Tucker Carlson clashes with Mark Cuban over Ukraine stance: 'How much money have you sent?'



Former talk-show host Tucker Carlson and businessman Mark Cuban had an uncomfortable exchange over the topic of the Russia-Ukraine war earlier this week.

The two stars appeared at the All-In Summit on Monday, hosted by the "All-In" podcast, a business and technology show hosted by entrepreneurs Chamath Palihapitiya, Jason Calacanis, David Sacks, and David Friedberg.

'Forcing other people to help is not charity. It's vanity.'

Cuban appeared first, with the panel jumping into the topic of fixing America's health care. This led Cuban to bring up his latest venture, a pharmaceutical website that sells drugs at cost, with the URL getting at least eight mentions in about 15 minutes.

When Carlson appeared on stage, he immediately mocked the consistent plugs.

When asked how to identify the line between "democracy" and "pandering," Carlson offered a hilarious answer.

"Where is the line? I mean, I can identify it: It's at costplusdrugs.com," Carlson said, poking fun at Cuban's business.

Less than 10 minutes passed before Sacks, the White House AI and crypto czar under President Trump, asked Cuban about "whether we should be sending money to Ukraine or not."

"Were you in favor of that?" Sacks inquired.

"Honestly, I don't have a good answer," Cuban replied. "I can make an argument both ways, and half my family is Ukrainian, from my grandparents. Personally, I think we should help, but I don't have a studied answer for you."

This led to the most contentious part of the show, with Carlson cornering Cuban on his position.

RELATED: Mark Cuban says Americans 'aren't ready' for transgender athletes yet: 'You can't just force it down people's throats'

"How much money have you sent to Ukraine?" the former Fox News host asked the billionaire.

"None," Cuban revealed.

This did not stop Carlson's questions.

"Oh, so what do you mean by 'we'?" Carlson continued. Cuban was silent, responding only with a shoulder shrug.

"You're the one whose family's from Ukraine. Like, why don't you send them a billion dollars?" Carlson piled on.

"Because I'm trying to fix health care," Cuban retorted.

Tucker, not standing down, then asked, "Why don't you fix their health care if you're, like, so deep? If you think we need to help, why don't you start? How about you first? I noticed that's never even an option for anybody."

The crowd erupted in applause in support of Carlson's rhetoric.

"It's like, 'We need to help!'" the podcaster added. "That's not what charity is. Forcing other people to help is not charity. It's vanity."

Calacanis then jumped in and saved Cuban with comments about the war and joked that President Trump was going to turn a profit from all the chaos in Eastern Europe.

RELATED: How Tucker Carlson vs. Ted Cruz exposed a critical biblical question on Israel

Much of Carlson's commentary on the panel was focused on population replacement in Western countries and the unaffordability of homes, which is stagnating population growth.

Other highlights included Carlson being asked if he is anti-Semitic, if Jeffrey Epstein was a spy, and if Russian President Vladimir Putin is a war criminal.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump’s AI plan prioritizes innovation over regulation



The Biden-era obsession with “AI safety” is officially over.

Last week, the Trump administration unveiled its long-anticipated AI Action Plan — a sweeping strategy that replaces cautious bureaucratic oversight with a clear mandate: Win the global AI race.

The plan aims to streamline permitting and spur domestic manufacturing, creating high-skilled jobs in fields like electrical engineering and advanced HVAC along the way.

Headlined by longtime Trump ally David Sacks, now serving as the White House’s AI and cryptocurrency czar, the plan prioritizes innovation, infrastructure, and American labor over hand-wringing about theoretical harms.

In fact, the administration recently rebranded the Department of Commerce's AI Safety Institute as the Center for AI Standards and Innovation. It’s a symbolic but telling move.

During a press call, Sacks and Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, outlined the three pillars of the plan, which stem from Executive Order 14179 and incorporate feedback from more than 10,000 public comments.

1. Accelerate AI innovation

The plan’s top priority is unleashing American innovation by slashing red tape and promoting widespread adoption of AI tools. According to Sacks, embracing AI’s full potential is critical to maintaining America’s competitive edge — and the only way to secure “unquestioned and unchallenged” global technological dominance.

Kratsios emphasized that deregulation will play a major role in achieving that goal, especially in sectors like health care, energy, and scientific research. “Truth and objectivity,” he said, will guide AI development — not politically motivated filters.

2. Build infrastructure — fast

America’s AI dominance depends on physical infrastructure: chip fabs, data centers, and a power grid capable of supporting them. The plan aims to streamline permitting and spur domestic manufacturing, creating high-skilled jobs in fields like electrical engineering and advanced HVAC along the way.

3. Lead globally

Trump’s team wants to position the U.S. as the world’s go-to AI partner — offering full-stack export packages that include hardware, software, and trained models to allies across the globe. The plan envisions a vast international ecosystem anchored in American-made platforms.

Crucially, that includes drawing a hard line against ideological gatekeeping by only contracting with LLM developers who avoid “ideological bias,” particularly “DEI,” a senior government official familiar with the plan said.

RELATED: 'There's nowhere to go': Will Elon Musk stop the AI Antichrist — or become it?

The Washington Post/DeAgostini/Getty Images

Heeding Orwell

Throughout the rollout, both Sacks and Kratsios made clear that the plan aims to protect free expression and resist “Orwellian” uses of AI. Systems that engage in social engineering or suppress politically disfavored speech will be excluded from federal contracts.

At the same time, the plan notably sidesteps the hot-button issue of AI’s use of copyrighted content. Officials said the matter falls under fair use doctrine and is currently being litigated, making it outside the executive branch’s current scope.

'National security imperative'

The AI Action Plan opens with a preamble from President Trump, who calls the initiative a matter of national security.

As our global competitors race to exploit these technologies, it is a national security imperative for the United States to achieve and maintain unquestioned and unchallenged global technological dominance. To secure our future, we must harness the full power of American innovation.

The plan is expected to be implemented over the next 6 to 12 months, led by the OSTP and in coordination with industry and international partners.

Is this how we beat China? Trump’s AI dream guts small-town USA



Imagine Arab sheik-funded AI supercenters dotting rural America, staffed by foreign labor, draining local water and power, and hollowing out small-town life — all so Big Tech can build its digital technocracy. Sounds like the globalist Agenda 2030 schemes we’ve warned about for years. But shockingly, it’s now become the Trump administration’s top priority.

President Trump’s team is pushing to override red-state zoning laws and fast-track thousands of these massive data centers. The losers? Small-town Americans. The winners? The “rich men north of Richmond.”

Who is looking out for the people when Trump and the globalists are on the same side? “We have to beat China” is the rallying cry — a lazy excuse to silence questions and crush local regulations. But we need AI that serves productivity, not a technocracy that rules over us.

Noise levels hit 96 decibels. Imagine a leaf blower that never turns off. Would you want that in your backyard? It may be coming sooner than you think.

Trump’s “Stargate” plan would spend a staggering half-trillion dollars — public and private — to build thousands of AI data centers. It’s like rushing to amputate a limb. Sometimes it’s necessary, but any sane person would demand second and third opinions first.

Yet, instead of debate, we got betrayal. Tucked quietly into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act was a provision from AI czar David Sacks banning all state regulation of AI systems for 10 years. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) gaslit us, claiming this would stop California’s tech tyranny. In truth, it targets Trump’s own base: farmers, ranchers, and rural voters. Just like eminent domain carve-outs for green energy, it strips local power to benefit Big Tech.

— (@)

Even before Stargate breaks ground, rural Trump country is already grappling with AI data centers draining water, electricity, and property values. Telling locals to shut up because “we must beat China” is pure demagoguery.

Copying China’s playbook

Meanwhile, the same administration opening the floodgates for these projects is also welcoming hundreds of thousands of Chinese tech students. This is déjà vu from the post-9/11 security state. Back then, we cracked down on Americans while doubling immigration from the very regions funding terror. It was never about safety — it was always about the grift.

Across Trump country, protests are swelling against these land and energy grabs. You can almost hear Oliver Anthony’s lyrics echoing over the farmland: “These rich men north of Richmond ... wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do.”

The point of AI should be to improve our lives — not force us to sacrifice local resources and freedoms so it can exist as a modern Baal.

Troubling open-ended questions about what this “data god” will be used for lay heavily on these conversations, and it’s quite hard not to envision it being used for control. We’re told we must become like China to beat China, yet what we’re building is arguably worse. And the more immediate consequence will be irreparable damage to our rural landscapes and national power grid.

Rural communities bear the cost

Is it any wonder rural communities want to use local zoning laws to at least slow this stampede? These areas have land, fewer regulations, and desperate politicians eager for new investment. Big Tech knows exactly who to target.

Virginia’s Loudoun and Prince William Counties were early victims. Now, the industry is setting sights on Northwest Georgia, rural Oklahoma, Texas, and Arizona. What these projects promise is anything but rural tranquility.

RELATED: Trump bets big on AI to make America dominant again

Photo by Alvarez via Getty Images

A single proposed project in American Township, Ohio, for example, was slated to cover nearly 170 acres. Consider that 4,750 of these leviathans were expected to break ground just this year. What’s going to happen to America’s countryside once the thousands of data centers scheduled for this year alone are built, in addition to the subsequent thousands we can expect in the coming years?

According to the Institute for Energy Research, by 2030, data centers’ electricity consumption is on track to surpass the entire electricity consumption of Japan today. In the United States, that number will account for almost half of the growth in electricity demand between now and 2030. In short, in just a few years, data centers will consume more energy than what is currently required for manufacturing all energy-intensive goods — such as aluminum, steel, and cement — combined.

The strain on water is even more concerning. A single large data center can consume upwards of five million gallons of water per day to cool the vast arrays of servers — the equivalent of a small city. Much of the water use is consumptive, meaning it evaporates and is not returned to the local watershed.

In water-scarce regions, such as Arizona — one of the primary locations targeted for these water centers — this can put a tremendous strain on already limited resources, creating a new and powerful competitor for a resource that is essential for farming, ranching, and residential life.

The daily toll of these data centers in rural America is already steep. Backup generators and cooling fans roar day and night. Locals near Virginia sites compare it to “a lawnmower in your living room 24/7.” Noise levels hit 96 decibels. Imagine a leaf blower that never turns off. Would you want that in your backyard?

It may be coming sooner than you think.

Moreover, thousands of AI data centers would destroy much of America’s rural landscapes — rolling hills replaced by giant, windowless warehouses. Yes, ugly infrastructure like power plants is sometimes essential — but at least they provide energy to the community. These data centers take energy away. A handful would be one thing. Thousands amount to a dystopia.

A better AI future

The United States could secure its lead in the AI era not by copying foreign actors’ brute-force, centralized strategy — which imposes staggering burdens on local communities — but by fostering an agile, resilient, and open ecosystem. Instead of merely stockpiling raw processing power, we should prioritize building AI systems that are accurate, reliable, globally accessible, and seamlessly integrate with existing technology.

Decentralized AI infrastructure, often pairing AI with blockchain, offers a smarter path. It keeps data under local control, bolsters privacy, complies with local laws, and dramatically cuts the risk of catastrophic breaches tied to massive single points of failure. It also encourages flexibility, allowing open-source models to flourish and adapt more quickly than bureaucratic mega-projects ever could.

If we truly want an AI future that serves American families — not Big Tech oligarchs or foreign monarchs — we must champion technology that empowers people, protects communities, and respects the land. Anything less isn’t just bad policy. It’s a betrayal of the very America these rural voters fight to preserve.

White House Saves Taxpayer Dollars With Lowest Payroll In 16 Years

The White House is not paying multiple prominent employees

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act hides a big, ugly AI betrayal



Picture your local leaders — the ones you elect to defend your rights and reflect your values — stripped of the power to regulate the most powerful technology ever invented. Not in some dystopian future. In Congress. Right now.

Buried in the House version of Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a provision that would block every state in the country from passing any AI regulations for the next 10 years.

The idea that Washington can prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

An earlier Senate draft took a different route, using federal funding as a weapon: States that tried to pass their own AI laws would lose access to key resources. But the version the Senate passed on July 1 dropped that language entirely.

Now House and Senate Republicans face a choice — negotiate a compromise or let the "big, beautiful bill" die.

The Trump administration has supported efforts to bar states from imposing their own AI regulations. But with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act already facing a rocky path through Congress, President Trump is likely to sign it regardless of how lawmakers resolve the question.

Supporters of a federal ban on state-level AI laws have made thoughtful and at times persuasive arguments. But handing Washington that much control would be a serious error.

A ban would concentrate power in the hands of unelected federal bureaucrats and weaken the constitutional framework that protects individual liberty. It would ignore the clear limits the Constitution places on federal authority.

Federalism isn’t a suggestion

The 10th Amendment reserves all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government to the states or the people. That includes the power to regulate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

For more than 200 years, federalism has safeguarded American freedom by allowing states to address the specific needs and values of their citizens. It lets states experiment — whether that means California mandating electric vehicles or Texas fostering energy freedom.

If states can regulate oil rigs and wind farms, surely they can regulate server farms and machine learning models.

A federal case for caution

David Sacks — tech entrepreneur and now the White House’s AI and crypto czar — has made a thoughtful case on X for a centralized federal approach to AI regulation. He warns that letting 50 states write their own rules could create a chaotic patchwork, stifle innovation, and weaken America’s position in the global AI race.

— (@)

Those concerns aren’t without merit. Sacks underscores the speed and scale of AI development and the need for a strategic, national response.

But the answer isn’t to strip states of their constitutional authority.

America’s founders built a system designed to resist such centralization. They understood that when power moves farther from the people, government becomes less accountable. The American answer to complexity isn’t uniformity imposed from above — it’s responsive governance closest to the people.

Besides, complexity isn’t new. States already handle it without descending into chaos. The Uniform Commercial Code offers a clear example: It governs business law across all 50 states with remarkable consistency — without federal coercion.

States also have interstate compacts (official agreements between states) on several issues, including driver’s licenses and emergency aid.

AI regulation can follow a similar path. Uniformity doesn’t require surrendering state sovereignty.

State regulation is necessary

The threats posed by artificial intelligence aren’t theoretical. Mass surveillance, cultural manipulation, and weaponized censorship are already at the doorstep.

In the wrong hands, AI becomes a tool of digital tyranny. And if federal leaders won’t act — or worse, block oversight entirely — then states have a duty to defend liberty while they still can.

RELATED: Your job, your future, your humanity: AI just crossed the line we can never undo

BlackJack3D via iStock/Getty Images

From banning AI systems that impersonate government officials to regulating the collection and use of personal data, local governments are often better positioned to protect their communities. They’re closer to the people. They hear the concerns firsthand.

These decisions shouldn’t be handed over to unelected federal agencies, no matter how well intentioned the bureaucracy claims to be.

The real danger: Doing nothing

This is not a question of partisanship. It’s a question of sovereignty. The idea that Washington, D.C., can or should prevent states from acting to protect their citizens from a rapidly advancing and poorly understood technology is as unconstitutional as it is unwise.

If Republicans in Congress are serious about defending liberty, they should reject any proposal that strips states of their constitutional right to govern themselves. Let California be California. Let Texas be Texas. That’s how America was designed to work.

Artificial intelligence may change the world, but it should never be allowed to change who we are as a people. We are free citizens in a self-governing republic, not subjects of a central authority.

It’s time for states to reclaim their rightful role and for Congress to remember what the Constitution actually says.

ROOKE: GOP Given Perfect Opportunity To Gain Control Over Powerful Elites
play icon

ROOKE: GOP Given Perfect Opportunity To Gain Control Over Powerful Elites

'There has to be a checks and balances system'

DC Media’s Annual Nerd Prom Has Never Had Less Juice

He has been a staunch Trump ally

‘She Didn’t Have the Decency’: Sulking Kamala Slinks Away From Election Loss

The Democrats’ replacement candidate has been missing in action since her Election Day loss to Donald Trump.

Venture capitalist admits he 'misjudged' Trump — then he exposes the 'huge gap' between media coverage and the true Trump



Billionaire venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya detailed recently how personally meeting Donald Trump changed his perception of the former president.

Earlier this month, entrepreneur David Sacks hosted a Silicon Valley fundraiser for Trump, raising $12 million. The crowd was full of wealthy tech businessmen and venture capitalists, many of whom Sacks later said were lifelong Democratic voters. Last week, Sacks and Palihapitiya recounted the event on their podcast "All-In."

'There is a huge gap between how the media tries to portray Donald Trump and what he's like when you meet him in person.'

On the podcast, Palihapitiya admitted that he had "misjudged" Trump in the past, and his view of the former president changed after meeting him.

"He is charismatic, he's intellectually sharp, and he's funny. And when you put that together, he can engage an audience for a long time and be totally extemporaneous," Palihapitiya said of Trump.

"The other thing I would say that is, that he is very polite, and he's kind in a way that was disarming and was not what I expected, and so I felt that I had misjudged him many years in the past," he explained. "So, I was very glad that I had an opportunity to sit beside him and to actually interact with him one-on-one — it was really, really engaging."

Palihapitiya explained that his interaction with Trump left a lasting impression, one that exposed the media's false depictions of him.

"I think that there is a huge gap between how the media tries to portray Donald Trump and what he's like when you meet him in person — and that gap is really wide," Palihapitiya said.

Trump, Palihapitiya said, impressed him with his "pro-American" and "pro-innovation" agenda, one that emphasizes "low regulation" and "low taxation." The platform, Palihapitiya added, "does stand very much in contrast with" the Democratic Party's agenda.

Sacks told a similar story.

"President Trump is extremely charming. He connects with people in like five seconds. I mean, he meets you and finds something interesting or funny to say, and he's hilarious," Sacks recounted.

"When he spoke in the living room, and he talked extemporaneously for an hour, he's speaking off-the-cuff. Every speech he gives is different," he explained. "People don't realize how entertaining he is."

Something that especially stood out at the fundraiser, Sacks later said, was Trump's energy level.

"He's someone who's very sharp, very on the ball, very funny, and then his energy level is incredible," Sacks said. "So, he had started his day at Mar-a-Lago at 3:30 a.m. Then, he flew to Arizona, did a Trump rally in Arizona, then he flew to San Francisco for our event. He spent four hours at our event. ... Then, he flew to Los Angeles for more events the next day there. So, think about his day and his energy level was just amazing the whole time."

Earlier this month, Sacks announced his endorsement of Trump.

Sacks explained he decided to support Trump on the basis of Trump's economy performance, his foreign policy record, the border crisis, and lawfare.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Elon Musk had some chilling thoughts about the potential of WWIII



A few days ago, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and David Sacks joined together for a phone conference to discuss the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine conflicts.

Musk, as usual, had some profound insight.

“In theory, it should be easy to avoid World War III because no one wants it,” said Sacks.

“I think we are sleepwalking our way into World War III with one foolish decision after another,” Musk responded. “I mean, what is the track record here? It’s not good.”

Sacks agreed, adding, “There seems to be no concept of a track record” in modern society.

“It worries me that the veterans of World War II are almost all dead,” Musk continued, “so those who remember the horrors of a world war are no longer [around].”

“Who has the visceral knowledge of what a world war is really like when people have grown up coddled in comfort? They have no concept of war,” he concluded.


Want more from Dave Rubin?

To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.