Software Stocks Implode, Claude's Hit List, State of the Union Reactions, Trump's Tariff Pivot

17:36Chamath Palihapitiya:And I have some firsthand sort of...

17:38Bill Friedberg:In the sense that there is more leverage tax that people are able to actually deliver?

17:42David Sacks:Well, Jake, I want to hear what you have to say, because I know you're experimenting with this. But let me just show you a few data points real quick, because I think this is relevant. So we're really talking about the disruption caused by coding assistance, right? This is like the first big killer app of AI. I mean, I guess after writing and research for chatbots, and we'll have agents later, but really it's all about coding assistance, right? And the ability to more easily create code. That's what's creating the disruption to the SaaS category. Well, so let's just focus on the data we see right now around that.

18:12David Sacks:And there are a lot of people who are pointing this out that Anthropic right now has a job listing for a software engineer on their website right now for$570 ,000. And a lot of people are kind of pointing out, okay, so wait. So what Anthropic is saying is they're still trying to hire software engineers at a very high wage, but somehow they think these jobs are going to be eliminated.

18:38Chamath Palihapitiya:Jamoth might apply for that job. Yeah, austerity measures. Sounds pretty good to me. That's a lot of money.

18:44Bill Friedberg:Timoth might take that job and then just have AI do it for him.

18:47Jason Calacanis:No, I'm worried. Like, I hope my 80-90 team doesn't see that offer. That's a big number. Our equity is way higher, but our salaries are not that high. I mean, you put these things together. It's like, that equity is money good. The reality is like, those guys are doing$5 to$6 billion structured secondaries every year now, or they're starting, which means that they will. That's like cash compensation. So for me to match that, I need to be 3x higher than that.

19:13David Sacks:Right. And I think a lot of people are kind of pointing out, well, this is a contradiction. Anthropic doesn't really seem to be practicing what they're preaching if they're paying enormous amounts still for software engineers, even as they claim they're obsoleting the entire category. Something doesn't quite add up. Citadel Securities did a new report that rebuts that Citrini report, and they show a couple of stats here, which I think are really interesting. So job postings for software engineers are rapidly rising. They're showing, I think it was roughly a 10 % year-over-year increase in the demand for software engineers.

19:47David Sacks:On a related note, they also show that company formation is also rapidly expanding. And that may have something to do with AI making it easier to start a business or to get leverage. To your point, Freberg. So look, there's a couple of competing effects going on here. And I think Aaron Levy had a really good explanation of why you might see something very counterintuitive happening. And again, it all goes back to Jevin's paradox. But what Aaron says is that when you lower the cost of something that was previously supply constrained, demand for that thing goes up. Software engineering is just one of the easiest examples to contemplate, but there are going to be many other jobs like that.

20:28David Sacks:But think about software engineering, even among startups in Silicon Valley, which I think are probably some of the most attractive places for software engineers to work. There's always been a chronic shortage of them. Then you've got the Fortune 500 companies, non-tech companies, which have always had an even harder time hiring technical talent. So you have this massive unfilled need for software engineers across the entire economy. Now you're going to be able to get a lot more leverage out of software engineers. It doesn't mean they're going to get fired. It just means that now maybe you can have a lot more 10x software engineers and they're getting those jobs are now being spread throughout the whole economy.

21:08David Sacks:You know, I also think just to put some numbers on this, I think the cost structure of the average Fortune 500 business is something like 5 % IT. And that includes all of their IT, not just their software. What should it be? What should the percentage of software be in an enterprise cost structure? Elon describes companies as cybernetic organisms that are part software, part human. If you think about the current Fortune 500 company being one or 2 % software, maybe they should be 50 % software. I think what Aaron is saying here is the market for software and software engineers was so constrained by the lack of availability that even if we 10x or 100x the productivity of software engineers, the demand will be there to absorb this new supply.

21:56David Sacks:And so it could lead to this explosion in productivity without the massive job loss.

22:00Jason Calacanis:I think you're right. I think the thing that I would look at is I would expect OpEx has a percentage of revenue to fall off of a cliff. But within that OpEx, the percentage of it that you allocate to technology and technology related things probably goes way, way up than what it is today. Okay, Jason, the batch of people that are applying for launch, has SaaS stopped?

22:24Chamath Palihapitiya:Has software stopped? It's AI first companies, obviously, and people are rebuilding traditional SaaS tools just cheap. Basically, everybody's building the grid, you as we talked about at the all in summit, like, some of these companies are trying to build the best pilot in the world, or way most trying to build the best driver in the world, people are now trying to build the best SDR in the world, the best salesperson, the best executive coach. And so we have been like obsessed with Claude co-work, but mainly open claw. And so what we did was, and I think it's not developers that are going to do all this work, it's knowledge workers.

23:02Chamath Palihapitiya:So we have 20 people in our firm. We had 15 of them come in this weekend, and they all got trained over like six or seven hours, had to have their own open claw agent, and we started building it. Every piece of software that we wanted to buy or build over the last 10 years that we never got to, my people are building in the last 30 days. As an example, when you're selling ads for a podcast, you want to check all the other podcasts and what advertisers they have. We trained an agent to go take the top 100 podcasts, look through the transcripts, figure out who the advertisers are, check those advertisers in Pipedrive, tell us when the last time we contacted them, and put it into the sales room.

23:41Chamath Palihapitiya:That was an SDR job that we wanted to fill and software we wanted to build. Then we wanted people to have like -

23:47Jason Calacanis:That was a human that you were paying money and now you've replaced with software? Or that human still exists and now they just do it in a better way?

23:55Chamath Palihapitiya:Redeploying that human. We had a human doing it. We're going to redeploy them to do other things. and the consistency of this, Chema, and the accuracy, and then it's doing it all night long. So we have like seven of these agents in these kind of roles. The next piece we did was we gave my agent, which is like the Ultron, root access to Gmail, Calendar, Zoom, Notion, Slack. And what it's doing is it's giving each person, here's what you got done this week with their manager, here's the emails you sent, here's the meetings you took, here's the contacts, here are the threads you were involved in and then it's helping manage those people and so we are but all that all that

24:32Jason Calacanis:to me says you jason despite all your doomerism seems like you're growing and you're going to be hiring more people and you're more productive am i getting this wrong i'm not doomerist what i think

24:43Chamath Palihapitiya:is going to happen in this position but you're growing and you're going to be hiring more not no no we're not going to add more people definitely not adding people the people we have are becoming 10 or 20 % more efficient every week because the software we would have paid for or built from another vendor if we had the time, or we wanted to build custom software, we had 10 engineers, it's being built by our open claw agents. As an example, when we make clips for this podcast, other podcasts, we have a go and look at like this week in startups episode from 10 years, tell us the three best moments, and it makes the clip, it puts the subtitles on it, and then it puts the clip into the slack room.

25:19Chamath Palihapitiya:That was something that was going to be a full time job. So we're getting 10 20 % more efficient, then I started doing it at home. So I had to take our Instacart, pull out the last 10 orders we did, and then tell us what we order most of time. And then it's going to automatically build a car for us. Every single knowledge work job is being automated right now. And you can take it. And if you're a business process head, well, you know how to like do a business process and you can structure it and write it with an agent it'll just run it every day every week we did another agent how do you make better thumbnails and we said every saturday in your skills so when you build an open claw it has like a soul file and it has a skills file in the skills file we told us acts every week go out and look for people discussing how to make better thumbnails on YouTube, how to make better titles.

26:12Chamath Palihapitiya:It found this week, Chamath, somebody at Mr. Beast company talk about how they're using heat maps. It was an article I would have never known. It added it to its skill. And now whenever we post the thumbnail, it tells us based on its skill that it refines every week how to make that thumbnail better. And it's starting to make the thumbnails. This is becoming recursive. So you keep the same number of people, but they get 10 or 20 % more efficient. I don't know what this means for the larger economy. All I know is it's the most exciting time I've had online since the web came out, since the internet came out.

26:45Chamath Palihapitiya:It is so much fun to automate all this stuff.

26:48Jason Calacanis:The big question that I am thinking about that I haven't gotten a good answer about, so I don't know what you guys think is, all these businesses are going to need to batten down the hatches and give themselves room to figure this all out, right? Like if you take sax's point like if you take your point jay cal which is the young nimble companies like yours are going to be rapidly experimenting the bigger larger companies are going to slowly onboard themselves to start experimenting all of that means we're going to get much clearer answers to all of this but what it also means is that you're going to have to have time so that you can figure this all out yes and if you want to buy yourself time you're going to need a ton of cash.

27:32Jason Calacanis:And if you're going to think about saving cash, the one place tech companies literally incinerate cash is how they do compensation. And so I kind of think like at some point, the next shoe will drop and all of these tech companies have to really look at stock-based comp because they literally incinerate most, if not all of their free cash flow, fighting the dilution from stock-based compensation. So if you want five or six years to just be in the arena on the field figuring this out you're going to want to kind of be very cash flow generative and really conservative in how you spend your money yeah sax the people who

28:09Chamath Palihapitiya:embrace this i think become five or ten times more valuable than the people who are not that's where i think the opportunity in the economy is so unless you think humanity is going to run out of problems to solve i think it's going to be boom it's going to be boomtown and i think people are going to start more companies, because the the barrier to start a company is no longer three or$4 million. You can just have two or three people and you start setting up these agents and man, you can make software, you can do sales, you can do PR, everything is getting faster and faster and faster. So the time between like, conceiving of a product and publishing it and finding a developer, you don't even need a developer, you can just publish software.

28:48Chamath Palihapitiya:The wake up moment for me was, we were talking to our agent about hey we want to get this functionality out of slack and it's like yeah slack doesn't have that but have you considered matter post i'm like what's matter post like oh it's an open source project i can spin it up this weekend export your slack instance and put it there and i was like don't do that we're only spending 6k a year on slack or 10k a year but the software is building crm systems for us it's building agents for us and it wants to just build all the software stack so So you could, when you renegotiate with Slack or HubSpot or whatever company you are working with, you're going to be able to say to them, hey, we could roll our own.

29:30Chamath Palihapitiya:And when you want to upsell us on this latest thing, like you talked about, Saks, upselling is such a big part of SaaS. You're like, I can actually build that software myself internally. I don't need you to do it.

29:39Jason Calacanis:Ryan Peterson just posts on X, Claude for Legal seems to work just as well as Harvey, by the way. Now, the SaaS apocalypse is going after private companies now, too.

29:51David Sacks:Well, I think for a while now, there has been a question of which layer of the stack is going to capture all the value. So is it going to be the model companies or could it be the applications that are built on top of the models? Or, you know, if there's a lot of competition at both those layers of the stack, do the chip companies get it all? I think it's an unclear question. Totally. Yeah, I think, you know, for any given vertical application, you do have to defend why you think your value prop will be sustainable as the underlying foundation models get better themselves.

30:25Chamath Palihapitiya:And it's open source. Like this week, we put up Kimmy 2.5. It can do about 80, 85 % of the jobs. So we lowered our token bills massively when we stood that up. All right, listen, this is TBD. We got a lot more to think about on this topic.

30:39David Sacks:Just on this point of a lot of these debates about AI are dueling science fiction narratives. I just think that the Doomer narratives are inherently more appealing to people. I mean, I think it's partly just you look at most sci-fi movies are dystopian, not utopian. In addition to that, I think we have a bunch of heuristic biases in favor of the Doomer narrative. So one of them is the seen versus the unseen. it's a lot easier to see the jobs that already exist that could be obsoleted than it is to imagine the new jobs and the new business models that haven't been created yet. And that will likely take some great innovator or a genius to think of in order to create.

31:21David Sacks:So we have that huge heuristic bias of not being able to see the creation that's coming. It takes way less creativity to think about the potential destruction. And then finally, I think the The other heuristic is just the whole fixed pie fallacy. Most people do tend to think of the economy as a fixed pie. This is why you see so much anger against millionaires and billionaires is because of this idea that if someone's getting rich, it must be at the expense of someone else. That's not actually the case. The economy itself could be growing larger as a result of someone inventing something new that increases production.

31:55David Sacks:A really good line from another article that was written just a couple of weeks ago was, the economy is not a pie, it's a garden, and technology is rain. So again, all of this technological innovation is going to increase the growth rate of the garden. It's not a fixed pie. And just because you see an expansion and productivity in one part of the economy does not mean that you're going to see job loss in another part of the economy.

32:21Chamath Palihapitiya:Yeah, I think the job people are not seeing, but I'm seeing right now, is the person who creates agents, manages them, and is the maestro of the agents, the person who can take the business process, explain it, and train the agent to do it. And there are certain people in business who are just really good at operations. You were one of them, Sachs, running companies. And that person who can fire up an agent, train the agent, and figure out how to manage them and figure out how to increase their skills, it's a great job. And it's not a developer.

32:52David Sacks:Look, with any new technology, there's always a huge change management aspect with enterprises because it's hard for them to adapt and change. And the people in the organization who can lead that change management are the ones who are going to create an amazing career opportunity for themselves. But it's hard to do, and that's going to slow down the rate of change, just the amount of inertia in the economy. And also, one other constraint is going to be that at some point here, we may be token constrained, right? I mean, we may not have enough energy, like we've talked about, even though the chips are getting so much better that tokens per second, tokens per watt, and tokens per dollar are all increasing very fast, but we're still going to probably be constrained in the next couple of years on some dimension, whether it's land, power, shell, or just energy production, or maybe chip production.

33:39David Sacks:There are real world constraints on just how fast we can scale the infrastructure. And that will mean that these hyper-utopian or hyper dystopian narratives will be wrong. I don't think there's time in the next few years for the whole economy to change in the way that the extremes would present.

33:57Jason Calacanis:I think you're right. I think you're going to see a 10xing in the demand for tokens, but I also think you're going to see a 90 % price reduction in the cost of an output token probably by the end of this year. So I think that to your point, like it's it's going to just create an enormous upswell of demand because we're going to be able to cut the prices of an output token so dramatically and i think by the way that

34:23Chamath Palihapitiya:discussion we had shamak last week when we talked about cup the tokens outpacing the employee's salary and just where these tokens are all going to come from that was our most viewed clip or one of the most viewed clips in the history of this podcast so people are actually really focused on

34:37Jason Calacanis:this i had my team at 89 we we did our cost model and now we have that as a line item when we think about fully burdened cost of employees, we now factor that in because we're at a place where some of our engineers are just racking up ginormous bills. And then separately, just general runs that we do for general purpose stuff that we need to just run our product is it's so expensive. So I am waiting with bated breath for what Zach said, which is like, we need an explosion in the capacity that's available, because I do think that the silicon solutions are coming. that will cut the cost, but we need a large block of LAN PowerShell ready to then turn all of this stuff on so that we can actually take advantage of it.

35:23Chamath Palihapitiya:Rumors the new Mac Studio is coming, we'll have an M5 chip in it, and we'll be language model ready. So that's the rumors that they're building it for models. So that could be an incredible turn of events. Everybody's desktop running the local model. Saks, you want to have the final word here, or Freeberg, before we...

35:40David Sacks:Just to go back to what Jamath was saying there, I mean, you've got political forces that want to stop the construction of all data centers in the United States. Which is crazy. If that gains steam, then that's going to be a huge constraint on any change whatsoever.

35:53Jason Calacanis:Can I tee this up for you, J. Cal? So I went back this weekend and I looked at the number of data centers that have faced local opposition and whether there were patterns. And I posted it on X, so Nick, maybe you can put this up. But it was really a very small behavior, which was pushing back on data centers and getting them canceled. We had about 25 projects total, of which 20 were just in Q2 alone. There are 100 data center projects right now that are facing some form of local opposition. So interesting. If you take that 40 % number and you apply this, and then you multiply it by the number of megawatts that they have announced, last year we lost almost 5 gigawatts in terms of canceled projects.

36:46Jason Calacanis:This year coming in 26, we have about 7 that could be canceled if you use this map. If then you flow that through, OpenAI, Sarah Fryer said this, that every gigawatt for her, for OpenAI, is about$10 billion of revenue. So if you assume that that's roughly accurate, plus or minus a billion here or there, what that means is that 2025, the industry as a whole lost$50 billion of revenue. And this year, if seven gigawatts gets canceled, it's about$70 billion. Now you're talking about$130 billion of lost revenue over these two years that'll go forward in time that we miss out on. I think that that's really bad.

37:28Jason Calacanis:We need to figure out a way to nip this in the bud. So confounding because we were sitting here five years ago, 10 years ago, local municipalities were fighting and giving discounts to try to get these data centers open to get the jobs and get the revenue. And now we've got people trying to stop them.

37:44Chamath Palihapitiya:This is a perfect transition for the State of the Union. before we get there two important programming notes all in is going to host two events in 2026 one of them liquidity made 31st to june 3rd uh in yawnville uh up in wine country chamath has taken control of the event and he has set a standard for who gets on stage none of you mids can control the programming i just that's it chamath came in he dropped the hammer who do you got so far you want to tease a couple of people who you invited to come speak i'll tease

38:15Jason Calacanis:two. The first is an incredibly dear friend of mine, the axe of axes. Dan Loeb, who founded Third Point, who is an unbelievable investor in literally every domain, private credit, public equities, private tech. He's just a beast. He's a beast. So he'll be doing a really important keynote he has not done one of these public speaking slots in a very long time and then the second is the cfo of open ai sarah fryer oh wow unbelievable star and we're gonna double click into the entire business model of open ai on stage in front of everybody so uh go to all

38:58Chamath Palihapitiya:in.com and then for those of you who plan ahead for travel more coming more more coming every week if you are an all in summit fan i can't believe it friedberg we're going to be in our fifth year September 13th to 15th. Only gets better. Gets better every year. I'm going to have some good parties too. I mean, that Back to the Future and the Blade Runner parties, those were epic. Allin.com slash events. Hey, can I give a plug to friend of the pod, Bill Gurley? He's got an amazing new book. Phenomenal book. Running Down a Dream. Please. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Before you start.

39:28Jason Calacanis:There it is, Running Down a Dream.

39:30Chamath Palihapitiya:I just want everybody to stop, pause the podcast. I want you to buy three copies. Give it to two young people and a parent you know. This book is incredible. It's a great book. It's a great book. It really is inspiring for kids. And Bill Gurley, friend of the pod, he always shows up for us.

39:44Bill Friedberg:J.K., I'll do an impression for us of what it would be like if you and Bill Gurley started a podcast together.

39:49Chamath Palihapitiya:All right, everybody. Welcome to the JCBG podcast. I'm your host, Jason Calacanis. And I'm Bill Gurley. And we're here in Texas at Terry Black's where we're getting some beef ribs. And we're going to discuss investing in marketplaces, as well as my new book, Running Down a Dream, which will teach your kids how to not be f***ed ups. And if your kids are f***ed ups, you can hit them in the back of the head with the book. Texas style. One of the big topics, and I think something you're working on with President Trump's acts, is this energy pledge. I've been seeing rumblings about this. Explain what's going on in terms of getting the country in sync around these data centers and energy?

40:37David Sacks:Well, the president announced in the State of the Union last night that he supports a ratepayer protection pledge, which requires the major tech companies to provide for their own power needs for AI data centers so that residential consumers do not see their rates going up. I think this makes total sense. I think, Chamath, to your point, this is the reason behind a lot of the opposition to new data centers is that the local residents fear that their electricity prices are going to go up. And that shouldn't be the case. And so the president has said that he's committed to not allowing residential rates to go up as a result of data centers.

41:14David Sacks:It's pretty straightforward. You get the big tech companies, the hyperscalers to pay for the increase in the electricity costs, or you let them set up their own power behind the meter. The president's been talking about this for over a year, that our biggest AI companies would also become big power companies because we had let them stand up their own power generation behind the meter. So these data centers don't even have to connect to the grid. They could just do co-location themselves. But also, I think that with this ratepayer protection pledge, what you're going to see is that it could actually bring down consumer prices.

41:49David Sacks:Because what happens is that when these data centers then set up their own power and connect to the grid, they can give back the excess to the grid. Also, they will make investments in scaling the infrastructure. So although electricity is priced at a metered rate, the costs to generate it are not all variable. There's a lot of huge fixed costs in there. So when you increase scale, then you can actually reduce the metered rate. So again, this is really, I think, the rebuttal to Bernie Sanders, who just wants to stop all progress whatsoever. I saw a funny post calling it bananas, which is build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone.

42:28David Sacks:So this is the bananas is replacing the new NIMBY. So you just can build absolutely nothing. I think the president's approach finds a very good balance here, which is, look, we can have progress. Just don't make residential consumers pay for it. Let the big tech companies pay for it themselves. And I think you'll see more coming out about this from the White House next week.

42:47Chamath Palihapitiya:Quite a deft move. freeberg how should america be thinking about this great data center build out energy usage you know if you expand it out over the coming decade and how do you sell that to the backdrop that you talk about the socialist movement you got a great interview coming out with ray dalio on the all-in interview program next week how do you think about those competing forces you've got the socialists saying bananas nimby slow down d cell and then you've got this incredible race we're in for efficiency and this opportunity and abundance how would you sell it to kind of bring these two sides together or is it just impossible the data coming in and out of data centers moves

43:33Bill Friedberg:at roughly the speed of light so you could put them anywhere and i think that our policymakers need to be very cognizant of that fact. You have, and we do, connect the internet using high-speed cable, high-speed fiber optic throughout the world. And so theoretically, if we don't embrace and allow the economic development of the data center industry, and it will fundamentally be an industry because it is almost like the new sort of oil, where the oil rig is going to go, where the railroad is going to go, where the telegraph line is going to go, where the factory is going to go. If we don't put them here, someone else will put them on their shores.

44:17Bill Friedberg:Someone else will put them in their country. Someone else will put them in their jurisdiction. And a lot of the economic value that arises from the people that will build those facilities, the energy that will be installed to produce power for those facilities, and then all of the second and third order industries that emerge as a result of those installations, that value will accrue elsewhere.

44:39Chamath Palihapitiya:Such a good point.

44:40Bill Friedberg:So it's not going to like just go away, but the demand is there. The economy is moving forward. AI is moving forward. We live in a world with 196 countries and data centers do not take up a lot of space. They're very small relative to the economic value that they produce. If you zoom out on the map of the world, all the data centers in the world fit under the tip of a pin. And so this is a very small footprint. And if we're going to give up hundreds of thousands of jobs and many billions of dollars of economic value creation, we're being pretty silly and pretty obtuse in our view of the world.

45:17Bill Friedberg:I would just like encourage the system that I think is the right system. And we talked about this last time, where provided data centers are producing their own electricity, that means that you're taking electricity consumption off the grid, because they otherwise are not being used on the grid. And that will reduce the cost of electricity for other residential and industrial users. So it's silly to think that we need to put a moratorium on data centers. As soon as you do that, the companies that use data centers are not going to slow down, they're going to go put them somewhere else. And we're going to miss out.

45:47Chamath Palihapitiya:And it's such a good point, Shamath, because you were recently in the Middle East. And I've been there a bunch in Saudi, UAE. These are the folks who built a large portion of those oil refineries, and they are savvy to this. And what are they doing in Saudi, UAE, Qatar, all of these regions? They're doubling down, they're 10xing their data center builds. So to your point, Friedberg, either we build them, or they're going to go somewhere else. And there are people who are willing to underwrite these, and they're willing to take out the red tape from the process here and move quicker than us. So we I think this is a pretty deft move by President Trump to say, hey, you guys should all just guarantee that consumers don't get impacted.

46:31Chamath Palihapitiya:The water thing is a total hoax. The water is recirculated. That's a hoax. I think this is really smart.

46:36Jason Calacanis:I think that what the president's doing and what Sachs is doing is really smart. The thing to keep in mind is that there's still a risk that prices go up and it has nothing to do with these data centers. It has everything to do with the business model of being a utility. Because what happens is, in order to get a license, a monopoly license, in an area to provide energy, to generate energy for a community, the exchange works in the following way. You go and you present a CapEx plan to the Public Utilities Commission. That's effectively your budget. That says, here are the lines I'm going to upgrade, here are the generators I'm going to upgrade.

47:16Jason Calacanis:Independent of data centers, the reality is the draw, the electricity consumption of individual Americans is going up because we have more devices, we have cars, we have all of these other things. So what we also have to do is we have to look at how utilities' business model actually incentivizes them to increase prices by making all kinds of investments. So we have to do a good job of making sure we hold everybody accountable, because otherwise what you could see is that the data centers taking on the burden for themselves, but price is still continuing to escalate because a utility says, I need to spend a billion dollars this year to upgrade my infrastructure.

47:54Jason Calacanis:And what that allows them to do is take that billion dollars and essentially invest it for a return. That's the business model of utility.

47:59Chamath Palihapitiya:And this is really happening in blue states. Micron has a hundred billion dollar mega fab in New York. And there's a lawsuit by six, one, two, three, four, five, six concerned citizens. That's shameful. And the project has taken 1 ,200 days, 1 ,200 days between their announcement and the groundbreaking. And they spent 612 days on the environmental impact study. People wake up, just go to Texas. Elon built his factory here, the Gigafactory, in under like 18 months. This is the great state of Texas. Come here, we'll build it for you, and you'll be done.

48:40David Sacks:Yeah, I don't know why anyone bothers with the blue states anymore. They make it too hard to build.

48:44Chamath Palihapitiya:It's retarded. It's so dumb. It's such a self-owned too. Don't you want to be part of the future? You're literally ankling the entire country.

48:53David Sacks:Disgrace the odd. By the way, there are a lot of people in New York who want to work. This is not a case, actually, of this new fab being unpopular. The majority of people in the area actually want this plant being built. They want the jobs. They're going to come there. a lot of people say data centers don't create a lot of jobs this is actually a chip fab so it will create a lot of jobs a lot of good high-paying jobs people want it but six people can stop it with a lawsuit after it's already been through a two-year environmental review

49:21Jason Calacanis:it's not blue and red states these are non-profits that get organized to create this kind of chaos i remember looking at a massive lithium investment in nevada and the whole point was to domesticate lithium production. And what was interesting is this enormous deposit that's just sitting there ripe for development, right before they were about to get environmental approvals or right after, there was a lawsuit by people who wanted to protect the upper land grouse. It's seared in my mind that the upper land grouse of Nevada is the reason why we do not have domestic national security around lithium.

49:58Jason Calacanis:And you have to ask yourself, why is this possible? And it's possible because you have these environmental nonprofits that can go and create this chaos with absolutely no risk to them. Zero. They can fundraise around it and they can create this chaos. I mean, Nick, to this point, this is an example of Greenpeace. And specifically here, they were pushing back on an oil pipeline to such a degree and they created so much chaos that they were sued. And a North Dakota judge just said that he's going to order Greenpeace to pay damages that should total almost$350 million in connection to those protests.

50:34Jason Calacanis:And it should not be the case that six people can slow down a$100 billion investment package. That's not right.

50:40Bill Friedberg:Well, I think there's, and I just want to highlight this important point. There's not a lot of logic and reason. You guys are right. But I do think there's a lot of emotion and there's a huge aversion to big tech, a huge aversion to wealth creation by select individuals, select companies, a huge aversion to economic growth that doesn't benefit everyone. There's a fundamental kind of underlying left behind emotion that drives a lot of this. And I've said it before, but I think unless there's systems or mechanisms that get folks to come along with the value creation ahead and help them connect their own lives to the value creation that's being realized, they're not going to be supportive because there is this kind of diametric opposition towards big tech, towards the wealth gap, towards value accrual to a select few companies or select few individuals.

51:30Bill Friedberg:And this fuels and feeds that. So I think fundamentally, maybe it's not just about giving the data centers their own power capacity. But there's got to be mechanisms and tools that helps the broader population understand or recognize or get some benefit from it as well, where they're an owner in it, or participant in it. Because they have the power, as we're seeing, they have the power to stop it, therefore, they want to have some benefit for providing authority to do it.

51:55Chamath Palihapitiya:And these six people are concerned about housing costs, worker exposure to toxic chemicals, pollution, air and water, greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, flooding of the wetlands, all these things that obviously could be mitigated. all right let's keep moving here we got a lot more docket to get through state of the union came in at 108 minutes and it's the longest in 60 years actually the longest since they started tracking this the theme of president trump's state of the union this year america at 250 strong prosperous and respected trump took a bunch of victory laps inflation jobs closing the border all those have gone really well but this comes to the backdrop of trump's approval rating being super challenge He started his first year at plus 11.7%.

52:45Chamath Palihapitiya:Now he's negative 14.3%, 26-point swing. Economy started plus 3.4, down to 18.2. And trade started at 5.9%. And we'll talk about the tariff stuff later. And went down to 22.7. So let's call balls and strikes here, gentlemen. Favorite moments? What were your favorite moments from the State of the Union and just general impressions of one hour and 45 minutes of Trump going to town?

53:15Jason Calacanis:I thought it was great.

53:17Chamath Palihapitiya:Favorite moment?

53:18Jason Calacanis:Favorite moment or two? Well, I had a couple. One was the Elon Omar Rashida Tlaib death stare and them just like losing their minds and screaming. I just thought it was so un-American. The second was when he was calling for law and order where I'm focusing and prioritizing on American citizens and none of the illegal aliens and none of the Democrats stood up. I thought that was kind of foolish. It was like obvious things and the Democrats wouldn't applaud. But this time they did like they did for the hockey team, which I thought was like the right thing to do. And then the fourth thing is just a shout out to our friend Brad Gerstner, who got a big shout out from the president.

54:04Jason Calacanis:I don't know, Sachs, if you engineered that or not, but that was that was fantastic.

54:08David Sacks:That was incredible. He got like a double shot out. It was like a double tap.

54:11Jason Calacanis:Yeah.

54:12David Sacks:That was really cool. That was surreal.

54:14Jason Calacanis:Our group chat went crazy. It was really cool.

54:18Chamath Palihapitiya:Those are my four highlights. Great. Here's your clip of, yeah, Democrats not standing for Americans over illegal aliens. 20 seconds. If you agree with this statement, then stand up and show your support. the first duty of the American government is to protect American citizens, not illegal aliens.

54:52Chamath Palihapitiya:Why wouldn't you stand for that? That's an easy one to stand for. Doesn't make any sense. Would you stand for it, Jacob? Yeah, I mean, I'm pro, I can be anti-ice, but I'm pro-American and pro-reasonable immigration, like 90 % of the country is. So it just doesn't make any sense.

55:11Jason Calacanis:But do you think American citizens should be prioritized over illegals?

55:15Chamath Palihapitiya:Of course. Of course. Yes. Of course. Yes. And then I also think there should be a path to citizenship for people who have been here for a while. And I think that's what the majority of the country thinks as well.

55:25Jason Calacanis:Your point is, I can hold two thoughts in my head, so I would have stood if he asked me.

55:30Chamath Palihapitiya:Yes. Obviously, we should take care of American citizens first. Yes. And we should deport violent criminals. We've been over this like a million times here. This is like consensus in the country.

55:39Jason Calacanis:What do you think is going on in everybody else's head when they're like, we cannot stand for this.

55:44Chamath Palihapitiya:These two sides, I mean, I think it's like the tariff thing. It's like the ice thing. These two sides cannot work together. It's just the most polarized it's ever been. Trump is not like the kind of guy to reach across the aisle. The Democrats are now digging in. So we just have a dysfunctional government where, you know, in a more functional time period, like under Clinton, let's say, or Bush, people would have gotten together. I'm jumping ahead to the tariff discussion. And they would have said, yeah, of course, tariffs are done in Congress. That's the law, whatever. What are your thoughts, Mr.

56:15Chamath Palihapitiya:President? How can we support your tariff program? But now it's like, oh, well, we don't work together. We don't actually have discussions anymore. There's no bipartisan, you know, collaboration. All these politicians are disgraceful. Disgraciata across the board. They should be working together for the American people.

56:31David Sacks:If the president wants to do tariffs, they should be reasonable about it and give him the power to

56:36Chamath Palihapitiya:do reasonable tariffs. And he should be reasonable and say, hey, I understand that's your power. Let's get together and we'll chop it up and let's have dinner together. But they're just too polarized. It's just disgraceful where this country has gotten to. I blame both parties.

56:49David Sacks:whenever the Democrats get smoked out as being radicals and extremists, you always want to basically say a pox on both your houses and blame the Republicans and Democrats equally. The fact of the matter is the president said to the audience, to the members of Congress, hey, if you agree with the statement, stand up. And of course, every single Democrat sat there stone face and refuse to applaud or acknowledge what he was saying. This was a very easy test for the Democrats to pass. In fact, it was a political risk for the president because it was so easy for the Democrats to demonstrate that they're operating in good faith and they're willing to be bipartisan and they're not extremists and they're actually commonsensical and logical.

57:36David Sacks:And they completely failed the test. And by the way, it wasn't just on that one. I mean, Let me just tell you some of the other ones where they refuse to applaud. So they refuse to applaud the grieving families of innocent American women and children murdered by criminal illegal aliens, including the mother of Irina Zuritskaya. That was very sad. That was sad. That was unbelievable. They refuse to applaud for securing our homeland and ending the invasion of criminal illegal aliens, killers, rapists, gang members and traffickers. they refused to applaud for unifying against political violence so the president mentioned the assassination of charlie kirk they would not even do a polite clap for erica kirk and unifying against political violence they refused to applaud for keeping violent criminals locked up they even refused to applaud for lower prescription drug prices for millions of americans because it was president trump who orchestrated that policy and there were so many other examples like that.

58:36David Sacks:And, you know, I think the reason why this speech was so effective, and by the way, it's not just me saying it, something like two thirds of the people that CNN polled. So two thirds of CNN watchers said it was highly effective. And something like three quarters of CBS News viewers said it was highly effective is because the president laid out 80-20 issue one after another, right? Or even 90-10 issues or 95-5 issues. I mean, these were all issues where the overwhelming number of Americans, I think, agree with the policy the president laid out. And in every single case, the Democrats opposed to wouldn't even give it a polite applause.

59:13David Sacks:And that is different than in the past. And you can say that's because of hyper-partisanship and polarization, but it's also because of another thing. It's because the Democrats have become a party of radicalism and extremism. And the viewpoints that they expressed through their aesthetics the other night. They do express those things in policy and in speeches all the time. So it's not just like a one-off or, you know, somehow like we have a misconception of who these guys are. I think, you know, the big line of the night was when Trump just sort of said, these people are crazy. I mean, he said it in like almost mournful and regretful way.

59:51David Sacks:He doesn't want them to be crazy. He wants them to be rational so he can work with them.

59:55Chamath Palihapitiya:I mean, but I think that point resonated. I'll still point the other side, which is this has been going on for a couple of, you know, state of the unions here across this. The Republicans didn't stand for the Democrats often. And it's a bit of showmanship. But the truth is, Trump is the divider in chief. He always is attacking people. He's always mocking people. So they don't want to play ball with him. So I do think you can both sides. You have no choice in politics. You've got to counterpunch. No, I don't think so. that's actually the that's actually the problem with the that philosophy trump's philosophy of we have to counterpunch we have to attack we never have to apologize we never have to be reasonable that's part of what's broken down in our politics and these two sides should work together we should go back to a bipartisan are you going to work with elan omar when he is i'm

1:00:40David Sacks:not saying it's going to be easy but she is the mirror hold on i'll finish my statement you asked

1:00:44Chamath Palihapitiya:a question i think trump is the mirror of that he has been hostile towards these democrat he doesn't give them an inch, they should be more collaborative. That's what the balance of power between the executive branch, you know, and these, you know, congressmen and the Congress and the Senate, like this is how it's supposed to work. And these two sides need to learn how to get back to listening to each other, understanding each other's positions, and then finding a middle ground. And that's why the Democrats lost last time, because they didn't have the common sense to say, hey, everybody wants the border closed.

1:01:17Chamath Palihapitiya:To your point, it's a 90 % issue. And Kamala Harris was too dumb to just say, yeah, we should have closed the border. It's closed now. And we've got it. Anyway, the whole thing is a mess. I understand you got to fight for your team, but I don't like the counterpunches. I like collaboration. You just actually made the key point.

1:01:31David Sacks:You made the key point, which is underlying the optics and the polarization, you have issues. And on those issues, President Trump is on the side of the american people the issues where 80 of the american people agree some huge percentage i don't know exactly what it is thinks that the somali daycare fraud in minnesota was an outrage and the president is right to point that out and what's the democrats reaction you've got ilana omar screaming from the audience at him yeah she's a loon i mean at the end of the day you did have

1:02:04Chamath Palihapitiya:you did have Elizabeth Warren stand for uh stopping Nancy Pelosi from trading stocks and that gave Trump his best one-liner of the night that was his best one-liner clearly and they stood for Iran too and stopping Iran from being a nuclear I give Elizabeth Warren credit for that there you go you don't have to punch her back here's a stop insider trading act without delay yeah see that's something bipartisan look at that sack that's what you need to get the country back to.

1:02:33David Sacks:Okay, but that, hold on, but this disproves the point you were making before. You said that it was polarization.

1:02:38Chamath Palihapitiya:They stood up for that, I can't believe. Can't believe. Did Nancy Pelosi stand up if she's here? Zing, Zing Powell, good job.

1:02:47David Sacks:That's why he's so good, is he's in the moment and he's reacting to what's happening in the chamber. He's got good timing. He's not just reading from a teleporter and he nailed it. But look, that moment disproves what you were saying, J. Cal, because this is not just about polarization. On that issue, Elizabeth Warren was willing to stand because she actually, to her credit, wants to ban insider trading by members of Congress. But on the rest of those issues, like securing the border, she did not stand. Why? Because she does not agree with the president on that issue.

1:03:14Chamath Palihapitiya:We just have to get back to these sides working together. That's my personal feeling. Freeberg, any thoughts on the theatrics and Trump's first year writ large and the sort of back and forth and is there any hope that these two teams could collaborate at some point on something like say the ballooning deficit which trump has not gotten under control in his first year and it's going to be 2.5 trillion dollars added what are your thoughts here on them collaborating on anything important friedberg that's probably one thing they can agree on is just keep the money flowing got it they'll both give a they'll both give a standing ovation for burn more capital and put us more in debt.

1:03:54Chamath Palihapitiya:Well, said my guy, David Friedberg. Sultan of science, it is your time to shine. The world's greatest moderator has decided we're going directly to science corner. This is your time to shine. And it's Sax's time to drop a deuce. Sax went immediately.

1:04:12Jason Calacanis:Yeah, he has to drop a deuce.

1:04:13Chamath Palihapitiya:What's up?

1:04:15David Sacks:What do you need me for?

1:04:17Chamath Palihapitiya:This is very important for you. Freeberg's going to talk. Lightning round for Science Corner. Go, Freeberg.

1:04:22David Sacks:Wait, wait, wait. Are we doing any more topics after this or can I just leave? Yes, tariffs.

1:04:25Chamath Palihapitiya:Yes, we're doing tariffs. Wait, why would we do that?

1:04:27David Sacks:Because I want to get paid You're going to put the audience to sleep. I'm not saying Science Corner doesn't have its audience. Listen, you can go take - But why wouldn't we do - Yeah, exactly. Look at you. You're like screaming, you're screaming. Let him do his work.

1:04:38Chamath Palihapitiya:Let him cook. Let him cook. Freeberg, tell us about this Harvard study.

1:04:41Bill Friedberg:Speaking of science, I think that there's a very important moment happening right now. We've talked a number of times on the show about Yamanaka factors. These are these four proteins that were discovered by Shinya Yamanaka that we found later that when applied to cells, mammalian cells can actually reverse the age of those cells, reset the epigenetic clock, reset the epigenome, which is the little markers on top of the DNA that turn genes on and off back to a youthful state. Extraordinary groundbreaking work that was done that won the Nobel Prize led to the foundation of several companies. There's a Harvard scientist named David Sinclair.

1:05:19Bill Friedberg:He's a bit of a controversial character. Do you guys know him? I think you guys, one or two of you may have met him. Jamat, you ever met him? I followed him.

1:05:27Jason Calacanis:I've seen his stuff.

1:05:28Bill Friedberg:So Sinclair is kind of bemoaned a little bit by the scientific and academic community for being a little too over-hypey snake oil salesman, as some folks have claimed, because years ago, he sold a company to GSK saying resveratrol would reverse aging, and he made $720 million on that. It didn't end up working. And he's promoted certain supplement companies and so on. So I want to preface with that before I kind of underwrite what he's saying with this next thing. But he's a co founder of a company called Life Biosciences. And they've reached a major agreement with the FDA to be the first company to treat humans with Yamanaka factors.

1:06:06Bill Friedberg:Specifically, what they're doing is they're going to be delivering these Yamanaka factors, these are these proteins that rejuvenate cells and make them youthful again, into the eye. And so their first indication is to actually inject them into the vitriol fluid in the eyeball. And they'll affect the retina in the eye to address people that have gotten blind from glaucoma, or one of these kind of stroke like diseases that happen in the eye. And the expectation with this phase one clinical trial is that the delivery of these yamanaka factors into the eye will rejuvenate the retina make it youthful again and restore vision if it works which it's expected to because we see this result happen in animal models it could be an extraordinary breakthrough not just in terms of blindness but in terms of the first human application of yamanaka factors to reverse aging the way they're doing it is they're actually packaging up dna that will make these proteins into viruses, AAV virus that is delivered into the eye.

1:07:13Bill Friedberg:The virus will then go into the retinal cells and then will deliver this payload for this DNA to make these proteins in the eye cells. And it can be turned on and off. Amazingly, they've created a switch mechanism in it where the protein production, the production of these Yamanaka factors can be turned on and off by taking an antibiotic called doxycycline. So the person that gets the delivery of this drug takes the antibiotic, turns on the production of these Yamanaka factors, and then theoretically, their eye cells will de-age, will get youthful, and their vision will be restored. So phase one clinical trials underway, first time in human history, we're seeing Yamanaka factors being delivered into humans, literally the tip of the iceberg.

1:07:55Bill Friedberg:There are now over a dozen startups that are trying to deliver Yamanaka factors, which or these proteins or some other sort of protein that can actually reverse aging by restoring the epigenome and cells and make them young again. So this is the beginning of a wave of what I think will be the most extraordinary revolution in human therapeutics and ultimately could lead to, you know, some people would argue the fountain of youth. Is this just a talk study? So is it mechanism? Yeah, well, they'll see results. They'll see results, but they're going to keep dosing low, but you will see results.

1:08:31Jason Calacanis:God, that's going to be incredible.

1:08:32Bill Friedberg:It's going to be incredible. By the way, the number of other folks that are gearing up for phase one, using, if not the Yamanaka factors, other factors that they've identified or designed as an alternative to Yamanaka factors, again, to rejuvenate the cells. And just to remind folks, the way this works is it was discovered that these proteins, when they go into a cell, they take all of those little markers that sit on top of your DNA that turn genes on and off. and they create a system that causes them all to move to the right place so it resets the markers so that those cells will start to operate like they're supposed to when they were young again

1:09:07Chamath Palihapitiya:it's gonna be incredible yeah do you think like people in all seriousness people's knees or joints or what where do you think it could flow to next arthritis yep um and and by the way when applied

1:09:19Bill Friedberg:and if it's distributed in the skin they've seen some results in monkeys where like wrinkles go away. It like literally makes these cells all work youthful again. And so a lot of the damage that happens over time is not damage to DNA. It's damage to the epigenome. It's the parts that sit on top of the DNA that turn genes on and off and they get moved to the wrong place as you get older. And by resetting them and getting them back to the right place, boom, the cell is young again, the organ is young again. And suddenly you look and act and feel young again. It's an incredible technology. We're just at the early stages, the early innings of turning it into therapeutics.

1:09:54Bill Friedberg:Again, the discovery goes back to 2006, and now we're starting to see it get into clinic. All right.

1:09:59Chamath Palihapitiya:Let's rejuvenate some hairlines on this podcast. That would be next up. Speak for yourself. I don't know. You got a little peaks going there, my brother. A little peaks. What are you talking about, bro? My hairline's incredible. I'm 50. I mean, it's not bad for 50. I give you credit. You're holding your own. All right. Let's talk about our final topic. scotus struck down trump's emergency powers tariffs last friday scotus voted 6-3 against president trump's epa tariff six judges voted against three conservatives roberts barrett gorsuch uh and three liberals via bloomberg this is the biggest rebuke of existing executive policy in 91 years since scotus struck down fdr's first new deal in 1935 upen wharton analysis says the tariffs collected about 175 billion to date 50 of all tariff duties um might wind up being refunded this is gonna take some time to sort out in the courts 2 000 importers have already filed for refunds we we talked about it here i think the majority of people felt like this is the way the decision would go and we talked about here that there were other options for president Trump to pursue.

1:11:13Chamath Palihapitiya:He immediately said he was not deterred and invoked a 15 % global tariff across the board via Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Here's your polymarket. Will the court force Trump to refund tariffs? 18 % chance, but spike to 40 % after the SCOTUS decision. How will Congress reacts. Polymarket says 3 % chance Congress passes any tariffs by March 31st. So again, as I referenced earlier, these two sides just can't seem to work together, and that would have resolved the whole thing. Saks, you want to give us your take here?

1:11:52David Sacks:First of all, I don't think that the tariffs are going away. What the court basically indicated, especially the 70-page Kavanaugh dissent is that there's multiple alternative bases in law for the tariffs in existing law. So for example, section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 enables temporary 150-day tariffs of up to 15 % to address balance of payments issues. And the president has already invoked this. So we are now operating under that. What the 150 days is going to do is buy the administration time to substantiate via studies and agency reviews what it needs to prove in order to invoke more sweeping tariff authority under Section 301 of the Trade Act and under Section 338 of the Tariff Act.

1:12:44David Sacks:Section 301 authorizes tariffs responding to unfair foreign trade practices. Section 338 of the Tariff Act allows tariffs against countries discriminating against U.S. commerce. The Kavanaugh dissent actually provided a roadmap for the administration to put in place tariffs using one of these alternate bases. So I think that one way or another, the tariff policies of this administration and the favorable trade deals that they allow us to strike with many nations, they will continue. And I think the court seems to know that because the majority's opinion as concurrences collectively said nothing about how the administration should go about refunding the tariff revenue already collected.

1:13:28David Sacks:I think that if they expected this decision to end the tariff policies altogether, they probably would have said something about that. And I think that brings up a really important point just on the merits here, which is, why would we want to give back hundreds of billions of dollars to a bunch of importers when we're trillions of dollars in debt? And I'll just say that the people who originally predicted that somehow these tariffs would be catastrophic for the economy, those predictions all prove not to be true. So I think that this is ultimately, I think, going to be a popular policy. The administration will figure out a different way to do it.

1:14:02David Sacks:And I predict that future administrations, whether they're Republican or Democrat, will keep some version of the tariffs in place, but I think that they will be ultimately popular on a longstanding basis.

1:14:14Jason Calacanis:Chamath, your thoughts? I think we've proven the experiment has been successful. What was the experiment? We needed to smoke out what the right balance of trade should be between the United States and all of its partner countries. I think that what we uncovered is that for the most part, they were structural imbalances that were made not because they made economic sense for America, but it was just part of a hodgepodge of globalist drivel that people just bought into. And if you strip all that stuff away, we had a hollowed out manufacturing class and we have a hollowed out middle class and the tariffs will create more equality for the American worker in the end.

1:14:56Jason Calacanis:So now I think the debate should be about how to implement these in a structural and permanent way. I think we talked about this before, Jason, that this was sort of expected. And there are many other mechanisms. I think the president activated one of them immediately. I don't think this is going away, and I don't think it should go away. so i think now the point is congress really should ratify these things because it is clear that it was the right thing to do and if they don't then you know the president still has a lot of room to get these done but these make smart economic sense in my opinion freeberg any thoughts on the

1:15:33Chamath Palihapitiya:ruling does it give you some i don't know um respect for the courts that they made a judgment not along party lines for once uh does it yeah okay yeah and i think i think that all i think

1:15:48Bill Friedberg:all americans should feel assured and comforted in the fact that i think a lot of people view the supreme court as having a high degree of partisanship the fact that the president despite having a majority of what others would think were kind of politically aligned appointees on the court had a ruling that he did not want i think should give everyone good faith that the system that the founders set up is working, that there is a judicial branch that adjudicates the law against the executive branch when they think that it doesn't map. And I think that that was very important to see. So, you know, I clearly, the debate about tariffs, the economic effect of tariffs, the security structural trade relationship effect of tariffs, and the importance of that is a separate conversation.

1:16:35Bill Friedberg:But I do think that the read of the law being what I would say is nonpartisan with respect to the court's action is important and probably very valuable.

1:16:43Chamath Palihapitiya:I'll reiterate that. This is a great moment, I think, for the Supreme Court to make a thoughtful decision. And I think we need to think about executive power a whole bunch, whether it's Biden with student loans or Trump with tariffs. We have this beautiful system set up by the founding fathers. I know it's frustrating. Gridlock's frustrating. Having to work together that's frustrating. Trust me, we all come to this podcast every Thursday, and we have to work together. It's hard to work together. You've got to learn to work together, and we don't want an executive branch that can unilaterally just roll over the other branches.

1:17:17Chamath Palihapitiya:And that's going to end. I think Trump's going to lose the midterms, and we're going to get to more chaos again. And we might as well start this reconciliation process of these two sides stopping their law or against each other and working together for the American people on the important issues. The tariffs, there are some fundamentally important things that Trump was doing there. And they were working. They could have been chaotic. That's a reasonable criticism of them because business owners didn't know what to do. So Trump did it in a chaotic way. That's just a fact. He should have done it in a more thoughtful way.

1:17:53Chamath Palihapitiya:And the Congress should have been alongside him saying, hey, what tools do you need? How can we help support this? We know that there's trade imbalances. We know that people are being unfair. Let's work together as one America to negotiate these things. So both sides start having dinner together, start playing cards together, and do what we do here on this podcast, which is you fight it out, you argue, but then you come together and try to find some resolutions for this stuff. So they should go and tell Trump, hey, we'll approve all the tariffs you did. We will not force you to get refunds. The Congress should come out and just say that.

1:18:27Chamath Palihapitiya:and then they should say hey and when you want to do them in 2026 just run them by us or ask us for some parameters that you want and let's just be thoughtful about these are our concerns that's it

1:18:36David Sacks:thank you for coming to my TED talk can I just do one absolutely I'm sure you have some debate

1:18:41Chamath Palihapitiya:club points that you want to point that well I just want to make one I mean do you think

1:18:44David Sacks:Susan Rice is going to respect your call for comedy and basically working together kumbaya

1:18:52Chamath Palihapitiya:i want the esprit de corps no i don't i think both sides she just she just had a diatribe where she

1:18:58David Sacks:basically said that republicans and actually not just like partisan republicans but even tech companies that merely were working with the administration should expect to get prosecuted i mean she was basically outright saying she's she and the democrats are going to pursue lawfare as soon as they get back in charge they're absolutely going to do that just like when

1:19:18Chamath Palihapitiya:Trump got in. He went after Comey. He went after Jerome Powell. The lawfare is happening on both sides. Both sides need to drop the lawfare. We need to get rid of these pardons. They're ridiculous. And we have to be a team. So let's just get some esprit de corps and teamwork going in Washington, D.C. And that's what we should vote for in the midterms. We should vote for moderates who want to work together. And in 2028, we should have some kind of moderates and tickets that want to work together. That would be better for all Americans. This kind of chaos is not good, folks. All right, listen, this has been another amazing episode of the All In Podcast, your favorite podcast.

1:19:55Chamath Palihapitiya:Like, subscribe, whatever the hell you want to do on your own time. Four, David Sachs, David Friedberg, Chamath Poyapatiya. Love you, boys. I am the world's greatest moderator, J.K.L. See you next time. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

1:20:09David Sacks:We'll let your winners ride.

1:20:12Chamath Palihapitiya:Rain Man David Sack I'm going all in

1:20:16David Sacks:And it said We open source it to the fans And they've just gone crazy with it Love you, Westies I'm the queen of Kinoa I'm going all in What, what, what, your winner's line What, what, your winner's line What, your winner's line Besties are gone That is my dog taking an audition

1:20:34Bill Friedberg:Your driveway sex Winning a bitch Oh, man My habitasher will meet me at play

1:20:40Jason Calacanis:We should all just get a room and just have one big huge orgy because they're all just useless. It's like this like sexual tension, but they just need to release them out.

1:20:48David Sacks:Wet your feet. Wet your feet. We need to get merch. I'm doing all in.

1:21:02I'm doing all in.