Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro
Speaker 1: American student organization in the country, fighting for the future
Speaker 1: of our republic.
Speaker 2: My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.
Speaker 1: If the most important thing for you is just feeling good,
Speaker 1: you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important
Speaker 1: thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful. College is
Speaker 1: a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids
Speaker 1: to college. You should get married as young as possible
Speaker 1: and have as many kids as possible. Go start at
Speaker 1: turning point, you would say college chapter. Go start aturning
Speaker 1: point youould say high school chapter. Go find out how
Speaker 1: your church can get involved.
Speaker 2: Sign up and become an activist.
Speaker 1: I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade,
Speaker 1: most important decision I ever made in my life, and
Speaker 1: I encourage you to do the same. Here I am.
Speaker 2: Lord, Use me.
Speaker 1: Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. The Charlie Kirk Show
Speaker 1: is proudly sponsored by Preserved Gold, leading gold and silver
Speaker 1: experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to
Speaker 1: my family, friends and viewers.
Speaker 3: All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It is
Speaker 3: February twentieth twenty twenty six. Today's lead is sometimes you
Speaker 3: have to come up with a lead, and sometimes the
Speaker 3: lead finds.
Speaker 4: Sometimes it is thrust upon you with great anticipation.
Speaker 3: And that is of course the tariff decision that has
Speaker 3: come down from the Supreme Court. Now we spent the
Speaker 3: morning pouring over this. We've got Jonathan Carney from Breitbart,
Speaker 3: who's kind of the resident tariff expert. He's going to
Speaker 3: be joining us any moment now, so I'm told. But
Speaker 3: this was a blockbuster decision that we had been waiting
Speaker 3: for now just to set the terms. This was any
Speaker 3: tariff that had been established by President Trump under what's
Speaker 3: called the IEEPA, which is essentially an emergency power that
Speaker 3: the president has been given by the Congress and he
Speaker 3: but it's never really been you to do tariffs. Now
Speaker 3: it's predecessor what was it called? It was like Training
Speaker 3: with the Enemy. Tradings with the Enemy Act was used
Speaker 3: one time in a limited fashion ten percent tariffs by
Speaker 3: President Nixon. So it's not completely without president but it
Speaker 3: the that law had been replaced by the iee PA
Speaker 3: and it had never been used by president in the
Speaker 3: way that President Trump was using. They have struck down
Speaker 3: President Trump's ability to do it. But there's so many wrinkles.
Speaker 3: So this is we should just just to set the
Speaker 3: stage here.
Speaker 4: This is mainly the this is the Liberation Day tariffs
Speaker 4: that were announced with great fanfare, and some of the
Speaker 4: reciprocal tariffs, yeah, about about ten months ago, as well
Speaker 4: as other terror the reciprocal tariffs. He did also a
Speaker 4: lot of what he was doing where you know, you'd
Speaker 4: see the president goes on truth social and reacts to
Speaker 4: something and says there will be a one hundred percent
Speaker 4: tariff on Canada or China. Until this has changed, a
Speaker 4: lot of those really aggressive tariffs that he would announce
Speaker 4: on short notice that's coming through this bill, the ie
Speaker 4: International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and what the Supreme Court
Speaker 4: ruled today, and it is a six to three ruling,
Speaker 4: so that involved of the justices who'd be considered more
Speaker 4: on the right. That we lost Roberts, we lost Gorsich,
Speaker 4: we lost Amy Comy Barrett. So that's two of President
Speaker 4: Trump's repicks in fact. And they said in essence that
Speaker 4: basically that the president's claim of power was too large,
Speaker 4: that the bill is not intended by Congress to allow
Speaker 4: the president to declare any emergency and thereby impose any tariff.
Speaker 4: So they imply, even in the ruling that if it
Speaker 4: had been if it had been more concrete, if he'd
Speaker 4: said these tariffs are maybe lower or for a more
Speaker 4: limited duration, temper probably would have held up stronger. They
Speaker 4: seem to take issue with what they say is the
Speaker 4: president claiming almost total unlimited authority, you might say, over
Speaker 4: the ability to regulate international time trade.
Speaker 3: And I think we have John Carney, Yes, we do,
Speaker 3: we have John. Welcome to the show. I know you
Speaker 3: got a busy morning. You're in hot demand this morning.
Speaker 3: With the tariff ruling, we've kind of set the stage
Speaker 3: here while we're waiting for you. The question then becomes
Speaker 3: what happens next. I've seen rumors that President Trump has
Speaker 3: a backup plan. Okay, so he can't do tariffs under
Speaker 3: ie E PA. We could disagree with that, We could
Speaker 3: agree with that. What happens next?
Speaker 5: So there are a number of plans. There's actually about
Speaker 5: six statutes that just on the face of themselves.
Speaker 6: Allow the president to impose tariffs.
Speaker 5: The reason why they wanted to do under AEPA, though,
Speaker 5: is there's a lot more.
Speaker 6: Procedural hurdles to these ones.
Speaker 5: So a lot of them you have to do multi
Speaker 5: month studies, but usually by the Commerce Department.
Speaker 6: Sometimes they have time limits.
Speaker 5: They can only be imposed for a little bit, so
Speaker 5: it'll be more complex. I've proposed something I call IASIS,
Speaker 5: which is a licensing regime that would actually link the
Speaker 5: ability of other countries to export to the US to
Speaker 5: a license fee that would totally be allowed under AEPA.
Speaker 5: So this is another thing that they can do under
Speaker 5: a EPA that the Administration hasn't yet fully considered. A
Speaker 5: big question to me is what do the other countries do?
Speaker 5: Remember a lot of them have lowered their own trade barriers,
Speaker 5: lowered their own tariffs in response to our threatening to
Speaker 5: raise tariffs. So the question is do they go back
Speaker 5: on this. If they do, I think that actually will
Speaker 5: provide a reason for Congress to actually give this authority
Speaker 5: to the US president. That's the clean way to resolve
Speaker 5: all this. Congress needs to enact Presidential Tariff authority tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Frankly, yeah, I think that's interesting. So you're saying you
Speaker 3: could enact in a license fee, which would essentially accomplish
Speaker 3: the exact same goal here. It would just be under
Speaker 3: a different name and That's kind of one of the
Speaker 3: pushbacks that Kavanaugh, who wrote the descent here, which is
Speaker 3: really fascinating. He basically says, although I firmly disagree with
Speaker 3: the Court's holdings, because he was the dissenter, the decision
Speaker 3: might not substantially constrain a president's ability to order tariffs
Speaker 3: going forward. That is because numerous other federal statutes authorize
Speaker 3: the president to impose tariffs and might justify most, if
Speaker 3: not all, of the tariffs at issue in this case.
Speaker 3: And then he goes on to list, which was I
Speaker 3: found interesting because he's basically giving a roadmap here. Those
Speaker 3: statutes include, for example, the Trade Expansion Act of nineteen
Speaker 3: sixty two, section two thirty two, the Trade Act of
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy four sections one, twenty two and two one,
Speaker 3: and the Teriff Act of nineteen thirty section three thirty eight.
Speaker 3: In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked
Speaker 3: the wrong statutory box by real relying on AIPA rather
Speaker 3: than another statute to impose these tariffs. I it's so okay.
Speaker 3: I guess if we're going to go by the letter
Speaker 3: of the law, not by the spirit of it, this
Speaker 3: is probably in some ways you could consider the correct decision.
Speaker 3: But it's also bizarre and sort of insane, John, because
Speaker 3: there's other reasons to believe that he could ban all imports.
Speaker 3: The court is concluding he could just go to China.
Speaker 3: He could do that, We're gonna ban all imports from China,
Speaker 3: but we can't tear if you a penny.
Speaker 4: In fact, he seems to have more authority to do
Speaker 4: that even if he was just saying I am banning
Speaker 4: entire industries from coming into America.
Speaker 6: He could right, Yes, absolutely, that's a big problem.
Speaker 5: Kavanaugh actually points this out that there's that the majority
Speaker 5: decision basically says Trump is allowed to ban whatever he wants,
Speaker 5: but he can't oppose a one dollar tariff. That really
Speaker 5: doesn't make sense. I don't think it's correct as a
Speaker 5: matter of law. I think that the Kavanaugh Alito Thomas
Speaker 5: had the right view of the law in this.
Speaker 6: But it is the law.
Speaker 5: Now, you know, this is what the Supreme Court says.
Speaker 5: So the administration will look to all of these other powers, and.
Speaker 6: Believe me, they already were Everybody heard.
Speaker 5: The way that oral arguments weren't went. So this decision
Speaker 5: hasn't come to a as a surprise.
Speaker 6: To anyone. In fact, a lot of people.
Speaker 5: I mean, I would say the consensus was that the tariffs,
Speaker 5: at least all.
Speaker 6: Of the tariffs weren't going to survive.
Speaker 5: If there's any surprise, it's just how this is pretty
Speaker 5: you know, just says the president can't do this at all.
Speaker 5: There's a pretty blanket slopdown of the AEPA terffs. But
Speaker 5: like I said, even under AEPA, they could ban things,
Speaker 5: they could.
Speaker 6: Put license fees on things. So you can't use the
Speaker 6: magic word tariff.
Speaker 5: You know, we'll find another way to protect American Indusjon.
Speaker 4: The online world moves fast, and it's moving even faster
Speaker 4: these days. That's why TikTok approaches teen safety with families
Speaker 4: in mind from the start, because discovery and creativity are
Speaker 4: both wonderful things, but it's important to make sure that
Speaker 4: safety comes first as well. On TikTok, teenagers have over
Speaker 4: fifty built in protections right from when they join. Accounts
Speaker 4: routines all start private by default, They're not open to
Speaker 4: the entire world, and for those under sixteen, direct messages
Speaker 4: are turned off. Only their friends can comment on their videos.
Speaker 4: And that kind of approach matters because feeling confident and
Speaker 4: comfortable about these platforms your teenagers are on shouldn't mean
Speaker 4: digging through a bunch of menus and trying to set
Speaker 4: everything up yourself and worrying that you got it wrong.
Speaker 4: TikTok is taking a proactive approach. Their protections are built
Speaker 4: in from the moment those teenagers join, so that safety
Speaker 4: and peace of mind for parents is there right from
Speaker 4: the start. All of this is to say when safety
Speaker 4: comes first, discovery and creativity can follow without fear. Learn
Speaker 4: more by going to TikTok dot com slash guardians guide.
Speaker 4: That's TikTok dot com slash guardians Guide.
Speaker 3: John Carney from Breitbart major authority in hot demand. I
Speaker 3: called him early, though, and I got him as soon
Speaker 3: as this came down. I said, John, I need you,
Speaker 3: and you're like, I think I can make that work.
Speaker 3: All right, So what happens to the revenue?
Speaker 5: I will say, you know you, I'm very happy that
Speaker 5: you reached out right away, because you did get me.
Speaker 5: You were you were first, right after my own boss,
Speaker 5: Alex Marlowe.
Speaker 3: Well listen, he's got a wait, he's got a wait.
Speaker 3: We have business to attend you, So tell us about
Speaker 3: the revenue. Where's it going?
Speaker 6: So that remains to be seen.
Speaker 5: So we won't get any more revenue from then IIPA terriffs.
Speaker 6: So that's done. Those are coming off the books immediately.
Speaker 5: What happens to the say, call it somewhere between one
Speaker 5: hundred and fifty two hundred billion dollars that have been
Speaker 5: collected under these terps. So that's only, by the way,
Speaker 5: part of the revenue we've collected under jo I.
Speaker 3: Was gonna say say that number again, John, because it's
Speaker 3: about three hundred billion all in. How much was under AEPA.
Speaker 5: Between one hundred and seventy and two hundred like, call
Speaker 5: it one seventy as a good estimate.
Speaker 6: So some of that.
Speaker 5: May have to be refunded, but we don't know that yet.
Speaker 5: The Supreme Court's decision is actually totally silent on what
Speaker 5: happens next. Capito is like pretty critical of that. He's like,
Speaker 5: this could be a mess. It could actually take years
Speaker 5: of litigation because you'll have to prove that you paid
Speaker 5: the tariff, that you paid the tariff that was a
Speaker 5: NIPA tariff and not a different tariff, and there would
Speaker 5: be other considerations.
Speaker 6: It's not clear. You know that the money's going to
Speaker 6: go away right away.
Speaker 5: Uh, and so you know it'll that money won't come
Speaker 5: out of the US treasure. I'd say for quite a while.
Speaker 5: If I were a business entitled to the tariffs, what
Speaker 5: you what you did is you you basically made sure
Speaker 5: you had records showing exactly which tariffs you paid so
Speaker 5: that you can then come to the court later and say,
Speaker 5: please rec fund these.
Speaker 6: But it is going to be a mess.
Speaker 3: So we've got that. What number is that? Guys? I
Speaker 3: want that that that's the uh the refund quote from Kavanat, Yeah,
Speaker 3: get me that. Get me that. Well that this is
Speaker 3: so by the way, there's I believe this is Wharton
Speaker 3: School has done this. Yeah, Wharton UPenn has done that.
Speaker 3: This graph is an estimate of AIPA revenue and it
Speaker 3: has it at about one hundred and sixty four point
Speaker 3: seven billion a monthly revenue of twenty point eight billion
Speaker 3: dollars and they have it cumulative through January, so it's
Speaker 3: about it maybe is about a month delayed, so you're
Speaker 3: probably right about one seventy one seventy five on the I.
Speaker 6: Want to say, I just did that off the top
Speaker 6: of my head.
Speaker 5: So, uh, the fact that the Wharten School came in
Speaker 5: almost at the same number.
Speaker 6: I feel pretty good about that.
Speaker 3: That's pretty good, John. So you think this is going
Speaker 3: to be litigated, and apparently Wharton's School school is saying
Speaker 3: that importers generally have one hundred and eighty days after
Speaker 3: goods are liquidated to protest and request refunds from US
Speaker 3: Customs and Border Protection. So right, So the process is
Speaker 3: people paid the tariffs, they had to have.
Speaker 5: Submitted a basically a piece of paper saying I don't
Speaker 5: think I should have paid that tariff.
Speaker 6: One unfortunate think about that is, Look, the.
Speaker 5: Really big importers, big companies Walmart, the international companies that
Speaker 5: import stuff into the euth They've already filed that paperwork.
Speaker 5: It's really actually going to be the small guys who
Speaker 5: really get kind of messed around with here because they
Speaker 5: they probably didn't file the paperwork and or some of
Speaker 5: them didn't. Luckily, Look, you get one hundred and eighty days.
Speaker 5: So some of the tariffs that have been paid will
Speaker 5: still be eligible for refunds. But we again, we don't
Speaker 5: know what the refund process will look like. As far
Speaker 5: as I know, we've never had anything missed big where
Speaker 5: you know, you know, one hundred and fifty billion dollars,
Speaker 5: one hundred and seventy billion dollars is potentially being refunded
Speaker 5: to the people who you know, who paid the tariffs
Speaker 5: in the first place.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's it's a it's I think Kavanaugh refers to
Speaker 3: it as a mess.
Speaker 4: Just he do he Yeah, and he even flags you know,
Speaker 4: there's issues a lot of imports probably already passed costs
Speaker 4: on to consumers at some point here, but now you
Speaker 4: know they can double dip from that. What does it
Speaker 4: do to all of our trade dealers with other countries
Speaker 4: that were premised on these tariffs.
Speaker 3: Do those stick around?
Speaker 7: Uh?
Speaker 3: He really?
Speaker 4: Just the truth is, it seems we don't know what
Speaker 4: is going to be unleashed by this.
Speaker 6: This is I will say.
Speaker 5: That if other countries start to start to say no, no,
Speaker 5: now we're taking back. We're going to raise our tariffs again,
Speaker 5: We're going to raise our trade barriers, that will at
Speaker 5: least be a moral victory for Donald Trump because he'll
Speaker 5: be able to say they did this because I imposed
Speaker 5: the tariffs. Now they're taking it away because the Supreme
Speaker 5: Court took away the tariffs. And that should be persuasive
Speaker 5: to Congress to actually absolutely come back because this Remember
Speaker 5: the court here did not say the president could not
Speaker 5: do this under the constitution.
Speaker 6: They said that the statute didn't authorize it.
Speaker 5: So Congress with one word in certain tariffs into a EPA,
Speaker 5: just one word amendment, and Trump would have the power
Speaker 5: to do it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's it's literally because in some of the oral arguments,
Speaker 3: as you mentioned, they just said, well, it doesn't say tariffs.
Speaker 3: So that's the whole point, even though like in the
Speaker 3: spirit of the law, it certainly indicates that he would
Speaker 3: be Now so just to read exactly what Kavanaugh said,
Speaker 3: I got the quote here. In the meantime, however, the
Speaker 3: interim effects of this Court's decision could be substantial. The
Speaker 3: United States may be required to refund billions of dollars
Speaker 3: to importers who paid the IEPA tariffs, even though some
Speaker 3: importers may have already passed on costs to consumers or others. So,
Speaker 3: you know, their whole argument was that Americans absorbed these taxes.
Speaker 3: That is probably not one hundred percent truth. It's probably
Speaker 3: about an eighty twenty import to American consumers twenty percent.
Speaker 3: But if let's assume that they were right about that.
Speaker 3: Then Americans are basically going to get double tax because
Speaker 3: of this this court decision, which is hilarious. He goes
Speaker 3: as acknowledged an oral argument. The refund process is likely
Speaker 3: to be a mess, last word to you, John.
Speaker 5: And it will a lot of this money is actually
Speaker 5: going to leave the US altogether because a huge amount
Speaker 5: of imports are actually done through foreign companies and their
Speaker 5: US affiliates, So it's actually going to be payments going
Speaker 5: to foreigners.
Speaker 6: As well, which is really unfortunate.
Speaker 5: It'll be a drag on the economy, and like like
Speaker 5: like Justice Capito said, it's going to be a mess
Speaker 5: going forward, but I imagine that will get very soon Trump
Speaker 5: announcing the new.
Speaker 6: Tariffs because they've been working on this.
Speaker 3: They have Conde exactly. Trump has a backup plan. Everybody,
Speaker 3: he has a backup plan. I would also say that
Speaker 3: we have just gotten word that he has a twelve
Speaker 3: forty five Eastern press conference that we're going to be
Speaker 3: looking for on this tariff decision. So twelve forty five,
Speaker 3: stay right here, we'll have it on real America's voice. John,
Speaker 3: I know you gotta go. You've got you got Marlowe.
Speaker 3: Uh probably screaming at you already, So tell him hi
Speaker 3: for us, Thank you for making it here. We know
Speaker 3: you got a busy morning. Jonathan Carney, Breitbart Economics editor.
Speaker 3: There you go, all right, So.
Speaker 4: We got an email. Kathy asked, is the possibility of
Speaker 4: refunding tariffs to the importers? A lot of them have
Speaker 4: passed costs onto consumers. Do the consumers get a refund?
Speaker 3: Also? The answer is no, nope, nope, No, it's consumers.
Speaker 3: The man gets screwed. This This is here's the thing.
Speaker 3: Cavanaugh went through trial by fire, the whole what was
Speaker 3: her name, uh, Betsy?
Speaker 6: Oh?
Speaker 3: What was Christine Blozi Ford? Christine Bla two front doors?
Speaker 3: She the whole thing, you know that where he went
Speaker 3: through a trial by fire. The guy's got steeled down
Speaker 3: his spine. Now everybody doubted him at first. Meanwhile, Gorsic
Speaker 3: in ACB, two other Trump appointees going against the president. Listen,
Speaker 3: you could make the argument that per perhaps this was
Speaker 3: textually just the right decision by the letter of the law,
Speaker 3: but it's there's a measure of insanity to it, because
Speaker 3: you could just ban all the imports. You can't tear
Speaker 3: if from a single Penny. If you knew Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 3: you knew this. He was a connector. Charlie believed in
Speaker 3: finding good people and connecting them with other good people
Speaker 3: that he cared about. When someone truly took care of him,
Speaker 3: Charlie would never hesitate to recommend them. Andrew Delray and
Speaker 3: Todd of Akin were two of those people. They personally
Speaker 3: helped Charlie and Erica with their mortgage needs, and Charlie
Speaker 3: trusted them completely. Whether it was a home buyer trying
Speaker 3: to qualify or someone needing to consolidate debt or see
Speaker 3: if they could get a lower rate in payments. These
Speaker 3: were the guys Charlie sent people to and right now,
Speaker 3: timing matters. The market has shifted and rates have come down.
Speaker 3: There's more inventory, bidding wars have cooled, and buyers finally
Speaker 3: have more control. But that window won't stay open forever.
Speaker 3: As rates come down, competition will return. That's why being
Speaker 3: prepared now is so important. Andrew and Todd at Union
Speaker 3: Home Mortgage over forty years of combined experience and guide
Speaker 3: you through the process clearly, no pressure, no guesswork. These
Speaker 3: are the people Charlie trusted, and they're the people you
Speaker 3: can count on.
Speaker 1: Reach out today to get approved for mortgage financing with
Speaker 1: Andrew and Todd at Andrewintodd dot com or called Triple
Speaker 1: eight Triple eight eleven seventy two with forty years of experience.
Speaker 1: They really are the experts and they make it easy
Speaker 1: because they keep everything in house called Triple Light Triple
Speaker 1: eight eleven seventy two or go to Andrewintodd dot com.
Speaker 1: That is Andrewintodd dot com.
Speaker 3: Joining us now is Mark Halprin, a great, great political
Speaker 3: analyst and commentator and a friend of the show. Mark,
Speaker 3: Welcome back to the show. Lots to discuss this morning
Speaker 3: thoughts with the you know, the Supreme Courts ruling on
Speaker 3: President Trump's use of tariffs. I have all this other
Speaker 3: stuff I was planning on talking to you about, and
Speaker 3: then this came across the wire. Give us the political implications.
Speaker 3: I know there's questions about canny Still do te ariffs?
Speaker 3: Can you use other mechanisms? What do we do with
Speaker 3: the revenue that came in? What happens with that? Is
Speaker 3: it go to a lower court, et cetera, et cetera? Politically?
Speaker 3: What does it mean?
Speaker 7: Well, first, saw, let me just tip let I miss you. Guys,
Speaker 7: haven't heard from you in a while. Haven't heard from
Speaker 7: you in a while. Good to hear from you.
Speaker 3: I'll call you every week. Mark we'll have you. We'll
Speaker 3: just make a standing in but good.
Speaker 2: I'd like that.
Speaker 7: So my first thought, just trying to be in the
Speaker 7: mind of the president, is he's going to be super
Speaker 7: annoyed at the Chief Justice.
Speaker 2: But he didn't pick the Chief Justice. He inherited it.
Speaker 7: But two of the three justices the president put on
Speaker 7: the court voted against him, Gorsicch and Cony Barrett. So
Speaker 7: my suspicion is the President probably will vent that on
Speaker 7: truth social But the larger issue, more than that, as
Speaker 7: you point out all the mechanical things involving terrorists which
Speaker 7: are super important, is this is the first time the
Speaker 7: court's really weighed in substantively on the president's powers. They've
Speaker 7: done some procedural things, but they've ruled against him. And
Speaker 7: there's a ton of pending cases in other areas, not
Speaker 7: about tariffs, where if the same justices or even a
Speaker 7: five to four vote against him decide they're not afraid
Speaker 7: to vote against Donald Trump. Right, everybody likes to pretend
Speaker 7: these are legal decisions they're political almost always. It's really
Speaker 7: disheartening because they should be legal, but justices are pretty political,
Speaker 7: not just the current ones, not just the ones picked
Speaker 7: by Republicans or the ones picked by Democrats. So if
Speaker 7: I were the president's political team, I'd be worried that
Speaker 7: they're in the future when some of these other cases
Speaker 7: come up, that they may be on the short end
Speaker 7: of five to four or six to three decisions that
Speaker 7: will really be impactful for what the president can do.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I agree with that, and it also one of
Speaker 3: the thoughts I had this morning was, you know, we
Speaker 3: hear about Democrats wanted to pack the courts, wanting to
Speaker 3: call it a lawless court, and here you go them
Speaker 3: doing exactly the opposite of what the President was lobbing for.
Speaker 3: Will that inspire any trust? I don't think so. They'll
Speaker 3: still pack the court go aheadlic Well, I I just
Speaker 3: real quickly.
Speaker 4: I would concern the other way that we know the
Speaker 4: President was very invested in this tariff case. I don't
Speaker 4: know that it would be an exaggeration to say it
Speaker 4: was his top personal brands, top priority. He's really fulminated
Speaker 4: on truth and in other venues about the importance of
Speaker 4: this case. Should there be any concern among people that
Speaker 4: the president might up rhetoric on Actually I don't need to.
Speaker 3: Listen to the Supreme Court on this sort of thing.
Speaker 3: Would do you think there's any hazard of that?
Speaker 7: I mean, I know that's talked about a lot, particularly
Speaker 7: on the left and amongst others. I just don't think so.
Speaker 7: I just don't see any indication. There have been a
Speaker 7: few things, like some of the immigration orders, like the
Speaker 7: planes that were in the air on the way to Venezuela,
Speaker 7: where people have sort of tried to suggest that that
Speaker 7: was lawless and violation of court order.
Speaker 2: It's a close that's a close call. But I don't
Speaker 2: think so.
Speaker 7: I'll tell you though, the other political thing that's that's
Speaker 7: where this decision is in the President's interest. And I
Speaker 7: don't mean give a short shrift to your question, but
Speaker 7: but I hope I sufficiently answered it. But you know,
Speaker 7: before the Supreme Court decision, there were three big pieces
Speaker 7: of economic news that were going to I think, really
Speaker 7: do harm to the markets. And for if you count
Speaker 7: what was happening in the last day with oil markets
Speaker 7: because of boys a betterran. First was yesterday, this firm
Speaker 7: Blue Owl Capital made some decision about about investors and
Speaker 7: money that really were spooking people and getting people to
Speaker 7: talk about is this the first sign like we saw
Speaker 7: in two thousand and seven leading into the economic crash
Speaker 7: of two thousand and eight. Then this morning we had
Speaker 7: two horrible economic numbers for the country and for the
Speaker 7: president politically, a lower than expected GDP number by a lot,
Speaker 7: a higher than expected inflation number.
Speaker 2: I will never know.
Speaker 7: What the stock market would have done today had we
Speaker 7: not had the Supreme Court decision on terrorists. But as
Speaker 7: I look down now, the Dow's up, and the Doaw's
Speaker 7: likely to end really far up because well, this is
Speaker 7: bad news politically for the president. The markets love this decision,
Speaker 7: and so if you talk about the implications politically for
Speaker 7: the president, if you hadn't had this decision, he'd be
Speaker 7: going into the State of the Union a lot of
Speaker 7: negative negativity about the economy. Now, a lot of people,
Speaker 7: at least in the markets, are going to be positive
Speaker 7: about the economy into the weekend and into next week
Speaker 7: because they don't want the terroiffs. And a lot of
Speaker 7: Republican politicians are going to be happy too because they
Speaker 7: don't want the terrorists.
Speaker 3: Well, and That's a good point, Mark, because we always
Speaker 3: have to kind of, I think in our mind we
Speaker 3: have to buyf kate between normy and politically plugged in. Right,
Speaker 3: politically plugged in, they're really into the DC of it all.
Speaker 3: They're into the tug of war, the political jockeying. The
Speaker 3: normies just want more money in their in the wallet.
Speaker 3: They just want to They just want to make sure
Speaker 3: that they got a job. They just want to make
Speaker 3: sure they can go to their soccer practice with their kids.
Speaker 3: That's those are the storylines, and I've sort of learned
Speaker 3: to think about it. Is what breaks containment, right, the
Speaker 3: economy breaks containment. This is what I knew about the
Speaker 3: halftime show that we did. It broke containment because you know,
Speaker 3: I'm getting hit up.
Speaker 2: Guy, you guys, you guys did a halftime show.
Speaker 3: We did a halftime show. Is this whole thing, Mark,
Speaker 3: I'll tell you about it.
Speaker 2: I heard a bit of I heard a bit about it.
Speaker 2: Some guy wore shorts. Sorry, yeah, they're.
Speaker 3: Called jorts, just to be clear, June shorts. It's a
Speaker 3: whole thing. Anyways, when you can see these things when
Speaker 3: they break containment. Now, the economy is just one of
Speaker 3: those things because it's a lived experience that breaks containment.
Speaker 3: It has this I think downstream effect, knock on effect politically,
Speaker 3: and yeah, there could be unintended consequences that are positive
Speaker 3: for the president. I think we need to keep that
Speaker 3: in mind. It's also important while we don't know what's
Speaker 3: gonna happen to the tariff revenue that's already been collected,
Speaker 3: which is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, that's
Speaker 3: gonna be kicked down to a lower lower court, and
Speaker 3: we're gonna find out what happens that hold other he'll
Speaker 3: take another year, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: But one of the things that I wanted to get
Speaker 3: to you was this incredible tweet that you had earlier.
Speaker 3: We covered it on the show, but I'm so glad
Speaker 3: you get to get put added layers to this. You
Speaker 3: were talking about uh polster and strategist Tony Fabrizio, Charlie
Speaker 3: Love Tony. He comes in with twenty five slides, a
Speaker 3: bunch of the cabinet. Are there about seventy five one
Speaker 3: hundred people. You even mentioned that what they ate I
Speaker 3: already him. That felt like a very marked detail to me.
Speaker 3: Their had their their chicken, so he's going into what
Speaker 3: men moderate and true independence are the true persuadable voters.
Speaker 3: And you said housing affordability. You also talked about these
Speaker 3: key and I saw the through line here, Mark, These
Speaker 3: are populist sort of you get you, you get a
Speaker 3: scalp issue, right. You said, messages that break through banning
Speaker 3: stock trading, for congress transparency on health insurance data including
Speaker 3: the pricing and claims reimbursement, lowering prescription drug costs, and
Speaker 3: the Trump tax cuts. These are all issues where you
Speaker 3: get to go, we got the bad guy, and that
Speaker 3: is very populist, and it's a conservative tinged populace where's
Speaker 3: we're not anti business, we're anti fat cat, we're anti oligarchy,
Speaker 3: we're anti corruption. Right, And so I thought that this
Speaker 3: was a very interesting through line that is a way
Speaker 3: for you to sort of bridge this conservative populist divide.
Speaker 3: Your take, well, I.
Speaker 2: Like the way you framed it. I think it's just
Speaker 2: right history.
Speaker 7: As they said at this meeting, and again, this is
Speaker 7: the president's sort of political high command, briefing the chiefs,
Speaker 7: the chiefs the staff, the cabinet members. They're chiefs of staff,
Speaker 7: their other senior aides. They have history against them. History
Speaker 7: would suggest that it's going to be difficult to not
Speaker 7: lose control of the House and maybe the Senate and
Speaker 7: the President's pull numbers currently are horrible. And so this
Speaker 7: is a group of political advisors who are battle tested.
Speaker 7: They're not a bunch of chickens with their heads cuts off,
Speaker 7: and they're coming in there to make the best case
Speaker 7: to this team about what to talk about where they
Speaker 7: can have a comeback. There's some tactical things. They can
Speaker 7: raise more money than the Democrats. They can try to
Speaker 7: make mischief and democratic primaries to nominate people who are
Speaker 7: less electable. They can do opposition research on some of
Speaker 7: these Democratic candidates. But in the end, they're swimming against
Speaker 7: two big tides, history and the president's approval rating. At
Speaker 7: the same time, there's a long time to go, and
Speaker 7: they're going to look to see what they can do again,
Speaker 7: particularly raising money. The one thing they said at the
Speaker 7: meeting that I think has not gotten as much attention
Speaker 7: as I thought it would is they said in the meeting,
Speaker 7: these are the right issues to talk about the ones
Speaker 7: you listed about health insurance and.
Speaker 2: About the Trump taxics, etc.
Speaker 7: They said, that's what the data shows, that's what you
Speaker 7: all should talk about when you're out campaigning, when you're
Speaker 7: on media, when you're on programs like this. They said,
Speaker 7: there's going to be a whole other campaign that's run
Speaker 7: by our best athlete, Donald John Trump.
Speaker 2: He'll talk about whatever he wants. Don't think.
Speaker 7: Don't think there's one campaign where the president's leading. There's
Speaker 7: one campaign he does, and then there's the parallel campaign
Speaker 7: that all the folks in the room say we need
Speaker 7: to do. And the president's going to talk about the
Speaker 7: twenty twenty election.
Speaker 2: He's going to talk about Joe Biden.
Speaker 7: He's going to talk about you know, Liberachi's hair, He's
Speaker 7: going to talk about where he likes to eat when
Speaker 7: he's in Dayton, Ohio. They said, you just can't worry
Speaker 7: about that, don't don't. That's not the role model the
Speaker 7: way the president does it. He'll do his thing. But
Speaker 7: they're hoping that these issues test very well, very popular
Speaker 7: with voters. As you said, they're populous. They play well
Speaker 7: with MAGA, but they play well with the center voter too.
Speaker 7: They're hoping that that's the message that they can drive
Speaker 7: through their advertising and through the surrogate activity during the fall.
Speaker 4: Do you think Mark that we might actually see action
Speaker 4: on some of those items. That one of those ones
Speaker 4: that set out banning stock trading. For Congress, I've been
Speaker 4: hearing about proposals along those lines since the big crash
Speaker 4: in eight. People have been talking about members of Congress
Speaker 4: getting rich off that sort of thing. I guess the
Speaker 4: problem is the member people getting rich off of this.
Speaker 3: Are the members of Congress. But is there a serious
Speaker 3: proposal to take.
Speaker 7: Out against their self interest? There is, and as you suggest,
Speaker 7: but it's been around forever. Maybe it'll pass this year.
Speaker 7: One of the big questions it's going to come out
Speaker 7: of the State of the Union on Tuesday is are
Speaker 7: Democrats willing to vote for stuff that they believe in,
Speaker 7: that they think be good for their constituents, but it
Speaker 7: will give the president a political win. Things like on housing.
Speaker 7: There's a big housing bill in the House and the
Speaker 7: Senate both pass separate bills are different, but there's some overlap.
Speaker 7: Our Democrats going to vote on final passage. So Donald
Speaker 7: Trump can have a signing ceremony and say he did
Speaker 7: something to make.
Speaker 2: Housing more affordable.
Speaker 7: Would they vote for the stock band and the President
Speaker 7: sign it where he gets to the front of the
Speaker 7: parade and gets credit. We're gonna have to see, and
Speaker 7: that on the stock trade thing, we'll have to see
Speaker 7: if Republicans want to vote for it, because plenty of
Speaker 7: Republicans have opposed that as well.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, you so you're asking the fundamental patriot question.
Speaker 3: Do Democrats love America more than they hate Donald Trump?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a huge question. And that's a huge question.
Speaker 7: And to some Republican House members like their their vacation
Speaker 7: homes more than they like doing what the voters want
Speaker 7: regarding transparency.
Speaker 3: On listen, we are equal opportunity offenders when it comes
Speaker 3: to corrupt Republicans, Rhino Republicans, and listen, this is central
Speaker 3: to Charlie's legacy. He wanted a Republican party that was
Speaker 3: as conservative as its voters, that was loved its country
Speaker 3: as much as its voters. And so these are questions
Speaker 3: that we're going to see come to the fore and
Speaker 3: we're going to be pounding that drum. And I love
Speaker 3: the way you framed it. Here's the other thing you said,
Speaker 3: the border. Closing the border doesn't rate that well, it's
Speaker 3: and I remember this from Trump one point zero. Once
Speaker 3: we kind of got the border a little bit under
Speaker 3: control and all the craziness was done. It stopped even
Speaker 3: coming up in headlines.
Speaker 6: You know.
Speaker 3: It's like we had this huge fight over the wall
Speaker 3: and then it kind of fell off the map.
Speaker 2: It's a weird issues.
Speaker 3: I heard that.
Speaker 7: Yeah, you guys are too young to remember Janet Jackson,
Speaker 7: but she had a song called what have You Done
Speaker 7: for Me Lately? And that's that's that's what the research shows.
Speaker 7: It's just you know, yeah, you're glad you closed the border,
Speaker 7: but that's done. So now what are we doing next?
Speaker 7: And so you'll hear people talk about it. It won't
Speaker 7: be absent from the writer at the president certainly, but
Speaker 7: it's not a silver bullet. It's not something that they
Speaker 7: think should be at the centerpiece of making the argument
Speaker 7: for the midterm elections.
Speaker 3: Mike Lindell and My Pillow employees want to thank you
Speaker 3: for your great support this past year, and they are
Speaker 3: looking to make twenty twenty six the best year yet.
Speaker 3: As a thank you to our listeners, my Pillow is
Speaker 3: exclusively offering free shipping on your entire order and at
Speaker 3: wholesale pricing. That means they're bringing back the mega sale
Speaker 3: exclusively for our listeners. For example, the classic Mypillows are
Speaker 3: regularly forty nine ninety eight and now are marked down
Speaker 3: to only fourteen ninety eight. Turn any mattress into the
Speaker 3: best mattress ever with the Maid in the USA My
Speaker 3: Pillow My Mattress Topper and save up to one hundred dollars.
Speaker 3: Get a set of My Pillow Giza Dream Sheets for
Speaker 3: his low as twenty nine ninety eight or the six
Speaker 3: pack towel set for only thirty four ninety eight. Order
Speaker 3: now in your entire order ships absolutely free.
Speaker 1: Go to my pillow dot com today and use promo
Speaker 1: code Kirk. Don't wait. Be sure to order now. Call
Speaker 1: eight hundred and eighty seven five zero four two five
Speaker 1: or use promo code ki RK. That is my Pillow
Speaker 1: dot Com promo code Kirk.
Speaker 3: All right, Mark, just real quick. Here there's a EJ
Speaker 3: and Tony tweet, who you might remember. EJ and Tony
Speaker 3: was up for a spot in the Admin. Here he said,
Speaker 3: growth came in at just one point four percent, but
Speaker 3: here's why. Government purchases tanked almost five point one percent,
Speaker 3: pulling the headline number down almost a full percentage point.
Speaker 3: This is good news, and another side in the economy
Speaker 3: is being reprivatized. Is this cope spin or do you
Speaker 3: see any truth in that?
Speaker 7: There's some truth so that there's also some truth to
Speaker 7: the president's spin from earlier today, even before the numbers
Speaker 7: came out, which is really not supposed to do that
Speaker 7: the government shutdown, which he blames on the Democrats also
Speaker 7: ate into the GDP. But again, I've talked to a
Speaker 7: lot of economic experts since the numbers came out, and
Speaker 7: you know, they're not great. There's it's arguably the worst
Speaker 7: single day of economic data since Trump returned to office.
Speaker 7: And you can always look at the data. People at
Speaker 7: CNBC were remarkably unupset by it, but you can always
Speaker 7: look at the data and poke holes in it. But overall, no,
Speaker 7: the number was expected to be higher even with those caveats.
Speaker 3: Got it all right? Now? Two questions. We're going to
Speaker 3: get into ice fallout, the Minneapolis fallout, in the de
Speaker 3: escalation by Tom Homan. What are the ramifications on going?
Speaker 3: Is it something voters are going to forget? Secondly, Iran,
Speaker 3: so you can take the potential kinetic activities in Iran
Speaker 3: first or second. And the Ice Minneapolis de escalation question
Speaker 3: first or second.
Speaker 7: I think the main implication of ice is that I
Speaker 7: think Trish McLoughlin will probably replace Blake on the show.
Speaker 2: It would be my guest.
Speaker 3: Hey, you think, wow, you think that's a really you know,
Speaker 3: just Blake.
Speaker 7: To go back to Blake wants to go back to
Speaker 7: a quiet life of anonymity.
Speaker 3: YouTube will like Tricia much better. Mark. I reached out
Speaker 3: to you to start bringing you on the show and.
Speaker 7: No, no, I'm trying to bring you back to your
Speaker 7: your quiet life that you used to love so much.
Speaker 7: All of a sudden, it's like you get get on
Speaker 7: camera and all of a sudden, it's like Trish McLoughlin,
Speaker 7: out of my way.
Speaker 3: We've unlashed the monster and Blake. No, this is true. Well, yeah, Tricia,
Speaker 3: Tricia's leaving the DHS on the show on the market.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah. I texted Trish. She said that that plan
Speaker 3: had been in place before and that she she actually
Speaker 3: stayed on longer than she was anticipated, just to make
Speaker 3: sure that the Minneapolis thing was handled.
Speaker 7: Well, yeah, so all right, that joke inside. We just
Speaker 7: wish Trisha the best. She's a great person.
Speaker 2: Uh.
Speaker 7: I think that, Uh, the the main impact of it
Speaker 7: is the Democrats are fired up.
Speaker 2: I don't know how the government.
Speaker 7: Normally I can make up a scenario and the government
Speaker 7: shut down partial or full. I don't know how this
Speaker 7: one because the Democrats are so fired up in Washington.
Speaker 2: And around the country. Uh.
Speaker 7: And again, one of the criticisms you guys have heard
Speaker 7: me make many times of the left is trumps arrangement
Speaker 7: syndrome and just anger about President Trump.
Speaker 2: They don't understand the other side. They don't.
Speaker 7: They don't listen, folks come on two ways. Sometimes they do,
Speaker 7: but in general they're not They're not.
Speaker 2: Sensitive to it. So I always say that to folks
Speaker 2: in Maga.
Speaker 7: You get so frustrated that the left doesn't understand why
Speaker 7: you support Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: You all need to understand.
Speaker 7: They're really upset about those two people being killed, really upset,
Speaker 7: and they they're upset about in a different way than
Speaker 7: President Trump says he's upset about it. They're upset at
Speaker 7: it because they think it's a manifestation of a lawless
Speaker 7: policy that's still largely in place, even though even with
Speaker 7: the withdrawal from Minnesota. So they're going to raise money
Speaker 7: off of it, they already are. They're going to have
Speaker 7: their base fired up for the midterms. They're going to
Speaker 7: be on the right side of some immigration issues. Most
Speaker 7: of the things that Republicans are criticizing in the proposal
Speaker 7: put forward by Senator Schumer and Jakim Jeffries are popular,
Speaker 7: They're not unpopular. Democrats have gone from being the party
Speaker 7: on the wrong side of immigration related issues to being
Speaker 7: party mostly not entirely on the right side of immigration
Speaker 7: related issues. So that's a big that's a big political fallout,
Speaker 7: and I don't know where it's going to go. And
Speaker 7: I think this, to a large extent, whatever impact it
Speaker 7: has on the midterms, the story will be told to
Speaker 7: a degree by how this partial government shut down.
Speaker 3: So you talk about how we don't understand each other,
Speaker 3: I understand why they would see those images and get
Speaker 3: fired up about it. There just seems to be zero
Speaker 3: acknowledgment of how we got here that you know, ten
Speaker 3: to fifteen million illegals storm the border and we just
Speaker 3: basically said to hell with our immigration laws for four
Speaker 3: years understanding about that, huh? And you're understanding that SANCTUARIESID
Speaker 3: has refused to cooperate, although I would say Tom Homan
Speaker 3: has made some progress there in Minneapolis and Minnesota broadly,
Speaker 3: but Okay, I digress.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 7: There's also a little appreciation for the fact that they
Speaker 7: want people whose families are docks, who are docks themselves,
Speaker 7: who are under threat while they're trying to do their
Speaker 7: jobs and not protected by local law enforcement, to just
Speaker 7: go up there and walk around and let people try
Speaker 7: to run them over or shoot at them or harass
Speaker 7: them while they're having dinner.
Speaker 2: So no doubt that.
Speaker 7: But again, this is the sort of trap that both sides,
Speaker 7: red and blue fall into. You're pointing out things that
Speaker 7: are true, but you're pointing those out instead of saying,
Speaker 7: I guess maybe I don't have the full appreciation for
Speaker 7: why they're so upset about those two people being killed,
Speaker 7: because if I did, maybe i'd say, well, let me
Speaker 7: read Senator Schumer's proposals and see if any of those
Speaker 7: things we'd keep anybody else from being killed. So again,
Speaker 7: there they just just part of my job is to
Speaker 7: try to explain.
Speaker 2: Red to blue and Blue to Aric.
Speaker 7: Yes, I understand they're really they're really upset in a
Speaker 7: profound way that transcends their failure to close the border
Speaker 7: or appreciate that the border was open, and that's what.
Speaker 2: Led to this.
Speaker 3: It does strike me.
Speaker 4: It does feel like politically, as your tweet showed that
Speaker 4: there's this big difficulty in the President and the Republicans
Speaker 4: harvesting wins off of some of their biggest successes. As
Speaker 4: you said, the border shuts down, no one cares right away.
Speaker 4: We seem to have net outflow of legal immigrants, and
Speaker 4: it's like people forget about it. And I'm thinking about also,
Speaker 4: apparently we are some of the lowest we might have
Speaker 4: the lowest murder rate since the nineteen fifties. That's a
Speaker 4: very big shift from Allie Biden. Yeah, massive drops in
Speaker 4: all of the in major crimes in big cities, and
Speaker 4: it coincided with that push from the President, and he
Speaker 4: doesn't seem to be reaping much political benefit from that either.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 7: I think if you look at a sort of below
Speaker 7: the radar of the the numbers of of the present
Speaker 7: mostly it's the economy. I think if the economy was
Speaker 7: positive and people felt that Trump economy was way better
Speaker 7: than the Biden economy, which they don't think some pultial
Speaker 7: they think the Bodom economy, Biding economy is better, then
Speaker 7: I think the president begetting a lot of credit about
Speaker 7: eighty percent twenty percent. You know, he's lost immigration because
Speaker 7: of because largely of Minnesota, and and I'm not going
Speaker 7: people aren't seeing well people are.
Speaker 3: I'm not convinced he's lost the issue wholesale.
Speaker 2: Not forever, not forever, No, not forever.
Speaker 7: But but the numbers are clear his his standing on
Speaker 7: do you approve of disapprove of the president's immigration policy.
Speaker 7: The numbers slipped dramatically, dramatically, So that's just a reality
Speaker 7: of where he is. He's not being he's not being
Speaker 7: able to offset the low numbers on the economy with
Speaker 7: high numbers on inflation on immigration.
Speaker 3: Fair enough, right, all right? Iran? Sixty seconds?
Speaker 2: Yeah, Iran.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 2: You know, people should be thinking about this.
Speaker 7: Not as a binary attack or don't attack. It's attack, big, attack,
Speaker 7: little or don't attack. And uh, he could attack tomorrow.
Speaker 2: He could. My sense right now is he'll wait ten days.
Speaker 7: Or so to give the Iranians a chance, maybe one
Speaker 7: more chance, to prove they're serious about negotiating. But if
Speaker 7: they don't come back within a week or so with
Speaker 7: a pretty serious not a not a stallball, but a serious,
Speaker 7: uh proposal to deal at least with their nuclear capability,
Speaker 7: I don't know yet about missiles. But if they don't
Speaker 7: come back with a serious proposal, I do think there'll
Speaker 7: be a substantial attack, and I think no ground troops,
Speaker 7: no nation building, but there'll be a substantial attack to
Speaker 7: try to degrade not just their nuclear missile capability, but
Speaker 7: to undermine the regime.
Speaker 3: I think, yeah, I would anticipate ahead of the snake
Speaker 3: operation similar to Venezuela, if they're going to do it.
Speaker 3: Mark Calprin to w A TV. Thank you, sir, excelle a, gentlemen,
Speaker 3: thank you. We'll see you being back. For more on
Speaker 3: many of these stories and news you can trust, go
Speaker 3: to Charlie Kirk dot com