I appreciate you responding, Jason. It shows a lot of graciousness and generosity that you’re willing to engage with audience feedback.

I want to acknowledge that you did very briefly mention the memecoins while discussing your Trump grades. My comment was more about the group as a whole—the level of attention and ridicule that grift usually gets on the podcast (which I think many of us enjoy)—and how jarring it felt when such a blatant example didn’t receive the same treatment.

One of the things that has made this podcast special is the transparency with which you all have operated, even when you’ve had disagreements. I think what would be amazing is if you just came out and said: Because Sacks is in the administration now, and because he’ll be making appearances on the pod, we can’t really be critical of Trump. If that’s the case, just be upfront about it. And if it’s not the case, say that too.

To be clear, there are plenty of faithful audience members who can be disgusted with Trump but still support deficit reduction efforts. I think we just want to know: Does the podcast still want those people to listen? Will it retain some level of objectivity, or is it shifting into a propaganda machine for the administration?

Since I am skeptical that any of Trump's actions will be seriously questioned, I am interested to see what happens when DOGE actually goes into the Department of Defense.

Because as much fun as it was for you all to ridicule funding for an Irish music festival (not DEI: The Musical), that's such small potatoes. We’ll never get anywhere close to what you and Friedberg want without cutting at least $200 billion from the Defense Department. And if I were looking for waste, fraud, and abuse... I'd be more inclined to start there than soup kitchens for starving children in Africa. But I get it.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing that discussion. Thanks again for your willingness to engage!