Speaker 1: Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Week in Review,
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the big stories
Speaker 1: that we talked about this week that you may have missed.
Speaker 1: First up, judicial activism having a major impact at trying
Speaker 1: to stop Donald trump In's administration. Well, there was a
Speaker 1: very big victory for the Trump administration and it's gonna
Speaker 1: have precedents nationwide. We'll break that story down for you
Speaker 1: in just a moment. Up next, an investigation has been
Speaker 1: opened into US fencing after they disqualified a woman who
Speaker 1: refused to fight against a trans fencer aka a dude
Speaker 1: acting like a chick. They gave her the black card,
Speaker 1: disqualifying her from the entire competition because she stood up
Speaker 1: for what she believed in. And now there's an investigation
Speaker 1: and to not find the law when it comes to
Speaker 1: US fencing. And finally, in a shocking move, Mexico has
Speaker 1: been stealing water from American farmers on the border. It
Speaker 1: is now costing them their livelihoods and President Trump is
Speaker 1: fighting back. It's the Week in Review and it starts
Speaker 1: right now. Another threat and it's not been covered in
Speaker 1: the news the way that it should have because we've
Speaker 1: been dealing with this. Obviously led with this issue because
Speaker 1: it's very important, but it's judicial activism that's having a
Speaker 1: major impact on this administration, and in a shocking way,
Speaker 1: I would even say historic way when you look at
Speaker 1: the numbers. You're dealing with this now in the Senate,
Speaker 1: with these judges that are basically getting to be activists,
Speaker 1: but their injunctions are having a whole nationwide A lot
Speaker 1: of people didn't even know that was a possibility. Isn't
Speaker 1: an abuse of power? Is there a check and balance
Speaker 1: that we need to have on that. Lit's dive into
Speaker 1: that as well.
Speaker 2: So it's an absolute abuse of power. It is worse
Speaker 2: than it has ever been. We have seen against Donald
Speaker 2: Trump in the first two months of administration, more nationwide
Speaker 2: injunctions issued against President Trump than in the entirety of
Speaker 2: the George W. Bush administration all eight year, the entirety
Speaker 2: of the Barack Obama administration all eight years, the entirety
Speaker 2: of the Joe Biden administration all four years. More in
Speaker 2: two months than in those twenty years. We have two
Speaker 2: months and twenty years.
Speaker 1: You say it, You said it quickly. I want people
Speaker 1: to just pause and think about how much of abuse
Speaker 1: of power there has to be if they're doing it
Speaker 1: that much like this is deliberate.
Speaker 2: Well, and listen to Attorney General Pambondi talk about this.
Speaker 3: The President is going to comply with the law. He
Speaker 3: was overwhelmingly elected by an overwhelming majority of the United
Speaker 3: States citizens to be our commander in chief, and that's
Speaker 3: what he's been doing, Shannon. Just since January twentieth, we've
Speaker 3: had over one hundred and seventy lawsuits filed against us.
Speaker 3: That should be the constitutional crisis right there. Fifty injunctions.
Speaker 3: They're popping up every single day, trying to control his
Speaker 3: executive power, trying to control where he believes our tax
Speaker 3: dollars should be allocated. And saying he won by an
Speaker 3: overwhelming majority is so important because that's what the American
Speaker 3: people want, what President Trump campaigned on and what he
Speaker 3: want on, and he's implementing that agenda at a rapid speed.
Speaker 3: None of us can keep up with them every single day,
Speaker 3: and so it's just we're going after all of these lawsuits,
Speaker 3: we're defending them all. We just got a great win,
Speaker 3: and we'll continue to fight.
Speaker 1: I talked to a judge this week and he described
Speaker 1: it this way, because I was wanting to understand this subject.
Speaker 1: Obviously we're going to talk about it's important, and we
Speaker 1: haven't dealt with this a lot.
Speaker 2: He said.
Speaker 1: In essence, what the court's doing, Ben is they are
Speaker 1: doing a coup against Donald Trump by neutering him with
Speaker 1: his agenda. And he said that is not how the
Speaker 1: constitution was set up, Like, you should not be able
Speaker 1: to neuter a president this way, saying we know you won,
Speaker 1: we know the American people support you, they voted for you,
Speaker 1: but we're not going to let you do what you're
Speaker 1: supposed to do as president anyway.
Speaker 2: Well, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden put left wing
Speaker 2: radicals on the courts, and then this is Democrat State
Speaker 2: Attorney's General and left wing radical groups going and seeking
Speaker 2: out these radical judges, of whom, by the way, used
Speaker 2: to work for the groups that are suing. I mean,
Speaker 2: I mean it is. It is fundamentally corrupt, and it
Speaker 2: is one judge. Normally a judge has the authority over
Speaker 2: the parties before him or her, but these judges are
Speaker 2: issuing nationwide orders trying to stop everything President Trump is
Speaker 2: trying to do. We had a hearing of the Judiciary
Speaker 2: Committee last week on this that was focusing on the
Speaker 2: threat to democracy and the rule of law from these
Speaker 2: nationwide injunctions. Here's what I had to say at the hearing.
Speaker 2: It's long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that
Speaker 2: vice pays to virtue. I have to admit I'm enjoying
Speaker 2: listening to my Democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of
Speaker 2: the rule of law after four years where they brazenly
Speaker 2: supported the most lawless Department of Justice and the most
Speaker 2: politically weaponized Department of Justice our nation has ever seen.
Speaker 2: We just heard the Senator from Rhoye Island talk about
Speaker 2: the imperative of protecting judges, and yet not a single
Speaker 2: Democrat senator cared about the violent protesters that showed up
Speaker 2: outside Supreme Court justices homes, including I might note female
Speaker 2: justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, threatening their family. And
Speaker 2: Joe Biden's Attorney General didn't do a damn thing and
Speaker 2: refused to enforce the law to protect those judges. Why
Speaker 2: because he agreed with the violent protesters and he wanted
Speaker 2: to intimidate and threaten those judges. Professor Bray, under our constitution,
Speaker 2: who should decide elections the voters are unelected judges.
Speaker 4: The voters are the ones who should vote in the
Speaker 4: election according to the laws, and the laws sometimes have
Speaker 4: to be applied by the judges if they're anse.
Speaker 2: And under our constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions?
Speaker 2: Elected representatives elected by the people or unelected federal judges?
Speaker 4: I think the question of policy, Senator, is a little
Speaker 4: broader than the particular case. The laws should be enacted
Speaker 4: by Congress. That's where the fountain of.
Speaker 2: La polacy decisions are the elected branch. Right, law is
Speaker 2: the province of the court. Policy is the province of
Speaker 2: the elected branches. These are not complicated, Professor bry Let
Speaker 2: me ask you this. Do the federal courts have power
Speaker 2: to issue remedies for people who are not parties to
Speaker 2: a case?
Speaker 4: That's the question, I agree is not complicated. They do
Speaker 4: not have that power.
Speaker 2: Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere
Speaker 2: in the Constitution?
Speaker 4: It is not.
Speaker 2: First chart the first one hundred and fifty years of
Speaker 2: our republic, how many nationwide injunctions were issued?
Speaker 4: My view is that there were not any until nineteen
Speaker 4: sixty three zero.
Speaker 2: Now fast forward, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in
Speaker 2: the entire twentieth century.
Speaker 4: It's a small number, I would I would think it
Speaker 4: would be a dozen. Giver take it's not large.
Speaker 2: Twenty seven actually, excluding Trump's first term. How many nationwide
Speaker 2: injunctions were issued in the last twenty.
Speaker 4: Years far more than that thirty two from.
Speaker 2: Twenty twenty and one to twenty twenty four against Biden,
Speaker 2: Obama and Bush thirty two. And how many nationwide injunctions
Speaker 2: have been issued in the last two months alone.
Speaker 4: There have been quite a few thirty seven.
Speaker 2: Let that sink in. There have been more nationwide injunctions
Speaker 2: in the past two months against President Trump than in
Speaker 2: the entire twentieth century. There have been more nationwide injunction
Speaker 2: against President Trump in the last two months than both
Speaker 2: terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama,
Speaker 2: and Joe Biden's term. We saw during the Biden presidency
Speaker 2: law Fair indicting President Trump four times, using the machinery
Speaker 2: of justice to attack him, and that was an attack
Speaker 2: on democracy. Because democrats today hate democracy. Democrats today are
Speaker 2: angry at the voters for re electing Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: electing a Republican Senate in a Republican House, and they
Speaker 2: engage in lawfair to stop democracy from operating. Understand, this
Speaker 2: is the second phase of lawfair. Second chart. This is
Speaker 2: the second phase of lawfair. Now that their efforts to
Speaker 2: indict President Trump and stop the voters from re electing
Speaker 2: him have failed, they're going and seeking out individual radical
Speaker 2: judges to try to shut down policies, and they are
Speaker 2: forum shopping like crazy. Give me any loon judge put
Speaker 2: on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with
Speaker 2: the policy. We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore US
Speaker 2: immigration law concerning TPS being revoke. US law explicitly said
Speaker 2: there's no judicial review for that. But hey, they found
Speaker 2: a judge that says, you know what, we the Democrat Party,
Speaker 2: we are the party of illegal aliens. We are the
Speaker 2: party of murderers and rapists and gang members. And the
Speaker 2: Democrat Party exists here to fight to keep murderers and
Speaker 2: rapists and gang members in your communities. There's a reason
Speaker 2: the Democrat Party is at twenty six percent approval nationwide
Speaker 2: because they put radical policies ahead of rule of law nationwide.
Speaker 2: Injunctions are an abuse of power. It is the judiciary
Speaker 2: acting as policy deciders, and it is incumbent on this
Speaker 2: committee and this body to rein in the abuse of
Speaker 2: power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to
Speaker 2: overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decided.
Speaker 1: So here's my question you just teased at the end,
Speaker 1: that is it's our job to look at raining them in.
Speaker 1: How long does that take? Can it be done through legislation?
Speaker 1: What are the options here? And how quick can we
Speaker 1: get this under control?
Speaker 2: Well, it could be done quickly. There's legislation. In fact,
Speaker 2: there's legislation we were talking about at that hearing that
Speaker 2: Chuck Grassley's introduced that I'm a co sponsor of that
Speaker 2: would remove the power of a district judge to issue
Speaker 2: nationwide injunctions. I think that makes an awful lot of sense.
Speaker 2: Is that going to pass? Probably not, because for it
Speaker 2: to pass in the Senate would take sixty votes, which
Speaker 2: would mean we would need seven Democrats to support it.
Speaker 2: Every Democrat they're enthusiastic about this lawfare. They want to
Speaker 2: see more of it, so they are dug in. That
Speaker 2: remedy is not there. The other remedy that you and
Speaker 2: I have talked about before is impeachment. Impeachment, You can
Speaker 2: impeach a judge in the House with a majority vote
Speaker 2: to utter and eighteen votes. It may well make sense
Speaker 2: that one or more of the most egregious district judges
Speaker 2: who are fying their oath of office should and perhaps
Speaker 2: will be impeached by the House. However, if and when
Speaker 2: that happens, it'll come over to the Senate for the trial.
Speaker 2: And under the Constitution it takes two thirds to convict.
Speaker 2: That means we'd need Democrats, and the Democrats are not
Speaker 2: going to convict. There may be value in impeaching one
Speaker 2: or more of these judges anyway to highlight the utter,
Speaker 2: brazen lawlessness of it, and doing so would mean we
Speaker 2: could have a trial on the floor of the Senate
Speaker 2: to lay out just how lawless their conduct was. But
Speaker 2: the judge is not going to be removed because the
Speaker 2: Democrats are all in in support of illegal aliens and
Speaker 2: against the rule of law. That means the remedy are
Speaker 2: number one, the court of public opinion making people understand
Speaker 2: sure just what an abuse of power this is, and
Speaker 2: number two the appellate process, the courts of appeals and
Speaker 2: ultimately the Supreme Court. Now I will say. Immediately after
Speaker 2: I finished my questioning, Amy Klobuchar spoke next, and I
Speaker 2: think my comments rattled her because she she tried to respond, Uh,
Speaker 2: and I got to say what she was saying made
Speaker 2: so little sense. I couldn't resist jumping in and and
Speaker 2: and we had some real fireworks. So here give a listen.
Speaker 1: And the only reason there's all these injunction center Cruise
Speaker 1: is because he's violating the constitution. Why would Trump appointed judges?
Speaker 2: Why don't you file him in red red districts?
Speaker 3: Senator Why what did you just say?
Speaker 2: Why don't you file him in red districts? Why are
Speaker 2: the Democratic tournator generals seeking out Senator Cruz? Left wing?
Speaker 2: Senator Cruz's activity in.
Speaker 3: I'm just gonna ask for a point of order center
Speaker 3: center Moody.
Speaker 2: We have debates on this committee that that.
Speaker 3: Let's let her have her time and then we'll get
Speaker 3: back to that. If you wait, we'll get back to cinema.
Speaker 2: A choice ahead. So I was following Senator Cruz once again,
Speaker 2: but I.
Speaker 3: Will excuse me. I I didn't hear you.
Speaker 4: What did you say to be following him?
Speaker 2: He and I have a one. I was.
Speaker 3: Permitting you your time to continue to oh, would be
Speaker 3: following him in order excuse me, go ahead, Senator klob
Speaker 3: during hearing. Go ahead, that's what I'm rehiring.
Speaker 1: To go ahead, and I will take more than my
Speaker 1: time since he's taken more than his time to yell
Speaker 1: at me.
Speaker 2: I'm not yelling.
Speaker 3: I asked a question, Senator Cruz, Please, I'll give you time.
Speaker 1: I do have to say, I've seen you yell.
Speaker 2: That was not yelling. I didn't raise my voice at all.
Speaker 2: And by the way, Amy Klobachar had no answer none.
Speaker 2: She's like, well, oh, these injunctions are issuing because everything
Speaker 2: he's doing is illegal. It's like, great, why don't they
Speaker 2: file him in red districts? Why are you seeking out
Speaker 2: the most left wing judges in the country who used
Speaker 2: to be radical activists, who were nominated because they're radical
Speaker 2: activists who used to work for the left wing groups
Speaker 2: that are now bringing the lawsuits. Why are you only
Speaker 2: filing them in their courts? If it was so clear,
Speaker 2: if it was such a slam dunk, you ought to
Speaker 2: be able to file them in in red districts. And nope, Nope,
Speaker 2: they ain't gonna do that. She had no answer whatsoever.
Speaker 2: Because this is about power and abuse of power. This
Speaker 2: is not about the rule of law.
Speaker 1: Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the full podcast
Speaker 1: from earlier this week.
Speaker 2: Now onto story number two.
Speaker 1: Senator, There's also another important story that is one that
Speaker 1: is I think exciting for transparency, but also frustrating at
Speaker 1: the same time. You have opened an investigation into US
Speaker 1: Fencing over their transathlete policy. Give us the backstory on
Speaker 1: this and why you're so involved.
Speaker 2: So. USA Fencing has received widespread criticism for something that
Speaker 2: happened last week. Stephanie Turner, who's a female fencer. She
Speaker 2: refused to compete against the transgender opponent, a biological male
Speaker 2: who decided that he was a she. And what happened
Speaker 2: is Stephanie Turner, rather than compete against this biological mail
Speaker 2: Stephanie Turner took a knee and as a result, she
Speaker 2: was disqualified from the tournament. She was given a black
Speaker 2: card and disqualified from the tournament. It was treated as forfeiting.
Speaker 2: And I saw this frankly. I saw this on x
Speaker 2: I saw this on Twitter, and I thought this was
Speaker 2: outrageous because women should not be forced to compete against
Speaker 2: men in sports. That's not right. Now. As you know,
Speaker 2: I am the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
Speaker 2: and Transportation. The Commerce Committee has massive jurisdiction, as jurisdiction
Speaker 2: over roughly forty percent of the US economy. One of
Speaker 2: the things we have jurisdiction over is sports. We have
Speaker 2: jurisdiction over collegiate sports, Olympic sports, and any kind of
Speaker 2: sports competition. And USA Fencing is explicitly it is the
Speaker 2: vehicle through which the American fencing team in the Olympics
Speaker 2: has chosen. And so last week I launched an investigation
Speaker 2: and I sent an oversight letter to USA Fencing asking
Speaker 2: for the documents on what their policy is, how many
Speaker 2: transgender athletes have attempted to compete, how many women they
Speaker 2: have disqualified for decline and compete, how many injuries have occurred. Look,
Speaker 2: there are biological differences. Men are made differently than women,
Speaker 2: and we've seen in many other sports significant injuries from
Speaker 2: women being forced to compete against biological men. And at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, the Congress has a very
Speaker 2: direct remedy, which is we have the ability to to
Speaker 2: cease the designation of USA Fencing as the organization that
Speaker 2: chooses US Olympic athletes, and so this oversight is an effort.
Speaker 2: I want to get them to change their policy. I
Speaker 2: want to get them to protect women. I think women's
Speaker 2: sports matters, girls sports matters, and I don't think any
Speaker 2: women should be forced to compete against a man in sports.
Speaker 2: I don't think any girl should be forced to compete
Speaker 2: against a boy in sports.
Speaker 1: What does it look like if they're actually held accountable for.
Speaker 2: This, What it looks like is they change their policies.
Speaker 2: That That is my objective here, is to change the
Speaker 2: policy so that you don't end up having having women
Speaker 2: discriminated against and put in a position where they're competing unfairly,
Speaker 2: where they're put in a position where they're risking real,
Speaker 2: real injuries.
Speaker 1: It'll be very interesting to see what that injury report
Speaker 1: looks like. Is there a timeline for them getting back
Speaker 1: to you with this request?
Speaker 2: Sure? So here's what I said to my letter. I
Speaker 2: wrote it to the chief executive officer of USA Fencing,
Speaker 2: and I said, dear mister Andrews, it has come to
Speaker 2: my attention that USA Fencing is still permitting men to
Speaker 2: compete in women's fencing in violation of federal law. I'm
Speaker 2: writing to ask why your organization is the recognized national
Speaker 2: governing body for fencing in the United States, but to
Speaker 2: remain so, it must comply with the United States Olympic
Speaker 2: and Paralympic Committee rules and procedures, its statutory obligations to
Speaker 2: protect women, and President Trump's recent executive order on keeping
Speaker 2: men out of women's sports. If it does not, and
Speaker 2: instead continues to put women at risk, Congress may be
Speaker 2: forced to terminate USA Fencing's NGB certification. Last week, Stephanie
Speaker 2: Turner from the Fencing Academy of Philadelphia competed at the
Speaker 2: USA Fencing sanctioned Cherry Blossom Open Circuit at the University
Speaker 2: of Maryland. The young woman was set to face a
Speaker 2: man who now claims to be a transgender woman in
Speaker 2: a fencing bout. However, at the start of the match,
Speaker 2: Miss Turner bravely took a knee and refused to compete
Speaker 2: against her male opponent. In response to this young woman's courage,
Speaker 2: tournament officials presented her with a black card and disqualified
Speaker 2: her from the entire tournament. USA's Fencing's Director of Communications,
Speaker 2: Brian Wendell, said, the young woman's disqualification was quote the
Speaker 2: direct result of her decision to decline defense an eligible opponent,
Speaker 2: a supposed violation of the International Fencing Federation rules. He
Speaker 2: reiterated the USA Fencing's remains committed to inclusivity. USA Fencing's
Speaker 2: commitment to inclusivity is nothing less than a full throat
Speaker 2: of support for males competing in women's sports in violation
Speaker 2: of federal law. As the recognized MGB for fencing, USA
Speaker 2: Fencing is required to provide quote support and encouragement for
Speaker 2: participation by women where programs for male and female athletes
Speaker 2: are conducted on a national basis, as well as quote
Speaker 2: safe environments and sports. Failure to do so is grounds
Speaker 2: for the United States Congress to terminate USA Fencing certification
Speaker 2: as an MGB. And I go on to say that
Speaker 2: they have to comply with President Trump's executive order. And
Speaker 2: I point out that male fencers naturally possess inherent advantages
Speaker 2: over potential female competitors. Men tend to be taller, have
Speaker 2: greater muscle mass, and more testosterone, all advantages for fencing
Speaker 2: movements like lunges, jumping, or leg power measures. And I
Speaker 2: point out that under the rules of the Senate, the
Speaker 2: Commerce Committee has a duty and an authority to review
Speaker 2: and study on a continuing basis both sports and sports
Speaker 2: agencies such as USA Fencing, and so I ask, I
Speaker 2: ask a whole series of questions, and I want documents
Speaker 2: and answers April twenty first, twenty twenty five, and it's
Speaker 2: documents about their transgender policy. How many men or transgender
Speaker 2: women currently compete in the women's division in the last
Speaker 2: four years. How many bouts have occurred between transgender women
Speaker 2: and women? How many times does the female athlete prevail?
Speaker 2: How many times did the female athletes suffer an injury?
Speaker 2: Does USA Fencing comply with the President's executive order? And
Speaker 2: I have a whole series of additional questions. But this
Speaker 2: is an example of holding to account. And you've got
Speaker 2: throughout sports, these radical associations, organizations that have embrace the
Speaker 2: woke ideology. There's no difference between men and women, and
Speaker 2: that is profoundly unfair to women and girls competing in sports.
Speaker 2: And I'm going to do everything I can to stop it.
Speaker 1: As before, if you want to hear the rest of
Speaker 1: this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
Speaker 1: dow the podcasts from earlier this week to hear the
Speaker 1: entire thing. I want to get back to the big
Speaker 1: story number three of the week you may have missed.
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about this other I would
Speaker 1: just say insane news because I can't believe they've been
Speaker 1: allowed to do it for so long. And that is
Speaker 1: that is Mexico stealing water, which is suffocating farmers.
Speaker 2: Yeap.
Speaker 1: Specifically, it's happening in Texas and it's it's making farming
Speaker 1: industry collapse and farmers disappearing from areas because there is
Speaker 1: no water.
Speaker 2: So let me give you the background because this is
Speaker 2: a really important issue. It's important in Texas, but it's
Speaker 2: important in the country, which is there's a water treaty
Speaker 2: that we signed with Mexico in nineteen forty four, the
Speaker 2: Mexican Water Treaty of nineteen forty four. It obligates Mexico
Speaker 2: to provide three hundred and fifty thousand acre feet of
Speaker 2: water a year to South Texas. That's over a five
Speaker 2: year period. Okay, for the last five years Mexico has
Speaker 2: been openinley and brazenly violating the treaty. They've not been
Speaker 2: providing the water. They are right now in this five
Speaker 2: year period, one point three million acre feet in arrears water.
Speaker 2: They have not provided that they've committed by treaty to provide.
Speaker 2: Now what are they doing. They're diverting that water that
Speaker 2: should go to South Texas farmers under the treaty to
Speaker 2: Mexican farmers. And a couple of things are happening. So
Speaker 2: in South Texas there is a massive drought going on.
Speaker 2: It is doing enormous damage to farmers. And I spent
Speaker 2: a lot of time in South Texas and the damage
Speaker 2: to farmers. We're seeing a lot of South Texas farmers
Speaker 2: that are taking half of their acreage out of production.
Speaker 2: They're shutting down half of their farms just because they
Speaker 2: don't have the water to do it right. They're laying
Speaker 2: off thousands of workers. So there was one sugar mill
Speaker 2: in all of Texas last year. It shut down because
Speaker 2: of water, and it shut down because the sugar farmers
Speaker 2: did not have the water to raise the sugar. Wow,
Speaker 2: and it's gone.
Speaker 1: And Mexico on the other side of green as can be.
Speaker 2: It is green as can be. The Mexican farmers are prospering.
Speaker 2: They're literally stealing our water. And by the way, like
Speaker 2: President Trump talks a lot about foreign countries taking advantage
Speaker 2: of America. Example this is this is literally the Mexican
Speaker 2: government stealing our.
Speaker 1: Water and if Joe Biden do anything to stop.
Speaker 2: This, zero and he knew about it, so he knew
Speaker 2: about it. So I've engaged this issue. I engaged. I
Speaker 2: started engaging about two years ago. And I started engaging
Speaker 2: when I was down in South Texas and I did
Speaker 2: a roundtail with farmers and they raised this issue to me.
Speaker 2: And two years ago, I didn't know what the water
Speaker 2: Tree of nineteen forty four was, and they explained it
Speaker 2: to me. And at the time they were really worried,
Speaker 2: we're going to lose our sugar mill if this doesn't change.
Speaker 2: And I said, look, I think I can help. I'm
Speaker 2: going to lean in. And I began leaning in aggressively.
Speaker 2: I forced a vote on the Senate floor on an
Speaker 2: amendment to direct the state Department to use every lever
Speaker 2: point we have to force Mexico to comply with a
Speaker 2: water treaty. I got a majority of the senator, bipartisan majority.
Speaker 2: And then there's a water commissioner for the United States.
Speaker 2: I leaned in with the water commissioner said Look, the
Speaker 2: Senate has spoken a bipartisan majority, and here's the fundamental problem.
Speaker 2: Joe Biden didn't give a damn about this. So I
Speaker 2: desperately tried to get the Biden administration to exert leverage. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and they just didn't care.
Speaker 1: Now, by the way, leverage for Donald Trump at this
Speaker 1: point was him saying, hey, I'm coming after you with
Speaker 1: tariffs or sanctions, so do the right thing now before
Speaker 1: I have to do that, and they know he means it.
Speaker 1: Unlike even if you had that same statement from Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: he ain't gonna do anything.
Speaker 2: So in South Texas, cities are also facing massive drought.
Speaker 2: You're literally facing the cities not having enough water for
Speaker 2: their citizens because Mexico's stealing the water. And so I
Speaker 2: leaned in. I could not get the Biden's administration do
Speaker 2: a damn thing. In December, as part of the Continuing Resolution,
Speaker 2: I authored legislation that got adopted that provided two hundred
Speaker 2: and eighty million dollars in emergency relief for Texas farmers
Speaker 2: because they're they're going broke. And we're talking about generational farms,
Speaker 2: farms that have been three four generations who were being
Speaker 2: bankrupted because their government is not enforcing the treaty and
Speaker 2: they're being starved of water. And so several weeks ago
Speaker 2: I went down to South Texas with Brook Rawlins. Brook
Speaker 2: Rollins is the Secretary of Agriculture. Brooke has been a
Speaker 2: good friend of mine for twenty five years. She's a Texan.
Speaker 2: She's the first Texan in the history of the country
Speaker 2: to be the Secretary of Agriculture. She's also the first
Speaker 2: Secretary of Agriculture ever to go to the Rio Grande Valley. Wow,
Speaker 2: and she came to the valley at my request. I
Speaker 2: asked her come down with me, and we did. We
Speaker 2: did a press conference number one where she announced I've
Speaker 2: got two hundred and eighty million dollars I'm giving the
Speaker 2: South Texas because your federal government has been screwing you
Speaker 2: by not getting the water back and Mexico is starving you.
Speaker 2: But we also did a roundtable. We did a roundtable
Speaker 2: with farmers where Brooke and I talked with the farmers
Speaker 2: and the Rio Grand Valley has been bright blue for
Speaker 2: one hundred years. In twenty twenty four, the Rio Grand
Speaker 2: Valley flipped red. I won the valley and Donald Trump
Speaker 2: won the valley. Indible. That has never happened. I won
Speaker 2: Hispanic state wide in Texas by six points. That's never happened.
Speaker 2: I have spent an enormous amount of time and millions
Speaker 2: of dollars in the valley trying to flip the valley
Speaker 2: red because I saw the potential there. And so I
Speaker 2: think I've invested more than any elected official in Texas
Speaker 2: in terms of turning the valley red. Well, I got
Speaker 2: to say, sitting there at that roundtable, you got farmers
Speaker 2: and ranchers and you're just asking them. Look, over the
Speaker 2: last four years, did Joe Biden do a damn thing
Speaker 2: for you? No? And that's how you turn this And
Speaker 2: what I told them as I said, listen, if there's
Speaker 2: one thing you know about Donald Trump, he will stand
Speaker 2: up to foreign countries and fight for you. And I
Speaker 2: made that commitment. And frankly, look, these are voters who
Speaker 2: their entire lives have voted Democrats. Their parents voted Democrat,
Speaker 2: their grandparents voted Democrat, their great grandparents voted Democrat. And
Speaker 2: this last election, for the first time, they pulled the
Speaker 2: lever for Republican going down there and saying, look, we're
Speaker 2: fighting for you. We're going to get you the damn
Speaker 2: water is one of the ways you lock those votes.
Speaker 2: And it's a generational shift for Texas.
Speaker 1: By the way, this is the first time for Verdict.
Speaker 1: They've just opened the vote. They're only keeping it open
Speaker 1: for fifteen minutes.
Speaker 2: So I'm gonna go momentary.
Speaker 1: You're gonna go momentarily, which means actually it's about twelve
Speaker 1: minutes because I'm a couple minutes behind. Just this is
Speaker 1: why I love doing Verdict, because this is how it
Speaker 1: really works. And in Sandy in the Senate.
Speaker 2: So I will say this. I called President Trump a
Speaker 2: week ago and I said, miss President, would make a
Speaker 2: huge difference if you leaned in personally with the president
Speaker 2: of Mexico and said, provide us the water.
Speaker 4: Yeah, knock it off.
Speaker 2: And he said, I'll tell you what. I'll send a
Speaker 2: truth social post. And so I worked with him on
Speaker 2: the wording of it, and tonight when I was in
Speaker 2: the Oval, I said, miss President, can you send that
Speaker 2: truth post?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 2: He sent it tonight. I'm going to read it to you.
Speaker 2: Here's what President Trump sent this evening. Mexico owes Texas
Speaker 2: one point three million acre feet of water under the
Speaker 2: nineteen forty four water treaty, but Mexico is unfortunately violating
Speaker 2: their treaty obligation. This is very unfair and it is
Speaker 2: hurting South Texas farmers very badly. Last year, the only
Speaker 2: sugar mill in Texas closed because Mexico has been stealing
Speaker 2: the water from Texas farmers. Ted Cruz has been leading
Speaker 2: the fight to get South Texas the water it is owed,
Speaker 2: but Sleepy Joe refused to lift a finger to help
Speaker 2: the farmers. This ends now. I will make sure that
Speaker 2: Mexico doesn't violate our treaties and doesn't hurt our Texas farmers.
Speaker 2: Just last month, I halted water shipments to Tijuana until
Speaker 2: Mexico complies with the nineteen forty four water treaty. My
Speaker 2: Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins is standing up for Texas farmers
Speaker 2: and we will keep escalating consequences, including TIFFs and maybe
Speaker 2: even sanctions, until Mexico honors the treaty and gives Texas
Speaker 2: the water they are owed and gives Texas the water
Speaker 2: they are owed. Is an all caps There you go.
Speaker 2: That tweet got sent out tonight. I'll tell you in
Speaker 2: just within an hour of that tweet going out, the
Speaker 2: President of Mexico is sent out a tweet saying we're
Speaker 2: gonna fix this. We're gonna fix this, and the Mexican
Speaker 2: government is freaking out. That's what it looks like to
Speaker 2: be a leader president who is fighting for America. Joe
Speaker 2: Biden could have done that for four years, but he
Speaker 2: didn't give a flip about farmers in South Texas going
Speaker 2: out of business. The President's tweet, and I can tell
Speaker 2: you Mexico is in the process now negotiating with the
Speaker 2: state Department to provide for the water. We're gonna get
Speaker 2: the water, and that's a great that's a greatreat victory
Speaker 2: for Texas in America. Go vote. You're on the clock now.
Speaker 2: I love it as always.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to Verdict with Center Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down with my
Speaker 1: podcast and you can listen to my podcast every other
Speaker 1: day you're not listening to Verdict or each day when
Speaker 1: you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to have you
Speaker 1: as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and
Speaker 1: we will see you back here on Monday morning.