You Won’t Believe Who’s Really Running the Show - Tulsi Gabbard

Overview

The video is a political commentary built around Tulsi Gabbard’s argument that America’s day-to-day governance and major policy decisions are controlled “behind the scenes” by a Washington-aligned ruling class rather than by elected officials themselves. She claims that President Biden and, if elected, Vice President Kamala Harris would function mainly as figureheads for a broader “Democrat elite” and national-security/media establishment.

Who “runs the show” and why accountability is failing

• The core claim is that presidents and visible party leaders are not the real decision-makers; instead, power lies in an “administrative state” and a “national security state,” along with political elites, major donors, billionaires, and media interests.
• Gabbard argues that this arrangement weakens democratic accountability because voters cannot meaningfully control who makes policy decisions when the chosen leader is constrained or bypassed.

The Biden/Harris choice and the “reset button”

• She points to Biden’s debate performance with Trump as exposing (in her view) that Biden wasn’t “calling the shots.”
• She argues the current election is not truly about replacing one decision-maker with another; “taking one horse out and putting another horse in” would leave the same behind-the-scenes network in charge.
• Her stated “choice,” contrasted with Trump, is between:
  • Elites who favor expanded authority, heightened crisis power, and ongoing war/foreign intervention, versus
  • Trump, described as less beholden to establishment interests and more willing to avoid “unnecessary” regime-change wars and focus on domestic investment and peace.

Why Trump faces intense opposition

• Gabbard contends Trump is targeted aggressively (e.g., ballot-access efforts and legal challenges) because he won’t “bend the knee” to the Washington establishment.
• She rejects the idea that Trump would be immune from the same system, but argues the key difference is Trump’s relative independence from those establishment incentives.

War, the military-industrial complex, and neocon influence

• A major theme is that both parties contain war-promoting actors, especially neoconservative “war arm-mongers,” defense contractors, and politicians who profit from conflict.
• She emphasizes her military background and says advocates of frequent war often lack real understanding of war’s human and economic costs.
• She argues these leaders justify decisions through self-deception and narratives that allow them to sleep at night.
• She cites historical warnings about a military-industrial complex (Eisenhower) and past resistance to war drums (Kennedy-era references).

The role of media and shifting narratives

• She argues mainstream media and establishment institutions help control which candidates and storylines are legitimized.
• She also claims that people increasingly distrust everything because narratives shift quickly and information is manipulated—leading to confusion and disengagement.

Democratic party direction and the Supreme Court

• She argues Democrats are trying to reshape the judiciary—especially the Supreme Court—when rulings don’t align with Democrat preferences.
• She mentions ballot-access issues involving Trump as an example of decisions Democrats dislike, and says there are proposals like Supreme Court term limits.

Religious freedom, “God” in public life, and family policy

She expands her critique beyond foreign policy into culture-war issues:

• Religion in public life: She argues the Democratic Party has moved toward suppressing or de-emphasizing religion in public life (including references to removing “under God” from the pledge during COVID-era practice).
• Targeting religious Christians/Catholics: She claims Democrats target religious Christians and Catholics (including references to criticism of Kamala Harris and comparisons to opposition to Amy Coney Barrett).
• Parenting and education authority: She argues Democrats increasingly seek government authority over parenting and education, including:
  • opposition to parental choice in schooling,
  • support for state policies that override parental involvement in “gender-affirming” decisions (framed by her as “gender mutilation” / child harm),
  • enforcement threats she claims are used to pressure parents.

TikTok bill: free speech vs security

• She argues the TikTok law (passed with bipartisan support, signed by Biden) is fundamentally an anti-free-speech precedent.
• Her specific concern is that the president can designate entities as foreign-adversary “agents,” potentially allowing shutdowns without meaningful appeal.
• She supports allowing debate about platform risks and youth harms but says government suppression sets an authoritarian-style power precedent.
• She argues the correct response to dangerous speech should be “more speech,” not platform bans.

Reaction to the Trump shooting and distrust in instant headlines

• The discussion includes critique of early media framing and uncertainty, claiming that headlines initially minimized or delayed describing the event as an actual shooting.
• She suggests some officials (including FBI leadership) may have cast doubt in a way that undermined trust and fueled conspiracy thinking.
• She notes a split where large numbers of people reportedly believed different versions of events, and argues seriousness should have been handled consistently regardless of political identity.

Her political trajectory and appeal to conservatives

• Gabbard explains leaving the Democratic Party after internal fights (2016 election and DNC disputes she claims involved rigged primaries favoring Hillary Clinton, plus disagreements over war/foreign policy).
• She describes speaking at CPAC while still a Democrat and says conservatives resonate with her message about freedom, Constitution, and limited government.
• She says she is consistent on principles (freedom, liberty, peace, security) despite changing party alignment.

Project 2025 and third-party viability

• She says she hasn’t read Project 2025 (nearly 1,000 pages) and urges viewers to read it themselves rather than accept narratives from either side.
• On third parties (RFK Jr. discussed), she argues the two-party system is structurally “bought” and supported by media, making ballot access and breakthrough extremely difficult—especially late in a campaign.

Ending focus: civic responsibility and voting

The concluding thrust is that the main actionable path is civic engagement:

• Be an independent critical thinker
• Get informed
• Vote (she argues abstention guarantees no change)

She dismisses forced-voting schemes (like those discussed from Australia), arguing motivation and free will matter, and token voting could degrade meaningful participation.

Presenters / contributors

• Tulsi Gabbard (main speaker)
• Host (interviewer; not explicitly named in the subtitles)