496 Comments
User's avatar
June Lemongrass's avatar

Thank you, Matt. Nobody could have said it better.

Expand full comment
Paul Harper's avatar

Typo alert "Ranking member Raskin, you don’t have to GO as far as RussiaSPACEor China..."

Raskin et al look more and more like self-interested crooks and less and less like "defenders of the Constitution" with every billion Musk discovers stolen from the public purse. Most of congress has been actively involved or colluding with the theft for generations.

The members' only complaint is: "why can't the special interests I really work for steal more?" Both sides of the aisle and across the "political spectrum" (TM). Thieves.

Matt is once again doing the lord's work.

Expand full comment
Paul Harper's avatar

At the same time: Hegseth's Trump Dump on the European kleptocracy - stealing from US tax payers:

"Tool up, Europe - the rip-off is over."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq_iPCrKTA8

So much winning inside and outside the US. Full speed ahead.

Expand full comment
John Kirsch's avatar

Except that the money European nations spend on "defense" goes to Raytheon and other US weapons makers.

This is what it means to be a vassal state.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

They build weapons in Finland and Sweden too….

Expand full comment
SpC's avatar

And Russia, China, France, UK, Germany, S. Korea, Italy, Spain, Pakistan....

Expand full comment
Starry Gordon's avatar

I think the primary purpose was to _make_ them vassal states, although in some cases the ostensible purpose was simply to pacify the more restless ones to some extent, and also to have political footballs to kick around at home. And as you note, some of the cash could be routed home to build up "defense" spending. Various states and empires of the past also practiced it for similar purposes. In any case, then, the aforesaid "Trump Dump", if that means a cutback in foreign aid, could be expected to make the foreigners more independent of American ruling class interests and thus more troublesome. I guess we will see.

Expand full comment
John Kirsch's avatar

My main concern is the effort by European states to restrict speech and the threat of that happening here, especially speech critical of Israel.

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

There's no "threat" here, it's happening. Last summer the big Zionist donors got together to force university administrators to effectively ban pro-Palestinian protest on campus (which they did), and there's plenty of other policy and legislation in place off-campus too. As in every other area, an exception has been made to the U.S. Constitution for Israel. It no doubt helps pave the way for chilling other kinds of speech, especially speech critical of the billionaires, oligarchy, etc., but for now Israel is the one singled out for special treatment. If you want to understand power relations in the United States in 2025, you must understand Zionism and the people and institutions that have circled the wagons to shield it from attack and criticism, despite them being so richly deserving of both.

Expand full comment
Starry Gordon's avatar

The point of giving the Europeans money was to control them. It was not a gift, a freebie. It turned out to be cheaper than World War 1, World War 2, Vietnam, Korea, and a bunch of other wars too numerous to name. But, anyway, now what?

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

Graft and corruption is their lifeblood. So wonder they want to censor!

(Nice job, Matt.)

Expand full comment
AnonmymousAddict's avatar

He is, and I consider you a saint and would others that say so in the midst of all the showmanship we’re supposed to suddenly take as righting the wrongs. One thing I realized after listening to years of Walter and Matt, and the reporting within Racket and other stacks is just that; our tax (almost half of all the dollars I ever have and ever will earn, working my ass off) ran government is almost entirely overrun with corruption and sell outs. Both sides, both aisles, however you slice it. That feature is intentional and necessary. Make no mistake of it.

There is nothing new about the practice itself, and it’s been going on BEFORE the internet. I’m all for this upturning of stones, and I genuinely believe it to be helpful. But I refuse to suddenly see from the traditional “side” or letter, or particular group/tribe/party perspectives. The rot was started before my time, and will take at least half as long to fully sterilize and bleach it clean. FACTS.

Expand full comment
Craig Purcell's avatar

Waiting for Elon and DOGE to move onto DOD…

Expand full comment
Danno's avatar

They announced that that's where they're going next.

Expand full comment
Starry Gordon's avatar

I am pretty sure that will never happen. But we'll see. It's a great suggestion and should get a gold star.

Expand full comment
Stxbuck's avatar

I don’t see why not. Trump has never been an industrialist-unlike Musk-and doesn’t have any particular financial or personal ties to the military-industrial complex.

Expand full comment
ResistWeMuch's avatar

it started when the government siezed the right to legally counterfeit which is now in the trillions each year.

Expand full comment
William Wray's avatar

agreed Never trust a politician Of any” side”

Expand full comment
Megan Baker's avatar

Let's see if Musk can find what is by far the greatest source of graft in the government: the "defense" budget, the corruption at which is estimated to account for 30% of the almost incomprehensible amount we throw at it. The Pentagon being his biggest benefactor may cause some him some real vision problems, but if he does tackle it, only then will many of us give him credit for promoting government efficiency, and only then will he deserve it. (As far as I know, he hasn't tackled Medicare "Advantage" either, another rich vein of crony corruption.)

Expand full comment
Sumtingwong's avatar

I think many were just too lazy to really look or, as is more likely the case, didn't realize it was as deep as it was.

Expand full comment
GVFischer's avatar

I think technology—AI—developed to the point that a REAL audit could be done relatively quickly was a real game changer. Musk’s team understands the software, Trump understands the need to look deeply into finances.

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

"didn't realize it was as deep as it was"... well, maybe, but I submit if they're that clueless and/or ignorant, their creditability is zero and it's no wonder entities such as USAID have been able to operate subversive programs at will.

Expand full comment
Sumtingwong's avatar

Agreed. I think a good look has been needed for a long time but it definitely took the executive to pull it off. A rando representative would not be able to get enough people behind it.

Expand full comment
Starry Gordon's avatar

And why would an individual executive be necessarily less corrupt or less incompetent than a team, a group, a politburo? Hamilton thought so, but the Romans during the period of the Republic had _two_ consuls (supreme executives) to prevent dictatorship. (Of course they got one anyway. It seems that those who desire masters can always find one.)

Expand full comment
Sumtingwong's avatar

A problem with a group is that special interests seem to take over and the end product is watered down. We can argue all day about the motivations of this executive but there is ample evidence that they are attempting to do what is right by the people.

Expand full comment
Commonsense's avatar

Lazy, yes likely. But really, they wanted to be able to say that they “didn’t know”. And, the ones that were benefitting from the corruption did everything they could to keep others from trying to look at this deeply. It’s an absolute shameful disgrace to both parties that this was allowed to occur.

Expand full comment
nancy knox-bierman's avatar

I am convinced that ALL of them suffer from mental illness. Jim Jordan and Rand Paul may have the kind we like aka Oppositional Defiance Disorder, Messianic Complex, etc. but they all have some syndrome or psychosis. The donors choose them for that reason and then play upon their weaknesses.

Expand full comment
Starry Gordon's avatar

I find it curious that the Congress and its works that you all hate so much was elected (actively chosen) by people like yourselves in what I believe are free elections preceded and followed by a lot of free speech. In any case you think the Constitution has failed. What do you plan to replace it with?

Expand full comment
Vet nor's avatar

When did you vote for any bureaucrat who is running one of these agencies? They take the vague feel good law the Congress passes and turn out 1000s of pages of rules and regulations that you have to figure out how to survive. Technically they are supposed to present to Congress a report as to how much money it's going to cost people to comply with but Congress persons are too busy raising money ey for their next election to show up to hear a report.

They specifically made USAID "independent" so the unelected bureaucrats could spend taxpayer funds with no oversight.

Expand full comment
BanaB's avatar

What I was going to say!

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

Me, too, 'cept I didn't have the words!

Expand full comment
Sumtingwong's avatar

Agreed. Much agreed. The path to getting there, on either side, should never be censored.

Expand full comment
The Wright Stuff's avatar

Dear Matt,

I know you see yourself on the right side of history, but history will prove you a fool.

Just like it did when you tried to convince us that Elon Musk was a free speech maverick only to watch him de-platform one critic after another. Only to watch him de-platform you. Just like it did when you tried to convince us that Putin had no intention to invade Ukraine after he'd amassed tens of thousands of fully armed troops on the border.

You tell us you cherish free speech. Does a free speech enthusiast remain silent as an administration threatens to deport thousands of voices of dissent on US campuses?

Does a free speech absolutist enthusiastically call for a criminal investigation by a US Attorney General of a sitting US Senator? The attorney general of a president immeasurably more corrupt and vindictive that Richard Nixon? Were you in favor of criminally investigating Ken Starr?

Why does someone who cherishes privacy as much as you say you do cheer on as a non-elected billionaire with an obvious rightwing agenda obtains the data of millions of working Americans including Social Security and Medicare benefits, grants, payments to government contractors, including those that compete directly with this billionaire? Does he cheer on as said individual weaponizes this data?

Why do you call for the death of ‘legacy media’ which presumably includes several cherished publications of the Right like the NY Post, WSJ and Fox, as well as Rolling Stone where you began and did the most significant work of your career? To they all deserve to die? Or only NPR and the New York Times? Or NBC where your dad worked? What do you propose they be replaced with? No doubt the bloviating of people like Alex Jones, Joe Rogan and yourself. Would that be a better world? No editors, just shooting from the hip like you do with Walter in your track suit? Two blokes chewing the fat, as it were?

Wouldn’t you have befitted from an editor as you committed one embarrassing error after another in your Twitter file ‘expose,’ as was pointed out by legacy media? You seemed to not care and you just smiled uncomfortably as Mehdi Hasan continuously exposed for shoddy reporting. You didn't manage to answer why you obfuscated or omitted or exaggerated continuously. Nor did you try very hard. And you never bothered to set the record straight afterwards. Is it because in your media universe there is no accountability or standards?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a597e6Wv_xg

Expand full comment
No Use For a Band/Name's avatar

"Looking to counter the lucrative substack misinformation industry"

Pro-tip: program your troll-bots with different profile text if you aren't just trying to evade being blocked for posting these hilariously stupid walls of text. Get bent, "Alex" :)

Expand full comment
DP's avatar

Amen!

Expand full comment
Current Resident's avatar

I actually feel proud of you, like ‘that’s my guy up there.’

Expand full comment
Jan's avatar

I feel proud of him and I’m Canadian.

Expand full comment
Paul Girard's avatar

Same. There’s the “news” - and there’s the truth from Taibbi, Hedges, Shellenberger and Greenwald. Funny, but listening to a former General - now on the payroll of an arms manufacturer- being interviewed about the need for more war doesn’t give me a sense of getting informed. If a “journalist” is just retelling a politician’s take, assume lie.

Expand full comment
Skenny's avatar

Totally agree. Before January 20, I knew that no one in DC represented me. It seems odd that it's up to a journalist to school those cretins about the Constitution, after they take an oath to protect and respect it. Thanks Matt.

Expand full comment
Adam Brown's avatar

I sent the clip to my brother by saying..."Here's my boy giving it to the censorious queefs. "

Expand full comment
Lisa Gleaton's avatar

Right?

Expand full comment
Steve Vivian's avatar

I agree completely ... feel the same way. Matt is indispensable, one of very few. I'd include Glenn G. in that awfully valuable group as well.

Expand full comment
Jessica's avatar

Perfectly said Matt. We appreciate you more than you know!!!

Expand full comment
No Use For a Band/Name's avatar

Well said - "You sold us out" hit the nail square on the head

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

Blunt and to the point!

Expand full comment
Cary Dicristina's avatar

100% This statement makes me glad to be “an American, mother fucker.” (Still your greatest line.)

Expand full comment
Unset's avatar

"Our allies in England now have an Online Safety Act which empowers the government to jail people for nebulous offenses like 'false communication' or causing 'psychological harm.'”

Beware Matt, you may have just committed a Non-crime Hate Incident. The British police will be calling!

Expand full comment
Patrick's avatar

....and Kerry will sic Insp. Clouseau on you!

Expand full comment
Kevin Schilling's avatar

Or,,,,,James Taylor,,,(that might even be worse)

Expand full comment
Paula Fortenberry's avatar

No problem, we defeated them already!

Expand full comment
SGC's avatar

Matt Taibbi puts forth a simple but powerful point.

Censorship is not a left-wing or right wing weapon. It is done by both . All who wish to suppress free thought and open discussion are killing our culture. Whatever party or ideology they carry.

“We must censor and suppress the other team because our views are so virtuous, and we are much smarter than average Americans.”

Phooey!

Free Americans must continue to stand up to the powerful ( eg. Congress and others) people and groups.

A free society and censorship, of any kind can never exist together.

Expand full comment
Pacificus's avatar

Nah, the censorship we face today is almost 100% from the Dems... Sorry to dump on your "both sides-ism."

Expand full comment
badnabor's avatar

Censorship has recently been "handled" through Democrats, but only because they happened to be the party in power. The globalists don't really GAF which party is the current window dressing. The Republicans have more than enough greed driven representatives of their own. Just off-hand I can see a long list of them. Liz Cheney, Mitt Romney, John Bolton, the Bushes are just a few of the higher profile ones. So, don't be deluded into thinking that the Republicans are "clean".

Expand full comment
SnowInTheWind's avatar

Yes, and the ones you list are all the neocons and RINOs that Trump supporters usually decry. I believe that all of them have joined ranks with the DNC Democrats against Trump.

The opposition isn't just between Republicans and Democrats. Those are the overt party organizations, but a major reconfiguration has been going on over the past decade. The real struggle now is between the swamp aristocracy and the populist base. The neocons and the Clintonist/DNC Democrats represent the former, and the Sanders and Trump supporters the latter.

Since Hillary definitively took over the Democrats in 2016, moderate and populist Democrats have been coming over to the Trump side, while the rise of Trump has been pushing the neocon Republicans over to the Democrats. The populists on both wings still believe in the American ideal of liberty, and don't really have much appetite for serious censorship. The swamp aristocrats of both parties are control freaks, and absolutely want to install it.

Expand full comment
Alice Ball's avatar

💯💯💯💯💯

Expand full comment
Pacificus's avatar

Didn't say the Republicans were "clean," I said that at this moment in history, the Censorship Industrial Complex is a mostly Dem thing. In any case, the Repubs you mentioned are all Globalists, not Trump Republicans. Not the same party. Don't "delude" yourself about that.

Expand full comment
S. Culper, Jr.'s avatar

True now. I hope we don't get drunk on the power we have now and end up doing the same. I don't think we would, but it's always a danger that has to be protected against.

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

Hate to say it, but it's the most likely outcome. But hopefully not...

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

Just try defending the Palestinians against the genocidal onslaught from Israel, and watch the Republicans foam at the mouth in favor of censorship, and worse: firings, deportations, etc. Very few clean hands on the R side, either.

Expand full comment
SnowInTheWind's avatar

Zionism is a third rail that dominates the upper levels of both parties. It is not organically MAGA, though MAGA has a lot of Christians who sympathize with Israel. I've seen that foaming from a few outlets that bill themselves as being conservative and anti-censorship, NAS being one of the most egregious, and I agree that it's pretty ugly.

Expand full comment
Dimitrios Antos's avatar

I think there have already been some worrisome attempts at banning CRT, or LGBT literature, etc. Granted most of that was in schools, not for adults, but the Dems could respond in like manner that they were censoring Twitter and Facebook not everything.

Expand full comment
Pacificus's avatar

Keep pornography out of the hands and minds of school age children is not "censorship," it is common decency. But yeah, the Dems are trying real hard to blur that distinction.

Expand full comment
Skip Scott's avatar

I believe this is one reason why the DOE needs to be abolished, and that power returns to the states. Where there is a majority liberal culture, they teach their kids what they want. Likewise states with a more dominant conservative culture can teach their kids want they want. America will never be homogenous. The 10th amendment here is very relevant.

Expand full comment
Skip Scott's avatar

I would amend this comment to say that any federal money assisting states in funding education be earmarked to supporting the 3 R's. No matter your cultural perspective, teaching kids how to think, instead of what to think, requires proficiency in the basics.

Expand full comment
SnowInTheWind's avatar

If it's actually banning of CRT or LGBT literature that people would choose freely for themselves, then that would indeed be censorship. But I think the issue in those cases is what is chosen to present to captive child audiences in public schools, isn't it?

The First Amendment prevents me from using the federal government to prevent you from putting forth your views, and vice versa. But it also has a clause about no established religion. That isn't some tangential anti-religious remark about churches. The point is that, just as neither of us can use the government to prevent the other from speaking and publishing, so too we cannot use the government to put our own ideology up as a hat on a pole that everyone else must bow down to. Feeding Woke, CRT, LGBT, or any other kind of partisan propaganda, without any counter-argument, to public school children in order to prejudice them for life for or against some political point of view, is doing exactly that.

Expand full comment
S. Culper, Jr.'s avatar

Right. Those may be legit but we have to avoid the temptation to go too far for no other reason than we can.

Expand full comment
Heyjude's avatar

No school can offer access to every book published. Of necessity, some books are chosen while others are not. They don’t censor, they curate. Facebook and Twitter can accommodate any post that is put up. It’s not a valid comparison, because the circumstances are different.

Expand full comment
Shelley's avatar

CRT and LGBT literature are fantasies, my way of saying lies. Why lie to school children?

Expand full comment
Dimitrios Antos's avatar

The problem with censorship is that a powerful person or group decides what is true and what is a lie and has the power to enforce it. I bet every single one of us considers some things to be lies, but the point of a free society and the 1st amendment is that freedom of expression is guaranteed for truth and for lies. Let the better argument win.

Expand full comment
Shelley's avatar

There are real truths. The Left never argues, it uses subterfuge, intimidation, lawfare, and silencing through the power of the USG.

The last 60 plus years of social engineering has arranged this phantom “my truths/your truths”.

Expand full comment
SnowInTheWind's avatar

Truths are real, but finding the truth can be difficult. Any one of us can be wrong about what we believe to be the truth. Talking it out against other people with different beliefs is how we check and correct our beliefs, and theirs.

I agree that the notion of "my truths/your truths" is relativist lunacy. But "my beliefs/your beliefs, and let's argue to find out which are right and which are wrong" is the humble reality we are always left with if we want to find the truth. Censorship prevents us from doing that.

Expand full comment
Nick's avatar

Thing is, the machinery and legislated tools of suppression still exist.

It's a pretty tempting thing to 'just' shut people up if they're saying inconvenient things. Time will tell. What a test...

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

The Maoists called it "correct thought," but it's pretty much the same thing.

Expand full comment
Pacificus's avatar

Actually, Maoism is the origin of the idea of "political correctness." As in, your point may not be factually correct, but it is politically correct, i.e., aligns with Maoist doctrine.

Expand full comment
TruthCanHurt23's avatar

Beautifully stated, SGC!

I'm going to be using your last line a lot.

Expand full comment
Richard Trembowicz's avatar

I am politically conservative. I gave my son a subscription to Rolling Stone as a gift when he was in middle school. It wasn't long until I was taking each new issue first so I could devour Matt's latest article. After 15 years, I am more impressed than ever with Matt's commitment to the art of journalism. You are a brilliant beacon in the night.

Expand full comment
Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Hear! Hear!

Expand full comment
Cowgirlcontrarian's avatar

Very well said and funny. John Kerry in a powdered wig scoffing at the peasants is an image I hope to get out of my head.

Expand full comment
ska.one's avatar

Harvey Korman was a much better Count de Monet.

Expand full comment
KTA's avatar

I must have been too young when I first watched this Mel Brooks classic. I never noticed the now obvious name until just now. I will have to rewatch assuming it is not banned on Netflix, Apple, or Amazon.

Expand full comment
Kate Finis's avatar

🤣🤣🤣

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

How about the head rolling into the basket?

Expand full comment
rtj's avatar

Powdered wig and John Malkovich was my first thought. Kerry wishes though.

Expand full comment
Dunboy2020's avatar

Loved your opening statement. John Kerry is a gift that keeps on giving...

Expand full comment
Art4arts_sake's avatar

Kerry needs to move his botoxed

a$$ to Europe or the UK if he's so in favor of their laws.

Expand full comment
flipshod's avatar

I watched maybe an hour of it, mostly scrolling through to you and Schellenberger. You both made your points even better this time. It's heroic and impressive.

(Schellenberg's "defund the thought police" line was too cute by half in that room, but he was otherwise very on-point about what Congress should do (fire them all and start over.))

Expand full comment
NH Rocks's avatar

Great testimony Matt ! Keep up the good work.

Expand full comment
BookWench's avatar

This was brilliant!

"Lastly, 'building consensus' may be a politician’s job, but it’s not mine as a citizen or as a journalist. In fact, making it hard to govern is exactly the media’s job. The failure to understand this is why we have a censorship problem."

I am always surprised at how openly they describe their censorship goals.

I'm not sure whether it's a lack of self-awareness, or just a lack of shame, but it is chilling.

Expand full comment
David Cashion's avatar

If we would just do what they tell us we would be so much better off.

But we too dumb.

Expand full comment
DaveL's avatar

If you're a totalitarian at heart, it comes naturally.

Expand full comment
TruthCanHurt23's avatar

Unfortunately, for the most part it's lack of education, or more accurately lack of proper education. The kids coming out of J school and similar majors have actually (and sadly) been specifically been taught that their job is to push a point of view, and if that comes AT THE COST OF objectivity and providing all the facts, then it's not just okay but desirable to omit facts that don't support you or your employer's point of view.

Children live what they learn, and always will. In this case, we've taught them exactly the wrong way to do journalism.

Expand full comment
Sasha Stone's avatar

You were great, Matt. So good. But man, listening to them -- the Democrats. I wanted to die. They actually had the nerve to say people were afraid to say one wrong word. What did we all just live through? How can be that daft?

Expand full comment
Glitterpuppy's avatar

My God. As usual, Matt nails the issues. Did anyone listen? I mean, besides us followers? I doubt it. Every day the pool of deceit gets deeper and more murky. How do we get out of this?

Expand full comment
JM's avatar

Thank you for testifying. It shows great restraint on your part to have not said "self licking ice cream cone," and preferring closed circle.

Expand full comment
Mary Orlowski McFerson's avatar

Like the ass lickory, comment Walt made recently!

Expand full comment