Support for the show comes from David Protein. Who doesn't enjoy a protein bar after a good workout? Here's a tip, David Protein Bars. All David Protein Bars are designed to maximize protein while minimizing calories, and they say that their bars deliver the highest protein per calorie ratio of any leading bar on the market. Their David Gold Bar, for instance, delivers 75% calories from protein, and the David Bronze Bar delivers 53% calories from protein. Head to davidprotein.com slash propg where they're offering a special deal for our listeners is buy four cartons and get your fifth free. You can also use their store locator to find David in stores at a retailer near you. Hey, thanks for listening to Raging Moderates here on the Prof G feed. This is just a preview of today's episode and soon we'll be leaving this feed entirely. To get the full episode, you'll want to subscribe to the Raging Moderates feed on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen. Subscribe on YouTube or check us out on Substack if you want it ad-free. All right, here's a preview of today's show. Welcome to Raging Moderates. I'm Scott Galloway. And I'm Jessica Tarlov. Today we're joined by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. He's served in the Senate since 2011 and currently chairs the Homeland Security Committee, where he's backed much of President Trump's agenda in the second term. He hasn't hesitated also to speak out when he disagrees. Senator, thanks so much for being here. Glad to be with you. Thanks for having me. If you aren't already, please make sure to subscribe to our YouTube page to stay up to date on all news politics. All right, let's get into it. In the wake of the attempted assassination of the White House, correspondents didn't, or many Republicans, including the president, are blaming Democrats, accusing them of fueling political violence with inflammatory rhetoric. It's a familiar pattern, caused to cool things down, followed by a shift of blame. At the same time, congressional Republicans are pushing to fast track a proposed White House ballroom, arguing it's needed for security. But there's a split over how to pay for it. Three Republican senators introduced a bill to allocate $400 million in federal funding, saying it shouldn't rely on private donors, while others in the party disagree. Here's Trump discussing it on 60 Minutes. I'm building a safe ballroom, and one of the reasons I'm building it is exactly what happened last night. We're building a room right there. If you walk out and move 20 yards to the left, you'll be right at the entrance to the ballroom, and that ballroom's being built on the safest piece of property in this country, probably one of the safest pieces of land in the world. Senator Paul, you're one of the Republicans proposing this legislation to move it forward. Why do you feel strongly this is the right move to the country? Your thoughts? You know, I'm on a commission. There's a special commission, and there are two people, one from the House and one from the Senate, on the building commission to approve products like this. So we've studied this issue. We voted on it I think the vote was 8 to 1 in favor of allowing the building to go ahead In this instance there aren appropriations necessary Now some of the other people are proposing $400 million. I propose to allow it to go forward, but to let the president spend the money that they've collected privately. In the past, presidents have been given this freedom to redesign the White House, but typically it went through the appropriations process. So there was some congressional imprimatur on this because they had to vote to spend the money. This time is a little different in the sense that the president says he's collected the money to do this. So I have a bill that would allow this to move forward. It was precipitated somewhat by the, both the opposition in court by people trying to stop it, but also in response to the attempted assassination as well. I think it is difficult to protect the president. In all likelihood, There will be social events that will be able to be held there that haven't in the past. Won't be as big as the Washington Hilton. But I think there will be some events that will be able to be held on the White House grounds that otherwise would have required removing the president. And so I think it's a reasonable request. You know, I understand your point in saying he's already collected the money, which is what they told us. And now they seem to want government money for it. And Lindsey Graham is enthusiastic about that. But there are also questions, as there are with everything that's gone on in the Trump administration, of, you know, who is giving him this money and what they might be getting in return. Are you concerned about a potential, you know, grifting component or back channel favors that the president is getting in return for support for something like a ballroom? You know, I think if those concerns are valid, we'd have to have some laws in place to stop it. I don't know that we have any laws in place. You know, this same argument occurs every few years about presidential libraries with all the money that gets involved with that. So I understand the questions, and I think they're reasonable questions. I don't know that we have any laws in place or have any laws proposed where people say, well, you can't take private money. You could also argue that private money is, you know, less tainted in a way. It's coming from people voluntarily giving their own money. So I think that if there's evidence of any quid pro quo people giving money and getting something, that would actually be illegal. You know, it's not—it is definitely—there are laws against actually giving money to somebody in office and then getting something in return. So if you connect the two, that would already be illegal. Yeah, well, hopefully we can find out where this money is coming from if they're going to use it. And then I just kind of have a general question because I know that, you know, you've pushed back on the Trump administration before. You voted against a big beautiful bill for instance you know and I understand the security concerns for the president after what happened at the White House Correspondents Dinner But are you concerned that this is the conversation that we having when gas just hit a gallon Farm bankruptcies are record high. Food and groceries all costing people too much. And over 70 percent of Americans say that Trump and the Republicans aren't focused on what actually matters in their lives. Well, I would agree that affordability, price in the grocery store, price in the gas pump are really some of the most important things that people come up to me. I mean, people are telling me they're not filling up their entire tank. They're filling up a half a tank, a quarter of a tank because they can't afford a whole tank. So, yeah, these are pressing concerns of the public. It's why I've opposed the war. It's one of the reasons I've opposed the war in Iran. also because I think that the biggest national security risk we face is our debt and that the further we go into debt, the more we are at risk. I really think that our greatest challenge and our greatest threat is from within, not from without. I think defending our currency, affording our government, all of the costs that we have domestically, I think really argue against getting more involved in international conflict, particularly if it's a war of choice. This war is not my choice. So just we'll circle back to the war. Want to switch gears for a second. Jimmy Kimmel is facing backlash from the Trump camp after a controversial joke about First Lady Melania Trump aired just days before the White House Correspondents' dinner shooting. Now Melania is demanding action from ABC. Trump says Kimmel should be fired. FCC is now moving towards a review of ABC's broadcast license. Let's watch Kimmel responding last night. Five nights ago, it was a pretend roast. I said, our First Lady Melania is here. Look at her so beautiful. Mrs. Trump, you have a glow like an expectant widow, which obviously was a joke about their age difference and the look of joy we see on her face every time they're together. It was a very light roast joke about the fact that he's almost 80 and she's younger than I am. It was not, by any stretch of the definition, a call to assassination. And they know that. I've been very vocal for many years speaking out against gun violence in particular. Senator, do you think Kim will cross the line here? And if so, what would you say to the people who believe that the president crosses the line regularly with much more incendiary content about his political opponents? Thoughts? Well, I think there are two separate questions here. You know, whether or not he crossed the line and whether or not you condemn what he said is one thing. and whether or not the government should have any role in preventing him from saying it is a completely another discussion. I don't believe the First Amendment should prevent almost all speech I think almost all speech is protected If you you know are making a joke about someone dying I think it in terribly bad taste And so I would condemn it as being in bad taste but I wouldn involve the FCC or threaten somebody with having their job removed by anyone in government So you're against the FCC going after trying to revoke ABC's license? Without question, I'm against the FCC being involved in limitations on speech. The only real limitations are they have to be very, very specific because the court has really limited this as far as inciting people to actually do something. It has to be a very specific case. And this was true even when many on the left were wanting to, you know, prosecute Trump for saying, go fight, win, you know, carry your message down to the Capitol. That, you know, no court would say that that is any kind of imminent threat to violence. And so I think that the left needs to be aware that they were equally as guilty of trying to restrict speech. And I think we have to sort of look at the First Amendment without partisanship. You can dislike what Trump says. You can criticize it. But there's no argument for the government shutting down Trump's speech. So given your reverence for the First Amendment, do you believe that Director Patel's case against the Atlantic is also misguided? Yeah, I don't know a lot about it, but in all likelihood, yes. I'm not really for the government suing people to shut down speech. I think that there are some exceptions to it. One is on the imminence of violence. I also don't think you can accuse people of crimes, defame their character. So, you know, if you say someone is a pedophile, pedophile is not only really a serious crime, it would be incredibly damaging to anyone's reputation. Or if you accuse someone of being involved in sexual trafficking or anything, I think that is defamatory, and I don't know if that had anything to do with this case, but I'm just saying if you do accuse people of a crime, I think that defamatory stuff should be either taken down by whoever's hosting it or there should be ramifications for hosting defamatory material. So I apologize, but I have to ask, do you think accusing someone of treason or saying they should be brought up on treason charges as Trump has accused or said about Adam Schiff, do you think that crosses the line? Well, these are real questions. Before we go, a reminder that Raging Moderates is on Substack. Subscribers get ad-free episodes, which everybody loves, a place to connect with all of us, and access to the Raging Moderates newsletter, which we're super proud of and hope you guys are enjoying. Plus, we're going to be doing some more live streams that will only be viewable to our Substack subscribers. So join us, ragingmoderates.profgmedia.com. That's all for this episode. Thank you so much for joining us today. Yeah, you did it.
