Speaker 1: Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Speaker 2: Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
Speaker 2: and we are so excited about what that means for
Speaker 2: the future of the show.
Speaker 3: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 3: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 3: not exist anywhere else.
Speaker 2: So if that is something that's important to you, please
Speaker 2: go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
Speaker 2: you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and
Speaker 2: all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 3: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 3: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 3: dot com.
Speaker 2: Good morning, everybody, Happy Monday. We have the incredible rhynd
Speaker 2: Groom in this morning for Sager and Detti.
Speaker 4: Great to have you Ryan, left wing populist takeover.
Speaker 5: That's right.
Speaker 2: Actually, we are going to have Emily join us though,
Speaker 2: so that we can reflect on Trump one hundred days
Speaker 2: and not have a total left wing Trump's Arrangement syndrome
Speaker 2: over here.
Speaker 4: So get our snark in now before where Emily shows up.
Speaker 5: Yes, exactly.
Speaker 2: And for those of you who are wondering, Baby is
Speaker 2: not coming yet that we know of.
Speaker 5: At least this morning that Sager is.
Speaker 2: Having to deal with a few things there, so he'll
Speaker 2: be in later this week, assuming that you know.
Speaker 4: A lot of fold in place, a lot of appointments
Speaker 4: the last week or two.
Speaker 2: Indeed, yeah, a lot going on, so also a lot
Speaker 2: going on in the world. We are going to dig
Speaker 2: into all of the polling that has come out with
Speaker 2: regards to where Trump is as he hits one hundred
Speaker 2: days this week, both on the top line numbers, where
Speaker 2: he is economically, the way things have moved, even on
Speaker 2: issues like immigration, how his own supporters are thinking about
Speaker 2: the first hundred days. We're going to take a look,
Speaker 2: of course, at the latest with.
Speaker 5: The trade war.
Speaker 2: Shean prices are up and shipping traffic is way way down,
Speaker 2: so you know, Americans starting to feel the pain at
Speaker 2: places like Timu and she In see how that reaction goes.
Speaker 2: We wanted to cover some of the things that have
Speaker 2: happened with regard to immigration and deportations. That Wisconsin judge
Speaker 2: was arrested last week. There's also some additional things that
Speaker 2: we've learned Ice having deported several US citizen children seeing
Speaker 2: is one to four years old, one of them suffering
Speaker 2: from cancer, so we'll dig into that. We also have
Speaker 2: burning clapping back at Alyssa Slotkin and Justice Democrats revealing
Speaker 2: their first candidate this cycle, something Ryan had sort of
Speaker 2: exclusive access to or early access, so we'll talk a
Speaker 2: little bit about that. We also have a bit of
Speaker 2: an international flare in the show today. This is also
Speaker 2: partly because Ryan is here and he has done such
Speaker 2: incredible reporting in Pakistan, but also this is an incredibly
Speaker 2: important story for everyone, Indian Pakistan inching closer to potentially
Speaker 2: a war, both of them of course nuclear armed superpowers,
Speaker 2: so that's certainly something we want to keep our eye
Speaker 2: in on and Canadians going to the polls today as well.
Speaker 2: So we're going to have David Dole join us to
Speaker 2: break down the twists and turns in that race, which
Speaker 2: has been really centered around our own president here Trumph.
Speaker 4: And for the India Pakistan story, we'll have said Arthura Roy,
Speaker 4: who wrote a really prescient investigative piece for us about
Speaker 4: Jamu and Kashmir a couple of weeks ago at drop site.
Speaker 4: And we'll also have a pre interviewed Wakasakhmed, who a
Speaker 4: lot of you know is our terrific Pakistani reporter who's
Speaker 4: here an exile in the United States, and just to
Speaker 4: talk about whether or not we're going to get a
Speaker 4: nuclear war out of.
Speaker 5: This, but were to take an important discussion.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's rather important. Yeah, before we start onse,
Speaker 4: we won't have time to talk about the latest updates
Speaker 4: and Israel Palestine over the weekend. The the the murder
Speaker 4: spree has just gotten out of control, and people in
Speaker 4: Guys are saying that, and it's easy to get cynical
Speaker 4: about this, but people in god are saying that the
Speaker 4: amount of slaughter is at a scale on like it's
Speaker 4: been previously. Wow, Like I think fifty three people killed
Speaker 4: on Saturday, more than fifty killed on Sunday. Just seventeen
Speaker 4: killed overnight into Monday morning. Meanwhile, net Yahu gave a
Speaker 4: speech where he insisted that Israel will not accept an
Speaker 4: Iran nuclear deal unless there's a complete obliteration of Iran's civilian,
Speaker 4: peaceful nuclear program. It's like, this is a US Iran
Speaker 4: nuclear deal.
Speaker 2: Right, So it's so, well, we'd like to we'd like
Speaker 2: to pretend it is anyway to imagine that it is so.
Speaker 4: But the question is can he actually bomb around without
Speaker 4: US support and according to Tulsea Gabbert and Michael Waltz
Speaker 4: and all these other intelligence officials. No, they can't successfully
Speaker 4: pull it off. So it actually isn't up to him.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, we were talking before the show. You know,
Speaker 2: schil abt Amram, who we've described as a liberal Zionist
Speaker 2: and had on this show. He has been slowly sort
Speaker 2: of evolving in his views, and he even just now
Speaker 2: came out on set listens undeniable as a genocide, and
Speaker 2: basically what tipped him over, and personally, I think at
Speaker 2: this point there's no real serious debate that you can
Speaker 2: have about whether or not it's a genocide. And what
Speaker 2: tipped him over in particular is here they are just
Speaker 2: outright starving. However, many people are left in the Gaza strip.
Speaker 2: You now have dozens of people who have already died
Speaker 2: of starvation. We know Abu Baker was suffering malnutrition. I'm
Speaker 2: sure there are so many people in gods potentially basically
Speaker 2: oh everyone, yeah, suffering from malnutrition. At this point, you know,
Speaker 2: the food and the aid remains blocked. Administration does not
Speaker 2: appear to be applying any pressure, regardless of what their
Speaker 2: State Department spokesperson may say, in order to allow that
Speaker 2: food aid in. And so I mean the clock is
Speaker 2: ticking on, you know, an escalated extermination campaign. And that's
Speaker 2: where we are right now.
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 2: So all right, well, without that grim update, no pun intended,
Speaker 2: out of the way, I want to go ahead and
Speaker 2: get to the very latest with regards to where the
Speaker 2: Trump administration is at this morning. And as we said,
Speaker 2: we have a special guest joining us to help us
Speaker 2: understand what has happened in this first hundred days and
Speaker 2: how the public feels about it.
Speaker 5: And that is our own Emily A. Jishinski.
Speaker 2: All Right, guys said, Trump administration officially hits one hundred
Speaker 2: days this week. I think we have a fancy graphic
Speaker 2: we can put up on the screen there with the
Speaker 2: count count up.
Speaker 5: I guess through one hundred days.
Speaker 2: I think we're officially at what ninety eight today or
Speaker 2: something like that. But all of the polling outfits ninety nine,
Speaker 2: one hundred days, All of the polling outfits have done
Speaker 2: their official you know, one hundred days. Where's the at
Speaker 2: digging into the top line numbers also where he is
Speaker 2: on an issue by issue basis. So let's go ahead
Speaker 2: and put up on the screen this graphic that we
Speaker 2: made with all of the different outlets and where they
Speaker 2: see his approval at this point. Just a note the
Speaker 2: one on the end there that's the Harvard Kennedy School.
Speaker 2: That's just eighteen to twenty nine year old. So that's
Speaker 2: why the numbers there look a little different, but very
Speaker 2: noteworthy among that age demographic, which had been sold as
Speaker 2: you know, really shifting to the right, and of course
Speaker 2: voted for Trump in more significant numbers than young people
Speaker 2: had voted for previous Republican candidates in the past, including
Speaker 2: Donald Trump himself in twenty sixteen. But I mean, overall,
Speaker 2: the picture here is not a pretty one.
Speaker 5: If you are the current president of the United States.
Speaker 2: I think the best ratings you've got there are about
Speaker 2: eleven points underwater. You've got him dipping into the thirties
Speaker 2: in at least one of these polls. You know, all
Speaker 2: of them seem to be clustered around low forties in
Speaker 2: terms of the approval rate. Really effectively, Emily, I think
Speaker 2: at this point you can say pretty officially the honeymoon
Speaker 2: is over. This looks very much like Trump pulling that
Speaker 2: we saw in the first term, and he came into
Speaker 2: this office with him you know, fairly positive approval rating.
Speaker 2: He was roughly around fifty to fifty even had a
Speaker 2: little bit of an edge you know, above water in
Speaker 2: some of the polls early in his term. Now, with
Speaker 2: a combination of tariffs and even things that had previously
Speaker 2: been strong points for him like immigration going sideways and
Speaker 2: receiving net negative approval ratings, he is left in a
Speaker 2: you know, in a position of unpopularity, which is one
Speaker 2: that he will be familiar with from the past.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: that graphic is so helpful and incredible. I like that
Speaker 1: we're now aggregating the pole aggregation with the politics and
Speaker 1: New York Times. But what's particularly bad news for this
Speaker 1: administration is that those numbers are not like new dips.
Speaker 1: If you go and look at these charts, what they
Speaker 1: reflect is an X. It's almost you could map the
Speaker 1: real clear politics aggregation on sen your Times aggregation. Somewhere
Speaker 1: around March tenth, eleventh, Chuck crosses the forty eight percent
Speaker 1: approved disapproved sort of water mark and then keeps moving
Speaker 1: in the other direction. So he starts above water and
Speaker 1: is dipping, and then he starts his disapproves start to
Speaker 1: go up as the approves start to go down. So
Speaker 1: that sounds very obvious, but the point is this is
Speaker 1: a steady trend over the first one hundred days of
Speaker 1: decline and Crystal. Before we got going, you sent a
Speaker 1: chart that was also really interesting, which aggregated Trump's pulling
Speaker 1: numbers on particular issues. Basically, the only one that he
Speaker 1: is remaining at a decent level on is immigration, and
Speaker 1: even that he is below water now. The only other
Speaker 1: thing I'll add is people in the administration are hearing
Speaker 1: a lot. And we've talked about this on the show
Speaker 1: about Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty one, that Ronald Reagan
Speaker 1: was able to weather a recession and all of the
Speaker 1: political consequences that came with Paul Volker and the shock
Speaker 1: and win reelection by nineteen eighty four, even though the
Speaker 1: economy hadn't arguably quote unquote recovered. That is what this
Speaker 1: administration Granted Trump doesn't have to run again, although God
Speaker 1: knows he may, but he's the second term president, so
Speaker 1: you expect to see a little bit more thicker skin
Speaker 1: to public reaction. But in this case, they're also really
Speaker 1: hoping that they're able to land the plane at some
Speaker 1: point when it comes to the politics of public opinion
Speaker 1: that right now, what they're doing is dramatic shock. They
Speaker 1: had the mandate and so they're shocking the country not
Speaker 1: just on terriffs but on everything. But the numbers are
Speaker 1: not reflecting a positive, obviously political reaction to any of that.
Speaker 4: Man, I'm really sorry to hear that, because I was
Speaker 4: wondering too that whether or not they were starting to
Speaker 4: think of Reagan in his first term and think like,
Speaker 4: you know what, Okay, yeah, we are actually going to
Speaker 4: drive the economy into recession. But that's okay because Reagan
Speaker 4: did it too. Now, of course in eighty two, Democrats
Speaker 4: had his massive wave and then yes, then there was
Speaker 4: a giant landslide that re elected Reagan in nineteen eighty four.
Speaker 4: The difference, of course, is that Reagan was elected, you
Speaker 4: could argue to do something about runaway in stagflation and inflation,
Speaker 4: and in combination with Vulgar. I don't think it was
Speaker 4: totally happy with everything Vulker was doing, but in combination
Speaker 4: with Vulker that was aimed at addressing something that voters
Speaker 4: did say that they were upset about. Now voters have
Speaker 4: said that they're upset about the collapse of manufacturing over
Speaker 4: the last fifty years, in the hollowing out of the
Speaker 4: middle class. And we talk a lot on this show
Speaker 4: about how at least Trump was acknowledging that concern, and
Speaker 4: the proxy for that acknowledgment was him talking about tariffs.
Speaker 4: But then when he comes in and does it this
Speaker 4: way and drives the country into recession, it's not exactly
Speaker 4: what people were hoping was going to happen. And so
Speaker 4: a lot of the conversation seems to be like, did
Speaker 4: people vote for this or not? Like is this what
Speaker 4: people had in mind? Let's put up Nate silver Eth
Speaker 4: and this is one more chart that suggests, no, this
Speaker 4: is not exactly how people, you know, felt like this
Speaker 4: was going to go. So, you know, are how are
Speaker 4: people squaring that? Are they really saying to themselves, Eh,
Speaker 4: all right, we can actually blow the economy up because
Speaker 4: Reagan did and Reagan was fine, and he was fine,
Speaker 4: that's right. Like if that's your model, you're like, yeah,
Speaker 4: you actually can, it's right.
Speaker 2: I mean, just to before you grab that question, I'm
Speaker 2: only one thing to add to that is it's the
Speaker 2: polar opposite.
Speaker 5: People voted.
Speaker 2: The number one thing they said is we want in plation,
Speaker 2: you know, to come down yes, and terms like how
Speaker 2: about price increases? So you know, I'm sure. I also
Speaker 2: think in some ways I find the question of like,
Speaker 2: you know, is this what people voted for or not
Speaker 2: to be a little bit silly, because you know, voters
Speaker 2: like there's a whole basket of things that go into
Speaker 2: their vote. I think to think of it as, like,
Speaker 2: you know, here's my checklist, and this is specifically the
Speaker 2: issues on which I am voting, is just not a
Speaker 2: realistic assessment of how most voters go about casting their ballot.
Speaker 2: So I find the question itself to be a little
Speaker 2: bit silly. But to the extent that people were casting
Speaker 2: a ballot on one issue in particular, inflation was certainly
Speaker 2: among the top, if not the top issue, and instead
Speaker 2: not just on tariffs, but on the immigration policy as well.
Speaker 2: These are inflationary policies that are almost certain to raise
Speaker 2: prices significantly, at least in the short term.
Speaker 1: The Ryan Grimm voter checklist is whether the Eagles will
Speaker 1: actually show up at the White House if they win
Speaker 1: the Super Bowl. No, I think that's true. And the
Speaker 1: other thing I think could be happening here is because
Speaker 1: the tariffs were such a dramatic I mean, this administration
Speaker 1: has been doing all kinds of like generational projects of
Speaker 1: the conservative movement that are dramatic, and conservatives will quibble
Speaker 1: with the process, even though Trump is sort of finally
Speaker 1: handing to them on a silver platter what they've been
Speaker 1: asking some Republican president to do for decades and decades.
Speaker 1: So a lot of this is like dramatic, it is radical,
Speaker 1: and people would say that, but the tariffs are PARTI
Speaker 1: because the markets and the sort of material effects on
Speaker 1: people's you know, conditions, They are going to be remembered
Speaker 1: as the thing that maybe changed the trajectory of public
Speaker 1: opinion on Trump. But actually, what we've seen in these charts,
Speaker 1: and you can see it if we put the last
Speaker 1: one back up again, the Nate Silver one's that's an X,
Speaker 1: and the X starts to happen before liberation dates right
Speaker 1: around like March tenth, March eleventh, that's New York Times
Speaker 1: has it about March tenth. The Real Core Politics one
Speaker 1: has it around the same time, So that's before Liberation Day.
Speaker 1: This trend was happening for Trump very steadily.
Speaker 4: Before Liberation Dayah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and so hit it line there, right, Yep. The
Speaker 1: gap opens up definitely around Liberation Day. But the point
Speaker 1: I'm trying to make basically is that the group of
Speaker 1: people who are independents, who aren't hardcore partisans, who showed
Speaker 1: up and voted for Donald Trump because of inflation or
Speaker 1: because of immigration. Frankly, that's the group of people that
Speaker 1: probably is looking around and saying, I've voted against Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I thought Trump would make the economy better. I thought
Speaker 1: that he would be the only one who had the
Speaker 1: sort of political guts to take care of what they
Speaker 1: saw as a wildly out of control immigration system. And
Speaker 1: they're looking around now and they're like, okay, so those
Speaker 1: deportations don't seem to be going well. Whether you're from
Speaker 1: the left or the right, maybe you even want master deportations,
Speaker 1: and you're like, well, that doesn't mean sending people the
Speaker 1: sea cut. And on top of that, the market has
Speaker 1: been in flux. There's percarity, uncertainty, layoffs. So you can
Speaker 1: see how that one two punch is catching up with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. With that group of voters who's not the
Speaker 1: partisan left or the partisan the part is an anti
Speaker 1: Trump or the partisan pro Trump.
Speaker 2: I think you make an important point Emily, which is,
Speaker 2: I do think the terriffs are the least like, the
Speaker 2: most unpopular, and they're so dramatic, and they directly impact
Speaker 2: people's material well being. And do you have huge numbers
Speaker 2: that say, my personal financial situation right now is getting worse.
Speaker 2: You have majorities who say, I expect it to get
Speaker 2: even worse over the coming years. People are expecting price hikes.
Speaker 2: Like I do think that probably in terms of the
Speaker 2: souring of public opinion, is the most important thing. But
Speaker 2: I also do think the fact that he has taken
Speaker 2: on so much water on what had previously been his
Speaker 2: most popular issue, which is immigration, because there was so
Speaker 2: much conversation about these you know, the horrific deportations to
Speaker 2: Seacott and the you know, just total like a rature
Speaker 2: of any sort of due process, the revelations that you know,
Speaker 2: they can't really produce evidence that any of these people
Speaker 2: so far that we've learned about who are sent there
Speaker 2: were actual hardened gang members. And then specifically the you know,
Speaker 2: the conversation around kill mar Abrego Garcia, and if you
Speaker 2: pull people on the handling there, I mean, it's a
Speaker 2: landslide in the direction of you know, this should not
Speaker 2: have been done, and this man should not be disappeared,
Speaker 2: and they should bring him back, et cetera. I do
Speaker 2: think that taking bringing him underwater on even his most
Speaker 2: popular issue has also been an important part of the
Speaker 2: acceleration in his favorability decline. And so you know, we
Speaker 2: look at that like April one demarcation, that's Liberation Day,
Speaker 2: but April is also when we start to really focus
Speaker 2: in on some of these stories around immigration that people
Speaker 2: are frankly horrified by.
Speaker 4: Let's put up a five wall. Emily answers there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is quite an interesting chart to look at,
Speaker 1: and I think that's an important point because this administration
Speaker 1: is stealing themselves and they sort of know, and they
Speaker 1: went in they had this totally contradictory narrative. On the
Speaker 1: one hand, they had a mandate. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: handling that mandate could be pretty unpopular. And Trump is
Speaker 1: having historically a shorter honeymoon than other president. So some
Speaker 1: of these trends we're talking about are totally normal. You know,
Speaker 1: you start pretty high and then steadily declined throughout your presidency.
Speaker 1: We're talking about I've study decline over the first one
Speaker 1: hundred days not the entire presidency, and so to some extent,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration and people involved in this themselves because
Speaker 1: they knew they were about to do some pretty dramatic
Speaker 1: policy changes. And on the other hand, I don't know
Speaker 1: that the public thought that the drama would go beyond
Speaker 1: you know, these kind of common sense policies on immigration
Speaker 1: or common sense you know handling of the economy. And
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, you know, regardless of whatever particular policy,
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is the alternative to Joe Biden because
Speaker 1: he has this like in the minds of some voters,
Speaker 1: he's not the guy who was responsible or oversaw the
Speaker 1: inflation or oversaw the big immigration numbers. And so Trump
Speaker 1: will look around and say, I'm cleaning up Joe Biden's mess.
Speaker 1: But what happens now is Donald Trump and Republicans are
Speaker 1: just consistently betting on Democrats being even less popular than
Speaker 1: they are. This is a trend of the Trump era
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump is, you know, so polarizing that they
Speaker 1: just need basically like a second term Joe Biden, or
Speaker 1: they need someone who is as uniquely unpopular as Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: That's their only path to the White House. In the
Speaker 1: Trump era, as long as Trump dominates politics because he
Speaker 1: is so polarizing, and to some extent that becomes a
Speaker 1: bubble right because you lose the will to recapture significant
Speaker 1: swaths of the public.
Speaker 4: I can understand why so much of the public didn't
Speaker 4: expect Trump to make these kinds of moves when it
Speaker 4: came to immigration, because I think back to imily remember
Speaker 4: that zero Hedge debate that we posted on immigration. It
Speaker 4: was Robbie Swavee and like the libertarian presidential nominee on
Speaker 4: one side against what Jack postobiac and Ryan He's like
Speaker 4: far far right dudes, And I remember being surprised myself
Speaker 4: at like how bonkers they were. They were like, they're like,
Speaker 4: we need to go to war with the cartels, we
Speaker 4: need to deploy the army in the American state. And
Speaker 4: I knew that that those views are out there, but
Speaker 4: I'm like, oh, these are These are fairly influential people
Speaker 4: who will have the ear of even more influential people
Speaker 4: like Stephen Miller, you know, if if Trump wins. And
Speaker 4: so despite doing news shows basically every day, I hadn't
Speaker 4: quite absorbed, you know, how committed and how radical they
Speaker 4: were until I think until that debate and so then
Speaker 4: seeing them actually execute it, it's not surprising that the public
Speaker 4: is recoiling. But I'm curious as you talk to people
Speaker 4: in that universe, do they feel chastened at all or
Speaker 4: are they more like Steven Miller was over the weekend
Speaker 4: giving who I don't know if you guys saw this,
Speaker 4: this rant he gave where he's like, we need to
Speaker 4: get these communists, you know, off the court. And if
Speaker 4: you think that they're going to stand in the way
Speaker 4: of President Trump getting the terrorists out of your neighborhood,
Speaker 4: you know, you've got another thing coming. Like he was
Speaker 4: just like full on, like you know, maniacally, We're full
Speaker 4: steam ahead on this. So it are they checking themselves
Speaker 4: at all based on these numbers or is it no,
Speaker 4: like this is this is our shot to carry out
Speaker 4: a revolution and we're going to do it.
Speaker 1: The Stephen Miller clip is very representative, the one that
Speaker 1: you're just referencive and and Ryan well, I mean, so
Speaker 1: this this hardened core absolutely is. I remember Ryan walking
Speaker 1: out of that debate and just like taking a deep
Speaker 1: breath and being like, holy shit, you were surprised by Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it was a lot. It was a lot. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think that's exactly what we're talking about here, is
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration felt it had the wind that
Speaker 1: it's back with the public on immigration and on the
Speaker 1: economy to the extent where they said, this is a
Speaker 1: generational opportunity to take dramatic steps, corrective steps in their
Speaker 1: mind that further the like broader conservative politics, broader conservative project,
Speaker 1: which is pushing back on a century of as they see,
Speaker 1: like Wilsonian administrative sprawl. And so they right now feel
Speaker 1: as though, because the public gave them this permission, that
Speaker 1: this is exactly like that, and to some extent this
Speaker 1: is going to be controversial. They're kind of right, right,
Speaker 1: like if the alternative, if if the alternative is totally
Speaker 1: open borders as people see it, as people see it,
Speaker 1: or Steven Miller, some people are still gonna be siding
Speaker 1: with Stephen Miller and the public because the other policy
Speaker 1: is so awful, and that's what gives them this idea
Speaker 1: that they can keep going digging further and further, pushing
Speaker 1: further and further. And that's obviously where you end up
Speaker 1: alienating the public, because at some point the policies of
Speaker 1: the Democrats are not that bad compared to sending people
Speaker 1: to Seacott. So they are like that because that's this
Speaker 1: is the hardened core who now feels like they have
Speaker 1: been vindicated. They are absolutely riding high. They are feeling
Speaker 1: like they should be dunking on reporters left and right
Speaker 1: every single day, and they're ready to do battle. And
Speaker 1: I think that that may come back, and I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say may that will come back to bite them, because
Speaker 1: the public have to be able to sort of absorb
Speaker 1: where the public is, if that's part of your goal.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean this relates to actually the other conversation
Speaker 2: we were having before the start, which is the revelation
Speaker 2: of these you know, signal chat groups Chatham House, Ben
Speaker 2: Smith and the reporting and you've got you know, David
Speaker 2: Sacks and Tucker Carlson and all these like right wing
Speaker 2: media figures and all these right wing tech billionaires all
Speaker 2: inside of this chat group, and basically, you know, David
Speaker 2: Sacks sort of threw a fit about some of them
Speaker 2: having quote unquote Trumps arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 5: And like exited the chat.
Speaker 2: But to me, that's emblematic, first of all, of how
Speaker 2: captured right wing quote unquote independent media is that they're
Speaker 2: just like, you know, propagating these narratives that are being
Speaker 2: said to them directly by billionaires. But in addition, it's
Speaker 2: also emblematic to me of what an increasingly tight bubble
Speaker 2: they are keeping themselves in. So and that has been
Speaker 2: kind of, you know, an intentional project of Trump. Two
Speaker 2: point zero is if there's anyone out there that even
Speaker 2: may disagree on anything we're doing, we don't want anything
Speaker 2: to do with it.
Speaker 5: And you pointed that out emily.
Speaker 2: With regard to the trade agenda, you don't have Bob
Speaker 2: Leitheiser in there anymore.
Speaker 5: You've got Peter Davarro, right.
Speaker 2: Because Lightheiser is you know, yes he's a protectionist, but
Speaker 2: this is you know, someone who has his own ideas
Speaker 2: about things and it's things and his intellectual and will
Speaker 2: go about this in like some.
Speaker 5: Sort of an intentional way potentially.
Speaker 2: And instead you have Navarro, who's fresh out of prison
Speaker 2: and who is an absolute ideologue, unmovable ideologue, driving the
Speaker 2: train with regard to tariffs, alongside you know, Trump himself.
Speaker 2: That seems to be the one part of the agenda
Speaker 2: that Trump himself is really taking ownership of. Meanwhile, I
Speaker 2: think the whole immigration portfolio and other and foreign policy
Speaker 2: apparently too has been outsourced to Steven Miller, you know,
Speaker 2: So you have these and then the all the doge
Speaker 2: piece whatever that was of course outsourced to Elon Musk.
Speaker 2: So you have sort of these incredibly ideological, off the
Speaker 2: rails type figures who are completely managing whatever there you know,
Speaker 2: ideological hobby horses, and as I said, they're you know,
Speaker 2: the whole intent of Trump to two point zero is
Speaker 2: to make sure that there is no one in the
Speaker 2: room who's going to say this is a bad idea,
Speaker 2: this is illegal, this is unconstitutional, I'm not going to
Speaker 2: do this, I'm going to resign. Like that has been
Speaker 2: a concerted effort to make sure that's the case. And
Speaker 2: so yeah, they're in a complete and total bubble. And
Speaker 2: I think they also, you know, they feel like, well
Speaker 2: they were the posters were wrong about us before, and
Speaker 2: the economists were wrong before, and so we're there's no
Speaker 2: external feedback that is going to really move us off
Speaker 2: of whatever our you know, wild ideological project happens to be.
Speaker 1: I think that's a really good point that because there's
Speaker 1: such like limited trust in media feedback and perhaps reasonably
Speaker 1: so on that point and polling that people don't. They're like, well,
Speaker 1: what we're doing is popular. You know, this is exactly
Speaker 1: what everyone voted for. So yes, we are going to
Speaker 1: keep sending alleged MS thirteen people to El Salvador. But
Speaker 1: on that point, this is this is really interesting what
Speaker 1: you said, Crystal, because I think about even the fact
Speaker 1: that Peter Nabarro was in prison and how that changed
Speaker 1: this second Trump administration after all of the investigations and
Speaker 1: escalations in the law fair It's like they are applying
Speaker 1: these litmus tests for loyalty that from just a pure
Speaker 1: like management standpoint, if this were not the United States
Speaker 1: of America but some type of corporation, you would be like, Okay,
Speaker 1: what you're doing here, Maybe there's some management logic to it,
Speaker 1: because the litmus test is saying you are not counter signaling.
Speaker 1: This is you know that to the point that like
Speaker 1: they've executed or not executed, excluded not executed yet, but
Speaker 1: excluded people from the circle that are critical. They see
Speaker 1: that as counter signaling, and their litmus test is total
Speaker 1: loyalty because if you don't pass that litmus test, you
Speaker 1: are a potential vulnerability in the administration. You're a potential
Speaker 1: squeaky wheel. You're the potential. You know, Cassidy was Cassie
Speaker 1: Hutchinson who or whatever the other girl was who came
Speaker 1: out in the January sixth hearings. Liz Cheney, by the way,
Speaker 1: someone who was really close with Trump circles and Trump
Speaker 1: one point zero. You're the squeaky wheel that can get
Speaker 1: us in trouble down the road. And so because of that,
Speaker 1: they've really purged people who are willing to be internal critics,
Speaker 1: because that's you don't pass the litmus test. And when
Speaker 1: there's that genuine hesitation to criticize internally even the trajectory,
Speaker 1: then you end up with a chilling effect and you
Speaker 1: end up with everyone just hopping on the bandwagon of
Speaker 1: every idea that Stephen Miller has or that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: frankly has.
Speaker 4: What I also found interesting about this first hundred days
Speaker 4: is what Trump didn't do, which is basically pass anything
Speaker 4: through Congress. He did the Lake and Riley Act in
Speaker 4: the first couple of days, which is a Democrats just
Speaker 4: base gave him whatever they wanted when it came to
Speaker 4: immigration because they were really on their on their heels.
Speaker 4: But since then it's probably been the least productive kind
Speaker 4: of it's definitely been the least productive first hundred days
Speaker 4: of any new president who controlled Congress in like modern
Speaker 4: you know, in memory. Instead, he's focused on executive orders,
Speaker 4: and he's focused on kind of concentrating power in the
Speaker 4: executive bites, going after law firms, going after you know, gutting,
Speaker 4: trying to gut universities, you know, rounding up, the rounding
Speaker 4: up students, the trade war, things that he can do
Speaker 4: on his own, and then having his having his top
Speaker 4: administration officials complain that the laws are such that they
Speaker 4: get in the way of him being able to do
Speaker 4: it legally, like this JD. Vance saying, look, what do
Speaker 4: he wants to do? You know, all these people came
Speaker 4: in and now it's really cumbersome to get them out. Meanwhile,
Speaker 4: of course, though there is progress being made legislatively, you know,
Speaker 4: the reconciliation package is moving, The budget you know, continues
Speaker 4: to move. Do you do you are are you impressed
Speaker 4: by what you've seen moving through Congress? And do you
Speaker 4: think do you think he's going to be able to,
Speaker 4: like in the longer run, get this reconciliation bill, the
Speaker 4: tax cut bill through and divert you know, he's trying
Speaker 4: to divert tens or maybe even hundreds of billions of
Speaker 4: dollars over to ice. Their current budget is something like
Speaker 4: nine billion. He wants to put that up somewhere between
Speaker 4: three hundred and five hundred, which is like silly, Like
Speaker 4: they don't have the capacity to spend that amount of money.
Speaker 4: The point is they would be they would have more money,
Speaker 4: and money would be no object for you know, what
Speaker 4: they're trying to accomplish. Do you do you think that
Speaker 4: they're sufficiently committed to that that they're going to get
Speaker 4: some of these things done.
Speaker 1: This is a really quiet source of tension on the
Speaker 1: right because a lot of people who are sort of
Speaker 1: architects of unitary executive theory, which is where this administration
Speaker 1: has spent the bulk of its first one hundred days focused,
Speaker 1: Meaning they're trying to retake power that they feel has
Speaker 1: been wrongly delegated to bureaucrats and the administrative agencies. That
Speaker 1: people who support that also say that's going to require
Speaker 1: a lot of codification through Congress. You can't just do this.
Speaker 1: We've seen this come up in certain court cases time
Speaker 1: and again that this has to be done through Congress.
Speaker 1: If you want to get rid of USAID or the
Speaker 1: Department of Education, you can't do it with an executive order.
Speaker 1: You can't just dismantle the agency. You can dismantle it
Speaker 1: in certain ways, but ultimately you have to pass and
Speaker 1: act through Congress. And they're all pretty i mean, everyone
Speaker 1: you talk to in Trump circles is pretty sure the
Speaker 1: midterms are not going to go well for them, that
Speaker 1: they're probably going to lose the House. And that's where
Speaker 1: it's sort of Twenty twenty five is such a different
Speaker 1: year than before Congress got sclerotic and did absolutely nothing.
Speaker 1: That's downstream of our politics. We could probably talk about
Speaker 1: new gingrids for a long time and how that came
Speaker 1: to pass. But the point is, I mean, this should
Speaker 1: be a robust legislative agenda that they should be able
Speaker 1: to be whipping up bills and getting them through Congress.
Speaker 1: They don't even have to be big, like omnibus type bills.
Speaker 1: But they can't because they're stuck on these stupid budget
Speaker 1: battles and because so much of the energy right now
Speaker 1: is in taking power back from the executive branch that
Speaker 1: they can't even augment that with you know, Article one
Speaker 1: type of activity. So I think that's actually going to
Speaker 1: be a bigger tension in the next one hundred days
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, because a whole lot of the
Speaker 1: people who are the policy architects here are going to
Speaker 1: want to see stuff go through Congress before the midterms.
Speaker 2: Go ahead and put a four up on the screen
Speaker 2: that this shows the historical context of you know, Trump
Speaker 2: is the most unpopular. He's actually beat his own record
Speaker 2: for being the most unpopular president at one hundred days
Speaker 2: in modern history. Now, of course, you know, our politics
Speaker 2: has changed, like these Harry Truman style almost ninety percent
Speaker 2: approval writings are just not really on the table at
Speaker 2: this point in time. But you know, even if you
Speaker 2: look at Joe Biden at this point he was in
Speaker 2: the fifties. You know, Barack Obama was extraordinarily Barbara in
Speaker 2: the first term. In the second term, he was we
Speaker 2: think of that as being a time when there was
Speaker 2: a huge backlash against Obama. He's still at fifty percent there,
Speaker 2: you see, you know, George W. Bush not doing too
Speaker 2: while they're in the second term, but obviously very popular
Speaker 2: in the first term. So in any case, even by
Speaker 2: modern you know, equivalent standards, Trump is sort of uniquely unpopular.
Speaker 2: But you know, I want to transition to we have this, uh,
Speaker 2: this great clip from Frank Luntz one of his focus
Speaker 2: groups where he was speaking to Trump supporters and asked
Speaker 2: them specifically about the tariffs in their concerns about the economy,
Speaker 2: they have any concerns about the economy. And this has
Speaker 2: been the consistent source of Trump's power. You know, He's
Speaker 2: always been compared to other presidents, relatively unpopular, but he
Speaker 2: has this group of voters who are ride or die.
Speaker 5: And will never leave him no matter what.
Speaker 2: And that is certainly evident in this clip that you'll
Speaker 2: see where every single one of these Trump voter focus
Speaker 2: group participants is like, it's fine if my pohurah one
Speaker 2: k goes down. I'm not worried about it. I support
Speaker 2: what he's doing. I think this is a masterclass, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.
Speaker 6: I need to ask you an issue that no one's
Speaker 6: brought up and that has crashed your four A one
Speaker 6: case most of you to tariffs. Stock market is way down,
Speaker 6: it needed a correction. Oh so you support it?
Speaker 5: Yes, you bet yep, And I have to tell you
Speaker 5: how many for a one K wasn't impacted at all?
Speaker 6: How many? First off, how many of you did not
Speaker 6: lose any money over the drop over the crash of
Speaker 6: the stock market market one indidividual to people?
Speaker 7: So and my administration I lost more money than the
Speaker 7: Trump administration by far.
Speaker 8: Yeah, for the whole year.
Speaker 6: No one's upset over this.
Speaker 8: Now if people just get in and stay the course,
Speaker 8: they'll be just fine.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 9: And I was about to say, I'm not a day trader.
Speaker 9: I try not to look at it very often, which
Speaker 9: is I think a good thing. But I also I
Speaker 9: also trust that Trump and all of his advisors that
Speaker 9: are involved with the tariff issue know what they're doing.
Speaker 9: So I'm just gonna hang on. I know it'll correct
Speaker 9: at some point.
Speaker 6: How much surprises have to go up before you say
Speaker 6: this is not.
Speaker 1: That buy from China.
Speaker 5: I'd rather pay more money and buy American same And.
Speaker 8: Prices only go up if if demand is inelastic and
Speaker 8: if there's no alternative supplies. And they're doing a brilliant job.
Speaker 8: They're surrounding China with countries that want to manufacture stuff
Speaker 8: as well, and we do need to bring this stuff back,
Speaker 8: the strategic stuff for sure, but but China is going
Speaker 8: to be in the soup if they don't knock it off.
Speaker 7: Ever, article of quothing I have on is probably made
Speaker 7: in China, Malaysiers, somewhere else. Okay, retailers, give me something
Speaker 7: made in America.
Speaker 2: So Emily Trump has denly lost ground with independent voters.
Speaker 2: I mean, the numbers there are pretty extraordinary, and he
Speaker 2: has lost some high profile supporters or at least not
Speaker 2: necessarily lows them. But some people are starting to express concern.
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan has done so. Candice Owens just came out
Speaker 2: and said, I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm
Speaker 2: siding with Harvard over Donald Trump. So you have a
Speaker 2: little bit of cracks at the kind of elite level.
Speaker 2: There's no sign of that in the polling among Republican
Speaker 2: based voters, who still very much trust Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: very much support whatever it is that he's going to
Speaker 2: do whenever it is, he's going to do it well.
Speaker 1: And this has always been Trump math, is that you
Speaker 1: have this base and it's actually not even a majority
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party. It never really has been a
Speaker 1: majority of the Republican Party. It's about thirty to forty
Speaker 1: percent of Republicans who are just they will leave the
Speaker 1: Republican Party if Trump leaves the Republican Party. They are
Speaker 1: just Trump first, and then the party, then conservatism. Trump
Speaker 1: is their sort of politics. He is the party and
Speaker 1: so to them, and so yeah, that's the Trump math.
Speaker 1: Is always that group of people who will turn out
Speaker 1: to the polls, and then you have to put on
Speaker 1: top of that some group of people that is just
Speaker 1: plainly voting against the other side. They just think the
Speaker 1: other side is so awful that they will swallow all
Speaker 1: of the sort of stylistic issues that they see with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump or any of the liabilities that they see
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump and say, all right, he's less bad.
Speaker 1: And that's not exactly what happened with Barack Obama. It's
Speaker 1: not exactly what happened with Georgia Bush. You had a
Speaker 1: big group of people that were voting of independence who
Speaker 1: said I'm actually voting for this person, or swing voters
Speaker 1: who said I'm actually voting for this person, not just
Speaker 1: against the other person. And that's how Trump has always
Speaker 1: been able to get through. It doesn't translate for Republicans
Speaker 1: after Trump, and that is what they have to reckon
Speaker 1: with when they see a Joe Rogan as a Canarian,
Speaker 1: the coal mine is that this guy gravitated towards Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: As soon as Donald Trump starts to screw things up,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean he's going to ever be around the
Speaker 1: Republican Party again. So how do you sort of be
Speaker 1: able to weather the storms of Donald Trump and come out?
Speaker 1: Does that mean you need to start speaking out against
Speaker 1: what's happening in the universities And nobody's going to do that.
Speaker 1: But these are the thoughts that are going to start
Speaker 1: bubbling up in their heads in the next one hundred
Speaker 1: days for sure.
Speaker 4: And if we could put up aaight, that shows how
Speaker 4: deep in the minority these kind of hardcore Trump supporters are.
Speaker 4: Is seventy two percent of people expect a recession, and
Speaker 4: the vast majority of them believe that Trump is doing this,
Speaker 4: that he's driving us into recession, that this is not
Speaker 4: some external shock to the economy. Thirty four percent approve
Speaker 4: of Trump's tariffs. In this country that is so divided
Speaker 4: by tribe, by party, it's very hard to get anything
Speaker 4: under like forty five. Like if your side supports it,
Speaker 4: then at least forty five percent of the country is
Speaker 4: gonna end up supporting it, even if it's the most
Speaker 4: idiotic thing ever until it starts to have material bite.
Speaker 4: And I think that's the only thing that can kind
Speaker 4: of push through the part isn't divide here. So you
Speaker 4: kind of wind up with Trump in this in this
Speaker 4: trap where if he wants validation, which as we know,
Speaker 4: that is the thing that he lives on, you know,
Speaker 4: throughout throughout the day, throughout his life, he can find
Speaker 4: that validation in that focus group and from people like
Speaker 4: Frank Lunz was talking to there, who are like, yeah,
Speaker 4: need this is this is all great, there's a plan,
Speaker 4: trust the plan. Just don't look it's all it's all
Speaker 4: gonna be. So Trump can find that. So what what
Speaker 4: what could shake him out of this? Is it? And
Speaker 4: it's it sounds like the market, Yeah, yeah, the bond
Speaker 4: market and the Target Walmart and Home Depot ceo is
Speaker 4: coming to tell him the shelves are going to be empty.
Speaker 4: Shook him out of it. And he's like, okay, fine,
Speaker 4: we're not tw one hundred and forty five percent. And
Speaker 4: then everybody's size and they're like, okay, somebody got through
Speaker 4: the Trump This is all going to be okay, and
Speaker 4: then he's like, it's only going to be fifty to
Speaker 4: sixty percent, and it's like, bro, that's the same once
Speaker 4: you're over like ten ish percent, Like you're shutting down
Speaker 4: global shipping, which is maybe fine if you have some
Speaker 4: plan B for what you're going to do when global
Speaker 4: shipping shuts down, but moving it from one forty five
Speaker 4: to sixty it's like, oh, he didn't really get it
Speaker 4: so that so he he sort of absorbed it when
Speaker 4: he heard it from those CEOs. Now the shelves are
Speaker 4: actually potentially going to be empty. So will that resonate
Speaker 4: at all?
Speaker 1: I mean it depends because if you've purged internal critics
Speaker 1: and people are walking on eggshells to say, hey, sir,
Speaker 1: you're your own supporters, you're working class supporters who paid
Speaker 1: money to get to another state to go to a
Speaker 1: Trump rally, like these are the types of people right
Speaker 1: now who are really unhappy. First of all, does anyone
Speaker 1: in the circle have the sort of courage to say that,
Speaker 1: to make that point without being blacklisted? I don't know.
Speaker 1: It seems like the people who did in that case
Speaker 1: were people outside of Trump's circle that were able to
Speaker 1: get through to Scott Bessant, and then Scott Bessant was
Speaker 1: able to take the message to Donald Trump or that
Speaker 1: he heard directly from these guys on Wall Street. I mean,
Speaker 1: Trump is here if this is hopeful. Trump is a
Speaker 1: savvy politician to the extent that he knows people's material
Speaker 1: conditions are a big driver of their politics. And you know,
Speaker 1: the whole thing we haven't talked about here, that's maybe
Speaker 1: the biggest elephant in the room is the fact that
Speaker 1: this guy might want to run for a third term.
Speaker 1: And I say run, I don't know what that means.
Speaker 2: There are a Trump twenty twenty eight hat over there now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Scott Scott, as Steve Bannon has said, I don't
Speaker 1: know who Scott Bannon is. It's a combination of Steve
Speaker 1: Bannon and Scott Bessant. That is an interesting hybrid in
Speaker 1: the like Maga zoo but if you want to imagine that.
Speaker 1: But Steve Bannon has said there could be different avenues
Speaker 1: for that, And I just think that is a really
Speaker 1: important elephant elephant little room right now. That changes everything
Speaker 1: we just talked about in the way that they see
Speaker 1: this internally too.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and previously the right would have oh you libs
Speaker 2: are trumped arrangements. Of course, he's just joking about that.
Speaker 2: No one's saying that shit this time. No one is
Speaker 2: saying that.
Speaker 5: This time.
Speaker 2: They're like, oh, I guess he wants to run again.
Speaker 2: We'll see how that goes.
Speaker 4: We can't tell what's a joke or not anymore.
Speaker 5: It's not none of as a joke. Clearly, none of
Speaker 5: it is a joke.
Speaker 4: Twenty eight is more likely to be as approval rating,
Speaker 4: but still, yeah.
Speaker 5: True, true.
Speaker 2: I so one thing I also wanted to to not
Speaker 2: skip over over and actually, can we go back to
Speaker 2: A five and put this up on the screen, because
Speaker 2: there's a bunch that's really interesting and noteworthy in this
Speaker 2: New York Times Ciena poll of the different issues. First
Speaker 2: of all, immigration is his top issue. He's still underwater there.
Speaker 2: But then if you look at his worst issue, it's
Speaker 2: the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which I think is
Speaker 2: vindication to people such as myself who've been saying, no,
Speaker 2: you should be talking about this case because that is
Speaker 2: going to pull down all of his numbers on immigration,
Speaker 2: which is his strongest issue. You want to go after
Speaker 2: his strength, et cetera. Putting that aside. Look at what
Speaker 2: his next worst issues are the war between Russia and
Speaker 2: Ukraine and foreign conflicts in general. And Ryan, I don't
Speaker 2: want to skip over that because I think when we
Speaker 2: did our focus groups and talk to those AOC Trump
Speaker 2: voters right after the election, almost all of them cited, Hey,
Speaker 2: I think he's going to be better for peace. I
Speaker 2: think he's going to be better for ending wars than
Speaker 2: Biden Harris. And now you know, and Trump makes this
Speaker 2: out landish promise, so I'm going to resolve the Russia
Speaker 2: Ukraine conflict in twenty four hours. Always preposterous, but you know,
Speaker 2: he says it was such he repeated it so much
Speaker 2: that I think a lot of people did feel like, okay,
Speaker 2: maybe not twenty four hours, but he's going to be
Speaker 2: able to bring this thing to a close. Obviously, the
Speaker 2: Gaza ceasefire completely collapsed. Now you're looking at just complete
Speaker 2: you know, extermination campaign and starvation within Gaza. And so
Speaker 2: you know, that was another piece that I think is
Speaker 2: really important as well. There was this preposterous framing of him,
Speaker 2: in my view, as being this like anti war peace
Speaker 2: candidate that truly won over you know, some chunk of
Speaker 2: independent voters. And that piece has also just completely completely crumbled,
Speaker 2: and he has really nothing to show for foreign policy
Speaker 2: agenda at this point.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and Emily, before you answer that, Amir Tabone at
Speaker 4: the at Ha Retz over the weekend had this really
Speaker 4: interesting column where he said there actually is a war
Speaker 4: that Trump can end with a tweet, and he's referencing
Speaker 4: this kind of really pathetic post on either Twitter or
Speaker 4: through a social from Trump where he was like, Vladimir
Speaker 4: please stop, what are you doing? Like it was like
Speaker 4: just humiliating himself. If Trump did that for net Yahoo
Speaker 4: and said, this is what Tabona wrote was Bibe stop,
Speaker 4: get the hostages out. Like if he did that, the
Speaker 4: next day, the bombing stops, the talks resume seriously, and
Speaker 4: within days probably the hostages are out. Like there actually
Speaker 4: is a war that he can end if he chooses to. Instead,
Speaker 4: he's not ending the one he's focused on and the
Speaker 4: one that he promised he would end, which is Israel's
Speaker 4: assault on Gaza. He ended it on the inauguration day,
Speaker 4: he got his little headline, and then six weeks eight
Speaker 4: weeks later allowed Israel to start it up again. And
Speaker 4: he's also saying that net Yahoo needs to be kind
Speaker 4: to the people in Gaza. That was roughly his quote
Speaker 4: on Air Force one. Meanwhile, net Yaho is not allowing
Speaker 4: any food in, hasn't since March second, which if your
Speaker 4: stated preference from as Trump is not the one that
Speaker 4: nen Yah was falling through on, doesn't that make you
Speaker 4: look weaker than Joe Biden. Like Joe Biden when he
Speaker 4: would tell them you got to start letting aid in,
Speaker 4: they'd go from like, you know, three hundred trucks to
Speaker 4: three hundred and fifty trucks, Like he could at least
Speaker 4: move the needle. Right, Trump is claiming that he wants
Speaker 4: food to get into Israel, and nt Yah who's telling
Speaker 4: him to f off?
Speaker 1: Like?
Speaker 4: Is there any point at which this is embarrassing to him?
Speaker 1: It's because the people who are making the policy itself,
Speaker 1: who are executing the policy itself, are not with Trump
Speaker 1: on those points about how Israeli speak kind to the
Speaker 1: people in goss At. Trump, at the very least, I
Speaker 1: guess you could say, has like maybe more of a
Speaker 1: realist perspective than the Mike Huckabee. Huckabee, on his first
Speaker 1: night as ambassador, posted a picture with Netsan Yahoo. I
Speaker 1: mean Trump himself obviously posted on true social a couple
Speaker 1: weeks that they are on the same side of every issue.
Speaker 1: He and Nen Yahoo after they had a phone call.
Speaker 1: But you know, this was everything we were talking about
Speaker 1: with Dan Caldwell being purged from the Pentagon from Pete
Speaker 1: Heigsa's circles. Like, yes, that sort of exasperation with the
Speaker 1: israel Hawks in the Republican Party is real in Trump circles,
Speaker 1: but it's not nearly as powerful as the sort of
Speaker 1: holdovers the you know, policy or the build up the
Speaker 1: residue of decades and decades of GOP bear hug Israel,
Speaker 1: bear hugging of Israel at every turn. And so even
Speaker 1: if Trump, as you were saying that, if Trump posted
Speaker 1: just bb stop in all caps like he did to putin,
Speaker 1: I was imagining him being subverted, Like what would happen
Speaker 1: immediately after he sent that, true social people would people
Speaker 1: who are in the administration doing sort of like daily
Speaker 1: policy would immediately if he even did that hypothetically, would
Speaker 1: immediately be trying to find ways to support Netsan Yahu
Speaker 1: that are like under the radar. So that's not conspiratorial,
Speaker 1: It's just that there's an internal war between people who
Speaker 1: thought like even people here in DC who look at
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and say, well, maybe this is the best
Speaker 1: chance to sort of end the dead foreign policy consensus
Speaker 1: in a good way. You know, they're constantly being their
Speaker 1: efforts are constantly being like frustrated and thwarted by the
Speaker 1: majority of people in professional Washington foreign policy circles who
Speaker 1: have learned that they can you know, get continue to
Speaker 1: have jobs by saying nice things about Donald Trump. I'm
Speaker 1: thinking specifically, like a Mike Waltz here, by the way,
Speaker 1: and be in positions of power, and then they can.
Speaker 1: All they had to do was like sort of take
Speaker 1: that pill of swallow the pill of take the medicine
Speaker 1: of saying, oh, yeah, Donald Trump is great, make America
Speaker 1: great again. So yeah, it does look weak, It absolutely
Speaker 1: looks weak, but it doesn't really get framed that way
Speaker 1: among his supporters.
Speaker 2: It also imperils the negotiations with Iran as well. So
Speaker 2: I mean there's you know, the coddling of Israel has
Speaker 2: reverberating impacts that don't just just stay limited to you know,
Speaker 2: the horrors that are unfolding in Gaza with our taxpayer dollars,
Speaker 2: which is increasingly wildly unpopular with almost the entire population,
Speaker 2: with like the exception of boomer Republicans. Effectively, at this point,
Speaker 2: the whole nation has turned on this, you know, on
Speaker 2: this project of perpetual war crimes. I do want to
Speaker 2: touch on immigration again really quickly, just because we have
Speaker 2: some really interesting numbers there that show, you know, people
Speaker 2: can evaluate how things are going and change their minds.
Speaker 2: On the democratic side, in particular, there seems to be
Speaker 2: this assumption that, like, well, if a pole says people
Speaker 2: think this, that's it.
Speaker 5: There's no change in their minds. It's over.
Speaker 2: We better just not talk about that topic, or we
Speaker 2: better totally you know, adopt a different view on that topic,
Speaker 2: et cetera. And immigration is like the primary case in point.
Speaker 2: Take a look at A nine, So this is just
Speaker 2: on how people feel about whether or not immigrants benefit
Speaker 2: the population, and you can see this huge surge in
Speaker 2: the number of people who now say immigrants make the
Speaker 2: country better off, and a dramatic decline in those who
Speaker 2: say that immigrant immigrants make the country worse off, and
Speaker 2: relatively flat on the ones that say it doesn't make
Speaker 2: much of a difference. If you go back and look
Speaker 2: at the numbers on immigration during Trump one point zero,
Speaker 2: you have almost never in history had a more pro
Speaker 2: immigrant population than we did at that time, because they
Speaker 2: were looking at what Trump was doing and they were saying,
Speaker 2: I don't support this, I don't like this, And that's
Speaker 2: how you end up with Democrats, you know, reading those
Speaker 2: polls and then you know, doing their high school Spanish
Speaker 2: at the debates and you know, positioning themselves in that way.
Speaker 2: So we're seeing a similar radical shift in terms of
Speaker 2: people's views on immigration. And go ahead and put a
Speaker 2: ten up on the screen. You can see Independence in particular,
Speaker 2: who have shifted quite dramatically. The fifty six percent overall
Speaker 2: disapprove of Trump's handling of the issue. Sixty two percent
Speaker 2: of Independence opposed removing foreign students, fifty two percent pose
Speaker 2: additions to El Salvador. I would personally like that number
Speaker 2: to be a lot higher than that, but anyway, and
Speaker 2: only twenty one percent Abrego Garcia left in this prison.
Speaker 2: So you know, to me, this was predictable that you know,
Speaker 2: in theory, people say, yeah, okay, let's you know, Trump's
Speaker 2: saying these people are all criminals. Yes, let's get the
Speaker 2: criminals down, et cetera. When you're actually met with the
Speaker 2: reality of, oh, these are human beings who you know,
Speaker 2: many times they are not the caricature that they've been
Speaker 2: made out to be. And then you also have the
Speaker 2: Trump administration, you know, engaging in these outrageous tactics which
Speaker 2: they themselves you'll clearly paint a picture of, Hey, today
Speaker 2: it's kill mar Abrego Garcia, tomorrow can be you. We
Speaker 2: want to go after the homegrowns next. So immediately they're
Speaker 2: helping to make the connection between the loss of rights
Speaker 2: for this immigrant population and the loss of rights for
Speaker 2: the entire population. You know, it's not surprising to me
Speaker 2: to see that immigration, even on the issue of immigration,
Speaker 2: he's now underwater and independence are really flipping their views
Speaker 2: in real time.
Speaker 1: No, it not surprising, and gets to a point that
Speaker 1: you made earlier, which is that they don't even necessarily
Speaker 1: trust public opinion anymore because they saw that happen in
Speaker 1: the first term and then saw him get re elected
Speaker 1: several years later because the Biden administration's policies were so unpopular.
Speaker 1: And again you can make the mistake of misreading that
Speaker 1: mandate as an embrace of your policy rather than a
Speaker 1: rejection of your predecessor's policy. And I think there's some
Speaker 1: of that happening. And the other part of it is
Speaker 1: that because they feel they have the mandate, they are
Speaker 1: sort of isolating themselves or insulating themselves from even critics
Speaker 1: on the right who say, you're going to hurt your
Speaker 1: ability to do quote unquote mass deportations if you're focusing
Speaker 1: on these cases where you actually made a mistake in
Speaker 1: doubling down. In the case of kilmar Abrego Garcia, obviously
Speaker 1: the man who admitted the Trump administration made a mistake
Speaker 1: was fired, but the administration doubled down on it and
Speaker 1: didn't concede that there was any error whatsoever, and it
Speaker 1: became a public spectacle that resulted in public opinion shifting,
Speaker 1: just as you showed, Crystal, And so you know, it's
Speaker 1: sort of from both sides. There's this criticism that people,
Speaker 1: because of those litmus tests in the administration are basically
Speaker 1: insulated from and it will not make their policies more popular,
Speaker 1: that's for sure.
Speaker 4: I think it's Stephen Miller. I think the public sees
Speaker 4: Stephen Miller on TV and they're like, whatever that guy's for.
Speaker 5: On against He is a relatively repulsive.
Speaker 4: And he's single handedly driving in entire country's views on immigration.
Speaker 4: He fades and people are like, yeah, I don't like
Speaker 4: immigrants anymore. He comes back and like, God, I love.
Speaker 2: Immigrants, like immigrants or this dude, I'm with the immigrants
Speaker 2: team immigrant all day long. I mean, he just reads
Speaker 2: he is an extremist.
Speaker 4: Like he is. Trump thinks he's an extremists. There's that
Speaker 4: amazing anecdote where he's making fun of Miller for being
Speaker 4: a racist, saying that, like, if it was up to you,
Speaker 4: Steve Than, you know, everyone in this country would look
Speaker 4: exactly like you.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Yeah, two racist for Trump.
Speaker 5: I mean that which relates to too races because he's
Speaker 5: happy to have around it right exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm happy to give him control of the entire portfolio.
Speaker 2: And it relates to you know, they've been tracking the
Speaker 2: stock market performance when it's Peter Navarro and Howard Lutnik,
Speaker 2: whose name is mentioned more in.
Speaker 5: The news versus Scott Pasant.
Speaker 2: So Ryan, you may have you may be onto something
Speaker 2: there in terms of the spokespeople for the Trump policies.
Speaker 5: And thank you so much for joining us this morning.
Speaker 2: We appreciate you and I'm great to have your views
Speaker 2: on this first very very consequential, very fast paced momentous it.
Speaker 2: We'll certainly say extraordinary first hundred days of this administration.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me, guys, Yeah, our pleasure.
Speaker 2: We now have the Trump trade war officially showing up
Speaker 2: in numbers in terms of shipping and news media starting
Speaker 2: to cover it. Let's take a listen to MSNBC talking
Speaker 2: about a fifty percent your over your drop at West
Speaker 2: Coast Ports.
Speaker 10: You are looking at a forty four percent decrease in
Speaker 10: vessels year over year coming in. And what's really key here, Alex,
Speaker 10: are the people that move the containers.
Speaker 5: You need people to move trade.
Speaker 10: If you have forty percent less containers coming in, that
Speaker 10: is going to impact the people that are the truckers,
Speaker 10: the railroads, the warehousing. This is more than just US
Speaker 10: consuming and US bringing in orders. There's an entire supply
Speaker 10: chain here that is connected to jobs. And so the
Speaker 10: longer this goes, Alex, We're going to see some significant
Speaker 10: impact here in terms of in terms of employment.
Speaker 5: In fact, the Port of Oakland, which is a huge, huge.
Speaker 10: Port that relies on both imports and exports, are very
Speaker 10: very balanced. They've got a fifty to fifty split. They
Speaker 10: already started warning on Friday about the detriment when it comes.
Speaker 9: To jobs and the expos are with this, even if
Speaker 9: a deal is reached soon, are we for at least
Speaker 9: some troubling times ahead.
Speaker 4: I believe we are.
Speaker 10: And the reason why is that trade takes time to
Speaker 10: move and you also have to order it. The fact
Speaker 10: that we've had a pause in all of these manufacturing plants.
Speaker 10: I have had sources tell me in China that there
Speaker 10: are factories that are literally shut down because they're not
Speaker 10: making any products for the United States. So if you
Speaker 10: think about it, remember with COVID, everything shut down and
Speaker 10: then everything ramped back up. And so what happens is
Speaker 10: once you hit that on pause button, it's going to
Speaker 10: be that rush to make the materials and then get
Speaker 10: the product on the vessels and back here, which causes
Speaker 10: congestion and raises freight prices.
Speaker 2: And the West Coast ports are not only gigantic, they're
Speaker 2: also the first places where these massive disruptions would show up.
Speaker 2: I think we all got a real lesson in supply
Speaker 2: chain logistics during COVID, And how you know, once these
Speaker 2: things start.
Speaker 4: To unravel, apparently not all of us, not all.
Speaker 2: Of us, There are cascading effects that you cannot just
Speaker 2: snap your fingers and things go back to normal, even
Speaker 2: if Trump today comes down and says, guess what trade
Speaker 2: war over, We're back to, you know, wherever the previous
Speaker 2: tariffs were with regard to China. If you could put
Speaker 2: B two up on the screen, because I thought this
Speaker 2: was a remarkable visible representation of just how screwed the
Speaker 2: supply chain is at this point.
Speaker 1: So this is a map.
Speaker 2: You can see China on one side, you can see
Speaker 2: la on the other side, and the blue dots are
Speaker 2: all of the ships. Now normally there should be you know,
Speaker 2: roughly even distribution across this map, and you can see
Speaker 2: because so many companies in the US that we're planning
Speaker 2: on importing goods from China said I can't pay this
Speaker 2: one hundred and forty five percent tariff. This is an impossibility.
Speaker 2: You have all of these ships in this cargo just
Speaker 2: stuck sitting in China right now. And you know that's
Speaker 2: the state of affairs that Walmart and Home Depot were
Speaker 2: warning Trump a bat out that hey, we are weeks away,
Speaker 2: days away from starting to have our shelves be light,
Speaker 2: starting to have things that are just on of stock.
Speaker 2: And also many people have been taking you, Ryan b
Speaker 2: one Bee, guys, put this up on the screen. We
Speaker 2: are also now officially the point where San, the low
Speaker 2: cost retailer that many Americans appreciate, is massively hiking their prices,
Speaker 2: so up to three hundred and seventy seven percent price
Speaker 2: hikes over at Shan. You know, not everything is at
Speaker 2: that level, but the thick kitchen cleaning towels have not
Speaker 2: now gone up from a dollar twenty eight, which is unbelievable.
Speaker 2: They cost that to six dollars and ten cents whatever.
Speaker 2: Blind's air conditioning gap brush that's gone up two hundred
Speaker 2: and nineteen percent. So the price hikes are starting to hit.
Speaker 2: I can tell you I personally have seen prices jump
Speaker 2: at Amazon just over the past couple of weeks as well.
Speaker 2: And I know there were reports Ryan about Amazon sellers
Speaker 2: starting to take into account these price hikes.
Speaker 4: Yeah, and the risk for the world is that all
Speaker 4: of those ships that you saw kind of hanging out
Speaker 4: off the Chinese coast, they got to go somewhere at
Speaker 4: some point, and so there there other countries are afraid
Speaker 4: that now there's going to be a bunch of Chinese
Speaker 4: dumping Like okay, well we made this stuff, it's sitting
Speaker 4: the ship, can't sell it to the United States because
Speaker 4: they're doing their thing. You know, who wants a towel
Speaker 4: for you know, two dollars and Columbia to be like,
Speaker 4: all right, we'll take you know, a million towels for
Speaker 4: two dollars or whatever, uh or a Columbia company and
Speaker 4: then the company in Columbia that makes the towels they
Speaker 4: go under. So like that, there's a there's a risk.
Speaker 4: Everybody's kind of holding their breath over like how this
Speaker 4: is how this is going to play out. Meanwhile, this
Speaker 4: this Ken Griffin, you know, Trump supporting Ken Griffin. This
Speaker 4: answer that he gave at a at a recent conference,
Speaker 4: I thought kind of nailed the problem that the that
Speaker 4: the US what do you what would you call it?
Speaker 4: The US political economy faces coming out of this, because
Speaker 4: the thing that really nailed Biden, like you said, was
Speaker 4: inflation from when the supply chains restarted, because you can't
Speaker 4: because of all of the bankruptcies and all of the clogging.
Speaker 4: It takes a very long time for that to start
Speaker 4: running smoothly again. Now you've also implicated treasury, treasury bonds
Speaker 4: and the dollar, So what is that going to do when, if,
Speaker 4: and when that starts flowing again, let's roll Griffin.
Speaker 5: Markets are, you know, obviously not liking what they're hearing.
Speaker 2: Treasuries in particular have seen a lot of volatility and worries.
Speaker 5: About dysfunction in the market. What is that doing to
Speaker 5: the American brand?
Speaker 11: Well, okay, you actually picked exactly the right word. The
Speaker 11: America can brand, right. The United States was more than
Speaker 11: just a nation. It's a brand. It's a universal brand,
Speaker 11: whether it's our culture, our financial strength, our military strength.
Speaker 11: America rose beyond just being a country.
Speaker 8: It was like an.
Speaker 11: Aspiration for most of the world. And we're eroding that
Speaker 11: brand right now. And if you think of your behavior
Speaker 11: as a consumer, how many times do you buy a
Speaker 11: product with a brand on it because you trust that brand.
Speaker 11: You know you could buy like a similar dress with
Speaker 11: no name for less money. But you want the dress
Speaker 11: that you think is going to not fall apart in
Speaker 11: two weeks. You want the handbag that you think is
Speaker 11: well made. You want the television that you know that
Speaker 11: when you turn it on, it's going to work perfectly.
Speaker 11: You want the car that when you turn the engine on,
Speaker 11: it's going to run and when it comes to somebody management.
Speaker 11: For example, there are many great American institutions who's the
Speaker 11: power of their brand, but they will deliver a fair
Speaker 11: service at a fair price that they'll do well by
Speaker 11: their investors and put their investors' interest first. Whether it's
Speaker 11: a Black Rock or Fidelity. These are global brands of
Speaker 11: immen's power. But in the financial markets, no brand compared
Speaker 11: to the brand of the US treasuries US treasure market,
Speaker 11: the strength of the US dollar and the strength the
Speaker 11: credit worthiness of US treasuries, no brand came close. We
Speaker 11: put that brand at risk, and as you and I
Speaker 11: both know, it can take a very long time, very
Speaker 11: long time to remove the tarnish on a brand.
Speaker 4: And the US being the kind of reserve currency and
Speaker 4: this kind of global empire has a lot of downsides,
Speaker 4: also has upsides for Americans that you can imagine a
Speaker 4: world in which the strength that comes from that could
Speaker 4: be the basis for reform and revitalizing the country. Instead,
Speaker 4: you're kind of getting rid of it without replacing it
Speaker 4: with anything else, right, and also destroying tourism like just
Speaker 4: which is you know, nine plus percent of GDP, which
Speaker 4: is just an absolutely huge number.
Speaker 2: And much more significant for certain places many of the
Speaker 2: Red states, like Florida and the Gulf Coast in particular.
Speaker 4: That is like reliving twenty ten and twenty eleven. Yeah,
Speaker 4: which tiktoks about that, and for no reason, Like the
Speaker 4: amount of pain that ripped through Vegas in the wake
Speaker 4: of the financial crisis is hard to bear and to
Speaker 4: see it now happening for no reason, just just because, Yeah,
Speaker 4: it's hard.
Speaker 2: To watch and was part of a shift to the
Speaker 2: right in Nevada because of the carnage from COVID and
Speaker 2: the you know, the perception of democratic handling of that.
Speaker 2: And you know, in spite of the fact that you
Speaker 2: have very strong union organization there, you know, you still
Speaker 2: saw significant shift to the right in Nevada as a
Speaker 2: consequence of you know, the shutdowns and the COVID fallout.
Speaker 2: So you know, you can only imagine with this where
Speaker 2: the blame is one hundred percent with Donald Trump, Like
Speaker 2: there's no argument otherwise what the fallout could be.
Speaker 4: That's a good point. They suffered through the COVID lockdowns,
Speaker 4: So first they suffered through financial crisis and yeah, real
Speaker 4: estate collapsed.
Speaker 1: Oh that was brutal.
Speaker 4: Then a nice recovery for a while, and then they
Speaker 4: got a couple of good years and then whacked by COVID.
Speaker 4: Then everybody's coming back to Vegas and partying and things
Speaker 4: are looking good and then boom, yepy wat shut down.
Speaker 2: You know, the Ken Griffin things could require a longer
Speaker 2: exploration that maybe we don't want to get into you today.
Speaker 2: But as he's talking about America as a brand, I'm
Speaker 2: just thinking, like many of the people on the Trump
Speaker 2: team that you know he supported and he backs Republicans
Speaker 2: to the tune of many millions of dollars, they don't
Speaker 2: agree with that. Like Steven Miller sees America as blood
Speaker 2: and soil, right, so they don't see America as a
Speaker 2: quote unquote brand. And you know, I think there is
Speaker 2: something to be said for a critique of the America
Speaker 2: is a brand posture. But I also think that you know,
Speaker 2: his comments about the way that that branding and no
Speaker 2: one would understand this better than Donald Trump himself, that
Speaker 2: that branding impacts. You know, our status is the global
Speaker 2: reserve currency and the flight to safety to treasury bonds,
Speaker 2: et cetera. You know, it is quite paramount. So the
Speaker 2: way that the financial system is structured right now, and
Speaker 2: so if you are going to disrupt that and move
Speaker 2: to something else. You better have a damn good plan.
Speaker 2: If there's one thing that we have definitely learned, there
Speaker 2: was no damn good plan here.
Speaker 5: There was barely a plan.
Speaker 2: I mean, they were crafting that chart using chat GPT
Speaker 2: or however they decided to do it leading up to
Speaker 2: the hours before it's revealed and turns the entire global
Speaker 2: you know, economic system utterly on its head. We got
Speaker 2: a couple more pieces here that just show, you know,
Speaker 2: the beginnings of the economic fallout. We've got B five
Speaker 2: an ill Intel plant has now been delayed years and
Speaker 2: you know, at the cost of quite a number of jobs,
Speaker 2: is now delayed until twenty thirty one. And in part
Speaker 2: the uncertainty over the tariffs is is playing into this.
Speaker 2: We also something that Sager had brought up before is,
Speaker 2: you know, some of these specific parts of our economy
Speaker 2: are ultra ultra dependent on China.
Speaker 5: The you know, for new parents buying.
Speaker 2: Strollers, like basically every stroller is ninety eight percent or
Speaker 2: something made in China. Many other you know goods that
Speaker 2: you sort of essentially have to buy when you are
Speaker 2: bringing a.
Speaker 5: Child into this world, and toys.
Speaker 2: Are disproportionately made in China as well, be six up
Speaker 2: on the screen. So these are impacts already on the
Speaker 2: US toy industry, and you have to think, like you know,
Speaker 2: for in our terms, Christmas is a long way off.
Speaker 2: If you are a toy importer, if you're a toy store,
Speaker 2: you're thinking about this and you're planning for it now.
Speaker 2: You already have some eighty to almost ninety percent of
Speaker 2: toy companies that are delaying orders. You got sixty four
Speaker 2: percent of small toy companies and eighty percent of mid
Speaker 2: sized toy companies canceling orders. And you have almost half
Speaker 2: that say ran they will go out of business in
Speaker 2: weeks or months, Yeah, weeks or n right.
Speaker 4: And that they and a lot of them are are
Speaker 4: going out of business as we speak. China, meanwhile, has
Speaker 4: announced that they're going to try to help their companies
Speaker 4: that you know, these factories that are completely shut down.
Speaker 4: They're going to try to help those companies, help those
Speaker 4: workers to get through this, because they can do that.
Speaker 4: They have like a unified system, whereas you know, we don't,
Speaker 4: you know, Donald Trump would have to go to Congress
Speaker 4: and doesn't apparently doesn't feel any interest in doing that
Speaker 4: real quickly on that on that Intel point to preempt
Speaker 4: or a counter argument that you're going to hear from
Speaker 4: Trump supporters over this plant. Well, let's say, well, this
Speaker 4: plant was it was delayed previously. First it was supposed
Speaker 4: to be twenty twenty whatever, and then it was supposed
Speaker 4: to be twenty to thirty. Now it's twenty thirty one.
Speaker 4: And this is, you know, a representative of the failures
Speaker 4: of the of the Chips Act, of the and of
Speaker 4: the underlying kind of capacity in the United States to
Speaker 4: build up our high tech manufacturing base. Okay, true, But
Speaker 4: if that's the case, and you already understand that, is
Speaker 4: that the foundation on which you would launch a trade
Speaker 4: like think about that. So according to you, I'm talking
Speaker 4: to you Trump supporters who are going to make this
Speaker 4: exact point about this Intel plant, that this had nothing
Speaker 4: to do with the tariffs, that we just simply are
Speaker 4: not able to build these manufacturing facilities in a competent way.
Speaker 4: If that's true, and it is, we have a lot
Speaker 4: of work to do when it comes to labor force
Speaker 4: and when it comes to cracking down on these multinational corporations.
Speaker 4: It would much rather do stock buybacks than actual investments.
Speaker 4: That's true, We've got to get our house in order.
Speaker 4: If that's true, then why did you just take a
Speaker 4: wrecking ball to our ability to do that? Why not
Speaker 4: fix our own manufacturing capacity problems here in the United
Speaker 4: States first and then launch a trade war so that
Speaker 4: when market conditions are made better domestically by tariffs, we
Speaker 4: have the capacity to respond to those conditions and build
Speaker 4: man manufacturing capacity. That would be how you could potentially
Speaker 4: successfully do that.
Speaker 5: And the irony is we actually were doing some of that.
Speaker 4: Widen. The charts are like shooting straight up under Biden.
Speaker 2: If you if you go and look at manufacturing investment
Speaker 2: and spending and jobs, and you know, these factories were, yeah,
Speaker 2: these factories.
Speaker 5: Were coming online.
Speaker 2: We were actually, you know, for the first time in
Speaker 2: a long time, the recovery out of COVID included more
Speaker 2: manufacturing spending. You know, the history of economic crises in
Speaker 2: you know, modern American economic history has been that when
Speaker 2: you come out of the crisis, some of the manufacturing
Speaker 2: losses they're just gone.
Speaker 5: They don't come back.
Speaker 2: And they were able to buck that trend through the
Speaker 2: Infrastructure Act and through the Chips Act in particular, and
Speaker 2: through the the Inflation Reduction Act, which is the dumbest
Speaker 2: ever name.
Speaker 4: But anyway, some of some of Trump and Biden's tariffs, yes,
Speaker 4: targeted tariffs.
Speaker 2: Put putting all of those things together, you actually did
Speaker 2: have a positive trend in terms of rebuilding American manufacturing
Speaker 2: in some really key sectors for the future. And all
Speaker 2: of that they're taking a sledgehammer to. And Trump thought
Speaker 2: all of that was stupid. Ryan, I mean, He's said this.
Speaker 2: His view was, you didn't have to give do this
Speaker 2: industrial policy. You didn't have to give these subsidies and
Speaker 2: create these incentives for companies to build that.
Speaker 5: You could just do tariffs and force them into it.
Speaker 4: And job bone them. Yeah, call them up and yell
Speaker 4: at them. Yeah.
Speaker 2: And you know what the job owning like with a
Speaker 2: company here or there, that may work. But if you're
Speaker 2: trying to have a nationwide manufacturing renaissance in certain key sectors,
Speaker 2: you are not going to be able to jaw bone
Speaker 2: your way into that. And you're certainly not going to
Speaker 2: be able to just tariff your way into that. And
Speaker 2: we know that because in Trump's first term he did
Speaker 2: just tariffs, much more limited, but just tariffs without corresponding
Speaker 2: industrial policy.
Speaker 5: And it didn't work.
Speaker 2: Manufacturing continues to decline, Companies continue to offshore jobs. And
Speaker 2: the only way that we turn, no matter what round,
Speaker 2: was through the industrial policy that was you know, inherent
Speaker 2: in the Biden administration that the Trump Trump people and
Speaker 2: the Doge people are now completely like decimating and taking
Speaker 2: a wrecking ball to