman, an advocate who promotes peace in the region. 

My guest today is Leighton Woodhouse. Leighton is an Oakland, California-based writer, former union organizer. We often do a weekly kind of recap of the news in politics and other kinds of cultural and political issues on our Substacks and we host a podcast together. Since we are kind of hijacking Glenn's show, I think it makes sense to do a 100-day recap rather than just a weekly recap of the administration.  

Lee Fang: Leighton, how's it going? 

Leighton Woodhouse: Hi Lee.

Lee Fang: Just yesterday was the 100-day mark of the Trump administration. It's worth kind of just for giving an overview for listeners to the show who might not be audience members of our podcast. I think we have some different views, but we kind of share some concerns in the Venn diagram of people who were associated with the progressive left, who were very badly burned and had a lot of concerns around the last four or five years, around the pandemic, around censorship, around suppression of free speech, around some of the public safety issues that the left kind of ignored. 

I mean, you live in Oakland, where it's much worse, but in San Francisco, we've had such incredible problems around kind of de-policing and, out of this kind of left-wing outburst in 2020, a lot of harmful policies that have disproportionately affected working-class people. 

So, I've had kind of guarded optimism about the Trump administration. I was hoping for a clean break around some of these issues around speech, around public safety, around some of the illiberalism from the left, DEI and other concerns. In some ways, in the first few weeks of the administration, I think there were many glimmers of hope, but it seems to have taken a pretty dark turn. I think for folks who are feeling very politically homeless over the last couple of years, we're even maybe more homeless, or maybe being pushed back into the left. How do you feel? 

Leighton Woodhouse: I feel like we've been consistent actually, because if our reservations with the left back in, say, the period of 2015 to 2024 or so, was its creeping authoritarianism, the way in which dissent was squelched through cancel culture, orthodoxy was enforced, that kind of thing, this is just a continuation of that, with a different political valence. 

When I say continuation of that, I mean it's the exact same playbook, specifically around antisemitism and in creating safe spaces on campuses. This is identical to what we saw under the left and so, I think that if you were concerned about that with the left and you're not concerned about it now, then you are inconsistent, possibly hypocritical and partisan in your outlook. 

The principal position I think is to be opposed to this kind of authoritarianism, whether it comes from the right or the left and I just see it as a repeat. It's just a fun house mirror of what happened with the left. 

Lee Fang: You were told, we were told, everyone was told, if you didn't agree with some of the extreme policies of the left over the last couple of years, shut up, you're a racist. You shut up, you’re a bigot. And now it's, if you don't get onto the agenda of the Trump administration on Israel, you're an anti-Semite unless you agree with us, and we're going to put you in a cage. We accuse you of that even if there's no evidence of wrongdoing. 

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!

Last night, Canada held a nationwide election and elected their members of Parliament, who, in turn, selected their prime minister. For a long time now, it seemed basically inevitable that the conservatives under the leadership of Pierre Poilievre would finally oust the liberals from power. And yet, last night, Poilievre not only lost the election and won't become, obviously, the prime minister, as he expected to, as everyone expected to, but he also lost the seat that he's held in Parliament for the last 20 years. We'll talk about the factors that led to this, to the extent that Canadian experts are talking about that and what we've been observing for a long time. We'll also have some rapid-fire coverage of a couple of other topics that I wanted to cover. 

Last week, three professors, Eli Meyerhoff, Emily Schneider, and Brooke Lober, wrote for a very prestigious blog that is used by a lot of scholars and professors, the Academe Blog, a rebuke against the narrative that the government and the media are using, that antisemitism is rampant on college campuses. Two of them will join us tonight to discuss their concerns. 

In one sense, the results of last night's federal election in Canada were not really shocking because over the past six to eight weeks, polls showed that the Conservative Party had essentially lost the massive lead that it held for a year or so that has made everyone assume that their victory, their takeover of Parliament, and their installation of the leader of the Conservative Party, Pierre Poilievre, was inevitable. So, the fact that liberals ended up winning the election and their current incumbent prime minister, who became prime minister when Justin Trudeau resigned, Mark Carney, is not unexpected. The betting market said it was something like an 80% to 90% chance that the liberals would win. But it is shocking when you compare it to the trajectory over the last year or even 18 months, where there has been a complete collapse in support for the Conservative Party and a shift in support to the Liberal Party. 

By votes, this was far from a landslide. I think the vote was 43% of the electorate for the Liberal Party, 41% for the Conservatives, but that's not the real way that elections are determined. The way elections are determined is by who wins how many seats in Parliament and becomes the majority party, then the leader of that party ends up as prime minister. There, the margin was, again, not a blowout but still more significant. 

Here's from Canada's Globe and Mail reporting on the election this morning: “[…] the race against the Conservatives was much tighter than polls predicted. […] The Liberals had a slim lead in the popular vote at 43.2 per cent to the Conservatives’ 41.7.” The article goes on: “The Liberal government is committed to free trade within the country by Canada Day, he said. “This is Canada, and we decide what happens here.”  (The Globe and Mail. April 29, 2025.)

So, you see, even in that rhetoric there, that Donald Trump's talking about Canada as becoming the 51st state, referring to Justin Trudeau as Governor Trudeau, imposing tariffs, repeatedly saying he's not kidding when he says Canada should integrate into the United States, that had a big effect on the Canadian populace. In fact, it is manifested in many ways: at their national hockey league games where Canadian and American teams play, it's true in baseball as well, we saw Canadians booing the U.S. national anthem; many Canadians have refused to vacation in the United States or come to the United States as they did. This is a nationalistic surge saying, “How dare you, the United States, for trying to control our politics and country, talk about us like we're not even a sovereign country.” And that created a lot of backlash. 

Needless to say, if the conservatives want to find a way to get him back into Parliament, they'll be able to, probably. But as we've seen with Kamala Harris and in many other elections, when you lead a party in an election where they believe you have a chance to win and you end up losing, and then on top of that suffer the humiliation of losing your own district that you've held for 20 years, it's very difficult to recover from that as a viable leader that people are willing to get behind and believe that one day you'll lead them to victory. 

It's such a remarkable turnaround because, as I said, the conservatives were way ahead of the Liberal Party for so long. It really only started to change when Donald Trump came in and started talking about Canada. I mean, that's the reality. You talk to any Canadian, and they will tell you that by far the biggest factor in the Canadian election was Donald Trump. Once Mark Carney assumed the prime ministership, it was almost reversed. The liberals ended up with a huge advantage. That's why the betting markets were saying 80% to 90% that they would win. 

They've been shrinking over the last couple of months or couple of weeks, tightening up because people in Canada are really dissatisfied with the liberal leadership, with the economy, with the cost of living, many of the grievances and resentments towards status quo parties that people all over the democratic world are expressing. It would have been easily sufficient to drive the conservatives into power had it not been for the fact that they had this nationalistic backlash. 

And for a long time, Poilievre was very pro-Trump, the MAGA movement loved him and he was perceived as part of this right-wing populist movement of which Trump was a member. The anti-Trump sentiment in Congress became so strong in Canada, so strong, that Poilievre started vehemently denouncing Donald Trump, attacking Donald Trump. A lot of conservatives in Canada think that's why he lost, this attacking to the center, or the separation from Trump. 

But whatever it is, you can just trace the clear trajectory of the collapse of the Conservative Party's support, the loss of their lead with Donald Trump and, especially, his repeated denunciations of and focus on Canada and its government. 

So, again, I'm not saying it's the only factor, but I've talked to a lot of Canadians over the past week and today, and I haven't found one who minimizes the impact that Trump had. That's just the reality of what it is. Not even a criticism of Trump, it's just kind of a reality that you can see why this backlash against Trump would happen and how that could manifest as much greater negativity toward the candidate who had been posturing as and modeling himself after a MAGA, but Canada First, right-wing populist. Very much of the style of Trump demeaning the media, showing contempt for them, for institutions in general, looked to be a path for victory until all of this stuff with Trump happened. We'll have some Canadian analysts on over the next week or so to break that down more carefully. But like I said, I've been talking to a lot of people following this election very closely and you won't find anybody who denies that's a major role. 

All right. Also, this week, the Democrats were constantly being told by their base that they're not doing enough to oppose Trump, that led Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey to engage in this utterly vacant and pointless stunt where he gave a filibuster for 18 hours, broke the record, I think, held by Strom Thurmond previously. Congratulations to Senator Booker. Actually, 25 hours. Sorry, Sen. Booker, for minimizing the greatness of your act, but Democrats decided to follow up that inspiring and stirring protest with a different one where they decided all to sit together on the steps of Congress while Congress was in session to sing and speak and not really sure what the whole purpose was, but here's a clip from it. 

Video. Democratic Leadership, Capitol Steps, Fox News. April 28, 2025.

So, you see, there was unbelievable music, entertainment and inspiring political songs there. There you see Cory Booker to the left and Hakeem Jeffries to the right, the House Minority Leader for the Democratic Party. They sat there for hours. And then Cory Booker went on to X to celebrate this remarkable act of resistance that was going to make all the difference. 

And he said:

Now, if you're somebody who does want to see Trump's agenda impeded and the Democrats emerge victorious in the next election, or even find a way to gain more political power before the next midterm, I would suggest this is not something you should be particularly excited by, it's unbelievably performative and self-promoting and who cares? Who cares?