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 1: This is the only place where you can find honest
Speaker 1: perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
Speaker 1: 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 get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
Speaker 2: and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
Speaker 1: We need your help to build the future of independent
Speaker 1: news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
Speaker 1: dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an
Speaker 1: amazing show for everybody today, extra amazing because Crystal is back.
Speaker 2: Thanks, thank yousing me back here in the chair. We
Speaker 2: have a lot of stuff on the show, but actually
Speaker 2: before we even get to the show bar and all
Speaker 2: the stuff that's going on there, we have some pretty
Speaker 2: significant show announcements.
Speaker 3: About things that we are up to.
Speaker 2: So first of all, you guys know we've been doing
Speaker 2: this like ad hoc Friday.
Speaker 3: We've been calling it a mini show. Whoever can show up.
Speaker 2: We were able to get all four of us together
Speaker 2: last Friday, which were super cool. Saga was able to join.
Speaker 2: It's been Me and Ryan, Me and Ryan and Emily
Speaker 2: whoever can sort of join. So we have decided, thanks
Speaker 2: to you guys as support out there making this happen,
Speaker 2: that we are going to officially make a Friday show
Speaker 2: a thing. That's right, So going forward, expanding out to
Speaker 2: the full five weekdays for Breaking Points to Slash Counterpoints,
Speaker 2: and we're also going to do an extra bonus second
Speaker 2: half that is going to be gated and exclusive for
Speaker 2: premium subscribers. So big deal for us in our expansion here.
Speaker 2: And I guess it's kind of the opposite of a
Speaker 2: recession in that's right, you know, taking a bit of
Speaker 2: a risk at this point.
Speaker 1: As much as we have said about being conservative, we
Speaker 1: just see the appetite and we know how much it
Speaker 1: means to our premium subscribers and to all of our
Speaker 1: audience to officially be five days week. So if you
Speaker 1: guys can help us out Breakingpoints dot Com, we are
Speaker 1: genuinely taking a financial risk in this, you know, obviously
Speaker 1: making Ryan and Emily a bigger part of the entire
Speaker 1: not even bigger part of the show. They are, you know,
Speaker 1: all four of us together are now really coming together
Speaker 1: as a team as an Avengers to make sure that
Speaker 1: there's five days a week of coverage. You guys saw
Speaker 1: the bro Show yesterday, the mix in the match and
Speaker 1: all of that is enabled because of you to be
Speaker 1: able to provide that we are going to be going
Speaker 1: live on a lot more occasions, and so we do
Speaker 1: have the AMA live there in our show bar. That
Speaker 1: is something that we do after today's show that we
Speaker 1: will wrap. I will have, by the way, a surprise announcement,
Speaker 1: just a personal announcement that will drop exclusively in our
Speaker 1: AMA and for our premium subscribers early. But more importantly,
Speaker 1: this is just about being able to find five days
Speaker 1: a week, more opportunities for lives. We're building more opportunities
Speaker 1: to get the breaking points, community actually engaged, utilizing our platform,
Speaker 1: be able to deliver the show in any possible way
Speaker 1: that we can, and so broadly, this is just about
Speaker 1: taking a risk at this time when we know that
Speaker 1: as financial precarity for all of you and also frankly
Speaker 1: for us, but we do still feel that it's really
Speaker 1: really important to try and to take this risk right now,
Speaker 1: and so that's just something if you could help us
Speaker 1: out Breakingpoints dot com as I mentioned. But just finally,
Speaker 1: and this is very important because as I just acknowledge
Speaker 1: that there's a lot of uncertainty right now for our
Speaker 1: free audience. For the people who watch the show free
Speaker 1: or who listen right now on Spotify, you are just
Speaker 1: as valuable to us. The way that you can help
Speaker 1: us if you cannot afford it is to like the show,
Speaker 1: to subscribe, to hit the subscribe button on YouTube, subscribe
Speaker 1: or follow on Spotify and or Apple. And more importantly,
Speaker 1: if you're a podcast listener, take an episode that you
Speaker 1: really like and share it with a friend and or
Speaker 1: a family. That is the single best and most important
Speaker 1: way as a free person that you could be able
Speaker 1: to help us out as a show. It's word of mouth. No,
Speaker 1: not one dollar of advertising has ever been spent on
Speaker 1: this show, which is remarkable, honestly, and you look back
Speaker 1: at our future coming up on four years here. To
Speaker 1: be able to grow to almost one point four million subscribers,
Speaker 1: it's incredible, to hundreds of thousands of downloads and things
Speaker 1: that we see on the podcast platform. It is because
Speaker 1: of all the people who do also engage for a
Speaker 1: free basis, And if that's all you can do for us,
Speaker 1: it's totally fine. Please just make sure that you can
Speaker 1: help us out by sharing the show.
Speaker 2: Yep, So thank you guys so much for your support.
Speaker 2: Onward and upward. Excited about what is to come for
Speaker 2: the year for breaking points, and I really enjoy that Friday.
Speaker 3: Shows like the Friday Show.
Speaker 1: I like it too, It's fun.
Speaker 2: It would be with the pace of news, the Monday
Speaker 2: show would be just unmanageable.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it would just pretty late, and it would be edited.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I mean originally.
Speaker 3: It's a Monday.
Speaker 2: All the stuff that happened on Friday, it's like old
Speaker 2: news because thirty five other major things.
Speaker 1: Have happened, So it is inconceivable. And mean when we launched,
Speaker 1: you know, just penciling budget and all of that, we
Speaker 1: were looking at three days and we're like, oh, maybe
Speaker 1: we can make this work. And so to be in
Speaker 1: a position where we have you know, not just us,
Speaker 1: it's not even just about the four people you guys
Speaker 1: see in front of the camera. There's a whole team
Speaker 1: of people in the room back over there making sure
Speaker 1: this stuff gets cranked out on you know, it's edited.
Speaker 1: We have entire novel processes that we've actually developed. You know,
Speaker 1: I've spoken with many creators and they are blown away
Speaker 1: by our timeline and the team that we have assembled
Speaker 1: that is able to export a show, deliver it across
Speaker 1: multiple different platforms, and do all of these things. I
Speaker 1: mean they're working on a weekly editing basis. Our guys
Speaker 1: can turn it around in sometimes twenty two minutes. Yeah,
Speaker 1: very often they're editing things on the fly. It's incredible.
Speaker 1: And again it's literally all because of the people who
Speaker 1: sign up. So thank you they really is a thank
Speaker 1: you to enable us to be able.
Speaker 3: Yeah, when the show goes down late, it's not their fault.
Speaker 3: It is our fault.
Speaker 1: No, it is right much usually the problem, I promise you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: for the thousands of dollars where we have spent on
Speaker 1: equipment and all these other things, state of the art
Speaker 1: stuff that is running back there, and anything late is
Speaker 1: because of our because of us. It is absolutely not
Speaker 1: because of them.
Speaker 2: All right, So let me run quickly through the show
Speaker 2: bar here. We had Bkelly at the White House yesterday,
Speaker 2: Trump announcing that he wants to send US citizens now
Speaker 2: to Bekelly's torture Dungeons. So we'll talk about that. Trump
Speaker 2: approval rating is down. We've got the latest numbers. He
Speaker 2: has announced he maybe backing off some of the auto terrifts.
Speaker 2: At the same time, we're getting new retaligation from China.
Speaker 2: They've halted all Boeing orders. Dave Smith is going to
Speaker 2: join us. Don't know if you guys checked out any
Speaker 2: of his debate with Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Speaker 2: Going to get his reaction to that and some other
Speaker 2: things as well, especially some of the crackdown on any
Speaker 2: dissent visa. The israel I am taking a look at
Speaker 2: Trump's tariff war as class war.
Speaker 3: Sager, what should I say about your model?
Speaker 1: I just say it's a surprise. It's a surprise for
Speaker 1: everybody who's there just book recommendations. That's on joke, caamjo.
Speaker 1: There's something there that I'll you can find out if
Speaker 1: you become a premium subscriber.
Speaker 2: You will find out eventually whether you're a premium subscriber
Speaker 2: or not. But previous subscribers in that AMA Live will
Speaker 2: give you the sneak peek. Okay, let's go ahead and
Speaker 2: get to the Oval Office. Yesterday, President of al Salvador
Speaker 2: Naiba Kelly was in town. Obviously, this was very significant
Speaker 2: for a number of reasons. This administration has sent somewhere
Speaker 2: around at this point, about two hundred and fifty migrants
Speaker 2: into that prison. We now know that approximately ninety percent
Speaker 2: of them, in spite of being told that they were
Speaker 2: gang members, and the worst of the worst, ninety percent
Speaker 2: have no criminal record. We have learned some of the
Speaker 2: details of those individuals, and one of those individuals, in particular,
Speaker 2: Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the administration admitted that they sent him
Speaker 2: there in air. The Supreme Court then came in and said,
Speaker 2: you got to try to get this guy back. You
Speaker 2: have to facilitate his release. They are just completely stonewalling.
Speaker 2: They're pretending like the Supreme Court actually sided with them
Speaker 2: and said they don't have to do anything. So a
Speaker 2: lot of questions about what the response from Bkelly would be,
Speaker 2: how Trump would interact with him, et cetera. But before
Speaker 2: any of that occurred, the two of them, Trump and
Speaker 2: Bkelly were actually caught on a hot mic with Trump,
Speaker 2: and you have to listen carefully, but Trump telling Bukelly
Speaker 2: that next he wants to send to his prisons the
Speaker 2: quote unquote homegrowns and that bikelly may.
Speaker 3: Need to build five more of those.
Speaker 2: Facilities to house the US citizens that Trump now wants
Speaker 2: to send to that notorious Seacott facility. Let's take a
Speaker 2: listen to how that went down.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they stood growing next the home runs.
Speaker 4: You get a book about five more places.
Speaker 3: Yeah that's great, all right, it's not big enough. Yeah,
Speaker 3: come on, And it wasn't only in this hot mic moment.
Speaker 3: Apparently the El Salvador press was there, but the whole
Speaker 3: pool wasn't it.
Speaker 2: I don't know where that stream came from, but they
Speaker 2: were streaming that live and obviously we are.
Speaker 1: It was the El Salvadoran government. It wasn't even in
Speaker 1: Salvador in media. Now, why exactly? Elso, if we're in
Speaker 1: government is allowed to live stream straight from the Oval Office,
Speaker 1: that's beyond me. That's probably the tertiary amount of concerns
Speaker 1: as well as mister outfit that was happening. You're you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right. There were a number of comments made there
Speaker 1: by President Trump in the Oval Office very defiant on
Speaker 1: the Upbrego Garcia case, as well as proposing on multiple
Speaker 1: occasions sending US citizens to this prison let's take a listen.
Speaker 2: And sup you said that if the Supreme Court said
Speaker 2: someone needed to be returned, that you would abide by that.
Speaker 2: You said that on Air Force one just a few
Speaker 2: days ago, and they said that it must be facilitating.
Speaker 2: And you just say, isn't it wonderful that we're keeping
Speaker 2: criminals out of our country?
Speaker 1: Why can't you just say that? Why do you go
Speaker 1: over and over and that's why nobody watches you anymore?
Speaker 1: You know you have no credibility.
Speaker 4: Please go ahead, promise you if he was your neighbor,
Speaker 4: you wouldn't move right away, So you don't plan the
Speaker 4: Supreme Court.
Speaker 3: In the Supreme Court, siave, was it nine to nothing?
Speaker 4: Yes, there's a ninety zero in our favor. In our
Speaker 4: favor against the district court ruling saying that no district
Speaker 4: court has the power to compel the foreign policy function
Speaker 4: of the United States. As Pam said, the ruling solely
Speaker 4: stated that if this individual at El salvad Or sole
Speaker 4: discretion was set back to our country, that we could
Speaker 4: deport him a second time.
Speaker 5: How can I model the terrorists into the United States.
Speaker 3: I don't have the power to return him to the
Speaker 3: United States.
Speaker 5: So you can release the inside. Yeah, but I'm not
Speaker 5: releasing I mean, we're not very fond of releasing terrorists
Speaker 5: into our country.
Speaker 3: We just turned the murder capital of the world to
Speaker 3: the safest country of the Western Hemisphere.
Speaker 1: And you want us to go back into the releasing
Speaker 1: criminals so we can go back to being the murdered
Speaker 1: capital of the world.
Speaker 3: Now that's that's not going to be.
Speaker 4: Well, they'd love to have a criminal you know.
Speaker 3: I mean, I mean, there's a fascination.
Speaker 4: They would love it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they're great facilities, very strong facilities, and.
Speaker 6: They don't play games.
Speaker 1: I'd like to go step further.
Speaker 4: I mean, I say, I said it to Pam.
Speaker 2: I don't know what the laws are. We always have
Speaker 2: to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals
Speaker 2: that push people into subways.
Speaker 3: I'd like to include them in the group of people
Speaker 3: to get them out of the country.
Speaker 1: So you can see they're not only doubling down. But
Speaker 1: the most significant comment made from bu Kelly was saying, quote,
Speaker 1: I don't what did he say. I don't have the
Speaker 1: power to bring back a Breago Garcia. This is where
Speaker 1: it is obviously preposterous. Bu Kelly is getting paid six
Speaker 1: million dollars from the United States government. Furthermore, he has literal,
Speaker 1: unilatal authority over who goes in and out of Seacotts,
Speaker 1: so he actually could release him if he could. And
Speaker 1: this is one where the government and Stephen Miller is
Speaker 1: saying there, oh, it was. I mean, he is correct
Speaker 1: in that it's nine to oh by saying it is
Speaker 1: nine oh in not ordering it in the same way
Speaker 1: the district judge said, you have to go get him back,
Speaker 1: but it was very clear about the facilitation of return
Speaker 1: and what was it turned it over to the district court,
Speaker 1: where there continues to be adjudication over specifically the lengths
Speaker 1: and the process through which the United States must return
Speaker 1: our Brego Garcia. It is clear cut, it is beyond obvious.
Speaker 1: You know, the state, the state admitted in its court
Speaker 1: filing a Brago Garcia should not have been sent to
Speaker 1: El Salvador, period, end of story. We can talk all
Speaker 1: day long about the hold on the deportation order, et cetera,
Speaker 1: but it is clear as day he had to hold
Speaker 1: for deportation. He was sent there by their own admission.
Speaker 1: It was a quote unquote mistake. The Stephen Miller has
Speaker 1: now claimed that it was an actual mistake to admit
Speaker 1: that it was a mistake, and that is not true.
Speaker 1: That fired solicitor general who said that in court filing.
Speaker 1: Apparently I was actually reading from a legal expert that
Speaker 1: he has a decent enough case for defamation actually against
Speaker 1: the government because they're claiming that he basically lied in
Speaker 1: a court filing.
Speaker 2: Johnathan Turley, who is a Republican Trump sympathetic Fox News
Speaker 2: kind of a guy, who was like, he's got a
Speaker 2: case for defamation. Yeah, the dude that they fired because
Speaker 2: he admitted in court that this was a mistake, which
Speaker 2: also wasn't just admitted in court. It also, Asager said,
Speaker 2: was part of this court filing. He's been there for
Speaker 2: fifteen years. He served in the same or similar role
Speaker 2: under the first Trump administration.
Speaker 3: You know, he has been a.
Speaker 2: Reliable advocate for whatever the government's position has been. So yeah,
Speaker 2: Stephen Miller called him a saboteur and a democrat if
Speaker 2: he was in there intentionally trying to blow up this case.
Speaker 2: I just want to read for everybody because what Stephen
Speaker 2: Miller is portraying here and were publicans are trying to
Speaker 2: portray the Supreme Court decision as is just total and
Speaker 2: complete garbage. Let me read to you the specific language
Speaker 2: of this order that came down from the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: They say the rest of the District Court's order remains
Speaker 2: in effect, but requires clarification. That's what they're holding their
Speaker 2: whole thing on, is this line that requires clarification. The
Speaker 2: order properly requires the government to facilitate Abario Garcia is
Speaker 2: released from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that
Speaker 2: his case is handled as it would have been had
Speaker 2: he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended
Speaker 2: scope of the term effectuate in the District's court order
Speaker 2: is however, unclear and may exceed the District Court's authority.
Speaker 2: The District Court should clarify its directive with due regard
Speaker 2: for the deference owed to the Executive branch in the
Speaker 2: conduct of foreign affairs. So they didn't even say don't
Speaker 2: effectuate or that was wrong, and they're saying we want
Speaker 2: some clarification from the District Court here, But they said
Speaker 2: incredibly clearly that they need the government needs to facilitate
Speaker 2: the release, and they also tell the government that it
Speaker 2: needs to be prepared to share what it can concerning
Speaker 2: the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
Speaker 2: The government has completely stonewalled here. They're lying about what
Speaker 2: the order actually said, and just think about it, like
Speaker 2: taking the legalies out of it from.
Speaker 3: A human perspective. If you fuck up, you try to
Speaker 3: fix it.
Speaker 2: This is a fuck up of massive life altered proportions.
Speaker 2: We have no idea at this point what the condition
Speaker 2: of this man is. He's been sent into this prison
Speaker 2: known for human rights abuses, for withholding food.
Speaker 3: We know that an extraordinary number.
Speaker 2: Of detainees there have actually died while they're in custody.
Speaker 2: This is a horrible place to be that he has
Speaker 2: been wrongly sent to, and not just him, by the
Speaker 2: way of the two hundred and thirty original immigrants who
Speaker 2: were sent there, as I mentioned, ninety percent no criminal record,
Speaker 2: five had felony arrest records.
Speaker 3: Five and we're told these were the worst of the worst.
Speaker 2: So on top of all of that, what we've been
Speaker 2: warning about is, hey, if you can throw these people
Speaker 2: into this dungeon for life with no due process. This
Speaker 2: isn't just about what they can do to immigrants. This
Speaker 2: is about what they can do to anyone.
Speaker 3: This is about.
Speaker 2: All of our rights. What could have kept them? Since
Speaker 2: their position is once they're a Alsalvador, it's over, it's gone.
Speaker 2: We can't do anything. In Bekelly's position is I can't
Speaker 2: do anything either. What is to keep them from sending
Speaker 2: anyone that they want? And as long as they get
Speaker 2: the plane in the air before the court can come
Speaker 2: in and say you can't do that, then they can
Speaker 2: do whatever they want to people. And so when you
Speaker 2: have Trump here, not only on the hot mic, and
Speaker 2: he had previously said, hey, maybe I'll send American citizens
Speaker 2: there on the hot mic, telling Bakelly, next up is
Speaker 2: the homegrowns. You need to build more facilities, and then
Speaker 2: confirmed in the questioning and he said he made this
Speaker 2: comment that I wanted to get your reaction to, in
Speaker 2: particular Soger. He said specifically in response to a reporter
Speaker 2: asking if he would deport US citizens.
Speaker 3: Quote what you think they're a special category?
Speaker 1: Yes? Right, yeah, I mean thought right? What thoughts? I mean?
Speaker 1: It's just outrageous. And I think what people need to
Speaker 1: understand is that the step by step that the government
Speaker 1: has taken is one that has revealed itself over the
Speaker 1: last several months. I keep resuscitating an old Vietnam term
Speaker 1: credibility gap, and the credibility gap is, like you said,
Speaker 1: they said that it was the worst of the worst.
Speaker 1: Now we know categorically now that that is just simply
Speaker 1: not true considering the overall criminal record. They also said
Speaker 1: that they were using a tattoo or whatever to identify,
Speaker 1: which actually sounds you know, it rings true to a
Speaker 1: lot of people. That's very often the gangs use tattoos
Speaker 1: to do affiliation. Go look at any prison system in
Speaker 1: the United States. It's one of the number one ways
Speaker 1: that you do gang classification. Right. So but again, now
Speaker 1: we have continued to see there's huge holes in the story,
Speaker 1: and there's been a number of these people of a
Speaker 1: gay barber for example, being one of them, where it
Speaker 1: is just like blatantly obvious that at the very least,
Speaker 1: like what they're saying is completely untrue, if not outright false.
Speaker 1: Then you take it a step further. For deportation, initially
Speaker 1: it was about illegal aliens present in the United States
Speaker 1: or people who had applied for asylum. So, okay, you
Speaker 1: know this is one where you can't necessarily or it
Speaker 1: was still in my opinion, still a jump from there.
Speaker 1: To people who are here legally and or who are
Speaker 1: here US citizens. But the jump now, and I have
Speaker 1: spoken with multiple legal experts, is that this one in
Speaker 1: particular is the one that most definitively applies to United
Speaker 1: States citizens because the custody, the custody, the custody at
Speaker 1: question is specifically about this else that the government position
Speaker 1: is taking is that once they are in El Salvador
Speaker 1: in custody, there is nothing that you can do for
Speaker 1: them that actually does not have any legal limitation. Alien
Speaker 1: Enemies Act, believe it or not, actually does whenever it
Speaker 1: comes to a US citizen. There are multiple other you know,
Speaker 1: you've even seen, for example, many of these Palestinian proactivist
Speaker 1: students who are getting or trying to get deported, they're
Speaker 1: still going through a due process like you know, deportation order.
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act was definitely over here. But the specific
Speaker 1: question here at hand legally is one that has no
Speaker 1: limiting principle whatsoever. And actually, I would point to Ed Whalen,
Speaker 1: this is very important for people to see a three
Speaker 1: police Let me just Ed Ed, and I need to
Speaker 1: contextualize that Ed is one of the most conservative lawyers
Speaker 1: and legal minds here in Washington. Ed is a guy
Speaker 1: who went to bat harder than anyone I know for
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh. That's I'm trying to contextualize who this person is.
Speaker 1: I really ideological ground. Unless you're unless you're in the
Speaker 1: mold in the DC world, you don't quite understand how
Speaker 1: important it is for Ed to speak out on something
Speaker 1: like this. So okay, with all that on the on
Speaker 1: the table, quote outrageous, misterpresentation of the Supreme Court ruling.
Speaker 1: The unanimous Court rule that a district Court order properly
Speaker 1: requires the government to facilitate Upbrego Garcia's release from custody
Speaker 1: in Nail Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled,
Speaker 1: and it would have been had he not been improperly
Speaker 1: sent to l Salvador. Yes. The Court also stated that
Speaker 1: the intended scope of the term effectuate in the district
Speaker 1: Court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the district
Speaker 1: court authority, and it told the district courts to clarify
Speaker 1: its directive with due regard for the deference owed to
Speaker 1: Executive branch and the conduct of foreign affairs. But due
Speaker 1: regard does not mean the district Court couldn't give any
Speaker 1: teeth to effectuate. In any event, the district court dropped
Speaker 1: effectuate from its revised order, so this is all irrelevant.
Speaker 1: The duty to facilitate continues. And that's what the government
Speaker 1: is saying, is that their only duty to facilitate is
Speaker 1: that if Bucell were to release Abrego Garcia from the
Speaker 1: what was it from prison, that they would fly him
Speaker 1: back to the United States, proceed with a due deportation
Speaker 1: through a due process proceeding, and then he would be
Speaker 1: sent back to l Salvador. But at the very least
Speaker 1: like that is still one which fits within the bounds
Speaker 1: of the law. And that is not what we see
Speaker 1: right now from the Trump administration. And they have stretched it,
Speaker 1: you know, ten times farther than any before. And in fact,
Speaker 1: it does appear that they're trying to pick fights with
Speaker 1: the courts over their immigration nationality authority specifically, but in
Speaker 1: this particular case, as I want to come back to,
Speaker 1: the truth is is that everything they have said on
Speaker 1: this process and you know, look, this requires me a
Speaker 1: help with from people like me. I never, in my
Speaker 1: wildest dreams imagined that you would just simply snatch people
Speaker 1: up who had nothing to do with I mean, for example,
Speaker 1: we have eight to ten million gang members, right, sorry,
Speaker 1: eight to ten million illegal immigrants. Is it really implausible
Speaker 1: there are two hundred, you know, gang members President of
Speaker 1: the United States, I honestly don't think so. I am
Speaker 1: relatively familiar with gang proceedings and others in the criminal
Speaker 1: justice system, their gang enhancements and others at state by
Speaker 1: state level. This is something that cops do every day.
Speaker 1: Would it really have entered that wildest dream to think
Speaker 1: that you would take somebody and look at their administrative
Speaker 1: paperwork and then mistakenly deport that individual and then claim,
Speaker 1: you know, without any without really without even walking back
Speaker 1: any claims around this, to say that this is somebody
Speaker 1: to be deported to tell someone it's also similarly, it's
Speaker 1: very different than to go through a deportation proceeding for
Speaker 1: being sent back to El Salvador than it is to
Speaker 1: facilitate the actual entry into this prison as a behest
Speaker 1: of the United States government. That direction also matters. So
Speaker 1: if Abrago Garcia went through the normal deportation process and
Speaker 1: was sent to Al Salvador and they decided to put
Speaker 1: him in prison, okay, that's a different thing. It fundamentally
Speaker 1: is because that's not something that was facilitated, paid for,
Speaker 1: and done at the behest of the United States government
Speaker 1: in this particular case, that is absolutely not what has happened.
Speaker 1: And I think it is very clear that the government
Speaker 1: is trying to stretch it now to this point and
Speaker 1: at this it is a breaking point name of the show.
Speaker 1: This is one where you must stand up against what
Speaker 1: the current government is doing, specifically because it does apply
Speaker 1: to United States citizens. There is not a single limiting
Speaker 1: principle that can be held here. And it's not about
Speaker 1: Alien Enemies Act, It's not even really about illegal versus legal.
Speaker 1: There is nothing under the current logic that would stop
Speaker 1: them from doing this to any United States citizen who
Speaker 1: would mistakenly be deported. And if we are then to
Speaker 1: assume and now look at the obvious credibility gap within
Speaker 1: the White House, at their shoddy procedures at not even shoddy,
Speaker 1: I mean just outright fake. Basically at this point the
Speaker 1: MS thirteen East Coast gang leader and thing that we saw,
Speaker 1: no reasonable individual, in my opinion, could have confidence in
Speaker 1: the current Department Homeland Security to be able to fundamentally
Speaker 1: distinguish and make sure that there is enough of a
Speaker 1: coult process that is being put in place there to
Speaker 1: ensure that no United States sitting would ever be mistakenly
Speaker 1: deported under this current regime, especially in the way that
Speaker 1: it has all been implemented at this time. So we
Speaker 1: can look step by step at all the processes easily
Speaker 1: in hindsight and say this was not true, this was
Speaker 1: not true, this was not true, this is being handled differently,
Speaker 1: this is now here. And the limiting principle, which is
Speaker 1: like an often thing you should look like, especially with
Speaker 1: legal and others. As I said, I've spoken with many,
Speaker 1: many legal minds, and the only thing stopping them is
Speaker 1: their own behest of not being able to do something.
Speaker 1: And that's just simply not good enough in my opinion,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, what they're really asking for is trust,
Speaker 1: and I just don't think that any reasonable person who
Speaker 1: is now looking at this can have any trust whatsoever
Speaker 1: in the procedure that they put place or any of
Speaker 1: the statements that they have forward on MS thirteen trend
Speaker 1: de Agua, especially with the arrests of that so called
Speaker 1: East Coast gang leader and then many of the arrests
Speaker 1: that have been made now so far. So anyway, that's
Speaker 1: my long winded way of just saying I think this
Speaker 1: is incredibly dangerous, and I do think that I've seen
Speaker 1: fire and numerous or other organizations stand up. I've seen
Speaker 1: ed Whalen and others as well, and so that's also
Speaker 1: I think that allows for calibration. And I understand a
Speaker 1: lot of MAGA is in a place where they don't
Speaker 1: want to take you know, they find it annoying that
Speaker 1: they call them a Maryland. It's like, okay, fine, we
Speaker 1: can talk later about illegal and illegal status, because it's
Speaker 1: actually not about that right now now, And that's the
Speaker 1: kind of the point I want to get across. This
Speaker 1: is not about illegal immigration. This specific case is not
Speaker 1: about illegal immigration, period. It really is about courts, and
Speaker 1: it is also about principles which would course apply to anybody.
Speaker 1: And under that current regime, then no, without any limiting
Speaker 1: power on the government, that there is nothing stopping from
Speaker 1: a US citizen. It's clear now that Donald Trump, if
Speaker 1: he says it, you know, we have to take him
Speaker 1: seriously at this point as well. It is now clear
Speaker 1: also that many of the guardrails which you know, frankly
Speaker 1: I thought would be there, I've obviously fallen apart or
Speaker 1: not even fallen apart. It's just that there are willing
Speaker 1: participants and they view everything as some sort of like
Speaker 1: left right media game, almost like you and I debating
Speaker 1: here on this show. And it's like with the tariffs,
Speaker 1: it's like with signal Gate, it's like with all of
Speaker 1: these other things. It's like, No, this is about real
Speaker 1: people's life, like you, people are in the government. This
Speaker 1: is not a CNN panel where we're trying to joust
Speaker 1: here about who's right and who's wrong.
Speaker 2: These people, they want them to stay in this torture
Speaker 2: dungeon for life.
Speaker 3: People who did nothing wrong.
Speaker 2: Nothing, I mean, many of these individuals, the ones that
Speaker 2: the media has been able to track down, they went
Speaker 2: through the process, like they showed, they got their ap point.
Speaker 2: They're going through the asylum process. Now we can have
Speaker 2: a lot of conversations about that asylum process. They did
Speaker 2: nothing wrong. They were following the process as it was
Speaker 2: set out. Ninety percent no criminal record, sentenced to a
Speaker 2: life of torture and misery. And the administration knows that,
Speaker 2: they know that, they're not fools, they know what they've done.
Speaker 3: It's evil.
Speaker 2: I mean, there's just no other word to sending people
Speaker 2: who are innocent, who have committed no crime, done nothing wrong,
Speaker 2: to rot in a prison cell known for torture and
Speaker 2: human rights abuse for life. That's what we're talking about here.
Speaker 2: And you mentioned, you know, a breaking point yesterday. I
Speaker 2: had the same reaction of you know, obviously I was
Speaker 2: concerned about this administration coming in. I've been deeply concerned
Speaker 2: about the actions that have been taken. I you know,
Speaker 2: when this initially occurred, I was really deeply concerned about
Speaker 2: where not only that action, but where would ultimately lead.
Speaker 2: But now you have them in open defiance of the
Speaker 2: Supreme Court, I mean, just lying about what the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court even said. You have them committing to keep so
Speaker 2: when they admitted they messed up by sending down to
Speaker 2: this prison, they are dead set on keeping that man
Speaker 2: in that prison for his entire life, however long that lasts.
Speaker 2: And now on camera multiple times, Trump is out there.
Speaker 3: Next up is American citizens.
Speaker 2: That is a dramatic escalation of authoritarianism. And I'm glad
Speaker 2: to see you know yourself, I'm glad to see others.
Speaker 2: I'm glad to see Ied Whalen. But I have to say,
Speaker 2: not one Republican politician, not.
Speaker 1: One yeah, they can't.
Speaker 3: Not a Ran Paul, not a Thomas Massy.
Speaker 1: Yes they can, well, yes they can't.
Speaker 2: Can but we've seen, i mean on certain issues they
Speaker 2: have broken with this president occasionally and to just completely
Speaker 2: like these are people who hold them so oh, here's
Speaker 2: the constitution, and who've held themselves down as these constitutional conservatives.
Speaker 2: The president of the United States plans to completely deny
Speaker 2: due process to US citizens and throw them in a
Speaker 2: foreign prison. And not one person wants to speak out
Speaker 2: about that. That to me is astonishing. And let me
Speaker 2: go ahead and put up on the screen. Let's go
Speaker 2: to these last pieces, this most recent case that we're
Speaker 2: learning about, because the more we're learning about these individuals,
Speaker 2: the more you can see like they just anyone they
Speaker 2: could grab.
Speaker 3: Who is Venezuelan they grabbed? Put up.
Speaker 2: I believe it's a six guys, This nineteen year old
Speaker 2: migrant from Venezuela who had come with his dad. This
Speaker 2: is a photo of him with his father. Put the
Speaker 2: next piece up on the screen. This was by this
Speaker 2: news outlet, it's called Documented. So they were living in
Speaker 2: New York. This is the kind of quintessential story. They
Speaker 2: got their they came across the border. They got put
Speaker 2: on a bus to the infamous Roosevelt Hotel in New York.
Speaker 2: They're working at actually unpacking Timu packages by the airport.
Speaker 1: There's a lot going on.
Speaker 2: And so his son is coming back to the apartment
Speaker 2: after running some errands and just steps from his home,
Speaker 2: ICE agents stop him. They grab him and two other
Speaker 2: boys right at the entrance of our building. This is
Speaker 2: his father, one said. One of the ICE agents said, no,
Speaker 2: he's not the one, like they were looking for someone else.
Speaker 2: But the other said, take him anyway. This one no
Speaker 2: criminal record, did not even have a tattoo, you know,
Speaker 2: not that that's any sort of justification, but they knew this,
Speaker 2: this isn't the right guy, and they snatched him up anyways,
Speaker 2: And now he is his father's beside himself, and he
Speaker 2: is in this prison potentially for life or until you know,
Speaker 2: another administration decides they're going to do something.
Speaker 3: In the game that Trump and Bkelly are playing here, Trump.
Speaker 2: Is saying, oh, I couldn't possibly, but I don't have
Speaker 2: the power over what's going on in El Salvador, and
Speaker 2: but Kelly say, oh, I don't have the power to
Speaker 2: get him out of prison. Like both of you do,
Speaker 2: you both do you don't think that Trump has power?
Speaker 3: It's El Salvador.
Speaker 2: But Kelly has decided to like completely align himself with Trump.
Speaker 2: Yesterday he tweeted out after he left, oh my god,
Speaker 2: I miss you already called President she or something like that.
Speaker 3: We are paying them.
Speaker 2: We have a contract, six million dollar contract with them
Speaker 2: to keep these people in this prison. If Trump said
Speaker 2: yesterday to the Kelly, hey, we need we messed up.
Speaker 3: We need to get that guy back, it would be done.
Speaker 3: It would be over.
Speaker 2: But Kelly is running on salved Or under state of exception.
Speaker 2: He can do whatever he wants.
Speaker 1: Yeah, true is literally martial law.
Speaker 2: And by the way, there were some of the people
Speaker 2: that we had tried to deport to this prison, several
Speaker 2: women that were included that though they were like, no,
Speaker 2: we're not taking women that they sent back, so they
Speaker 2: clearly have the power to send some people back.
Speaker 1: They also apparently rejected people who were also from other
Speaker 1: Central American countries to that's.
Speaker 3: Great, because they were worried about.
Speaker 1: The Central American politics.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so you're more worried about that than the United
Speaker 2: States of America. I mean, it's just they And to
Speaker 2: your point about the guardrails. You know the Supreme Court
Speaker 2: did mess up here, because you have to know at
Speaker 2: this point, I think John Robbers trying to play this
Speaker 2: game and be too cute of let me give them
Speaker 2: a little bit, let me give them some wins, let
Speaker 2: me give them something that they get. No, if you
Speaker 2: don't tell them no, you cannot do. You must get
Speaker 2: him back. If you give them even the little tiniest
Speaker 2: bit of anything, they will do exactly what they did here.
Speaker 3: Lie about what.
Speaker 2: You said, refuse to do anything whatsoever. And this has
Speaker 2: now been kicked back to the district court. They're supposed
Speaker 2: to be providing updates every day. They've just basically refused
Speaker 2: to do that, certainly in the way that the court
Speaker 2: has ordered them to do. And they are certainly inching
Speaker 2: up to that district court judge holding them in contempt.
Speaker 2: I fully expect that to go back to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: So there are still things working their way through the
Speaker 2: judicial process. But at this point you have to say
Speaker 2: that they are openly defined certainly the spirit of the
Speaker 2: court order. They are have laid down a marker that
Speaker 2: if they can get the plane in the air, then
Speaker 2: they can do nothing. Then you know, as long as
Speaker 2: they are quick enough, then they can deny people's rights.
Speaker 2: They can act completely extra constitutionally, do whatever they want,
Speaker 2: and even when they get caught and admit a complete
Speaker 2: screw up, they still don't care. They think that these
Speaker 2: people should be there for life. It is absolutely outrageous.
Speaker 1: That's why I think that the way that it was
Speaker 1: set out is very important to see and see exactly
Speaker 1: like you said, at the current thing, there is no
Speaker 1: simple limiting principle on the government's action, and that is
Speaker 1: genuinely extraordinary. Like we can have conceptual debates about planes
Speaker 1: and judges and being able to turn things around about
Speaker 1: gang members. Listen, I happily debate anybody all day long
Speaker 1: as whether any of these people even should have been
Speaker 1: in the United States or we're abusing the process. But
Speaker 1: it's one of those where that is actually not what
Speaker 1: is on the table right now. Right Like if we
Speaker 1: let's think about this just conceptually, if the government had
Speaker 1: arrested Obrego Garcia and gone through the standard deportation process,
Speaker 1: of which there was a very good so he's getting deported, period,
Speaker 1: He's gone, this nineteen year old, and then no one
Speaker 1: would even know his name and if then the n Salvadorians,
Speaker 1: if they want to throw him in prison, that's their business.
Speaker 1: This nineteen year old, by their own admission, this guy
Speaker 1: came here because he didn't have enough money in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: He's not even pretending that he was fleeing gang violence
Speaker 1: or whatever. Same thing. You don't even have a claim
Speaker 1: of asylum. You're going home under a standard deportation process, Chris.
Speaker 1: So I'll go to bat on that any day of
Speaker 1: the week. That's not the same thing as saying temporary
Speaker 1: deportation order or temporary deportation hold, then coming around and
Speaker 1: being like, oh, we're going to send him there, and
Speaker 1: then we actually we're not going to get back because
Speaker 1: there's nothing we can do about it. And this is
Speaker 1: what I want the MAGA folks to really understand, because
Speaker 1: they are conflating the two. They're saying, oh, I break over,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, listen, I'm with you, all right. You know,
Speaker 1: why is the guy who's been here illegally since twenty
Speaker 1: eleven doesn't claim asylum till twenty nineteen. Should he really
Speaker 1: be in the United States?
Speaker 2: No?
Speaker 1: Obviously, for me, I think a lot of people agree
Speaker 1: with that sentiment. They voted for that. Now, this, this
Speaker 1: is not even within the realm of when you're asking
Speaker 1: about Maga and all those other folks. They are so
Speaker 1: triggered and listen, I emotionally, I understand this. Whenever people,
Speaker 1: you know, I see the media, Maryland Father and all
Speaker 1: talking about all this, I get it. I totally understand,
Speaker 1: because you're basically conveying citizenship effectively on somebody who is
Speaker 1: not a citizen. You know, even in a lot of
Speaker 1: these other cases, they're going to look exactly like what
Speaker 1: I just did and be like, oh my god. You know,
Speaker 1: they're claiming this guy is like mother Teresa or whatever,
Speaker 1: and it's like, okay, well he didn't even follow basic
Speaker 1: preceps of law. It's not about that right now, because
Speaker 1: we can't. And in fact, if the government had simply
Speaker 1: followed the basic laid out process and had gone through
Speaker 1: an ice hoold and a deportation order, of which they
Speaker 1: are well within their ability as they continue to do
Speaker 1: right now, they could say nothing about nobody except the
Speaker 1: ACLU and some open borders lawyers will be talking about this.
Speaker 1: You would be on the most winning ground I'm talking
Speaker 1: politically now. However, by doing this, you are actually poisoning
Speaker 1: the well, just like they did with for any sort
Speaker 1: of faith and credibility, even from many people who support
Speaker 1: your supposed policy, to be able to believe a word
Speaker 1: that you say. And that is where I find myself
Speaker 1: looking at this, is that there was and this. You know,
Speaker 1: you've talked about this with Glenn in particular. He's like, look,
Speaker 1: nothing stops you from doing the deportation to your own
Speaker 1: home cut literally nothing, So do that, you know again
Speaker 1: with the barber guy, like really, like you know, we're
Speaker 1: really going to take the society and claim seriously like
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I don't And you know, fine, we can
Speaker 1: argue again about that all day long. Fine, send him
Speaker 1: back to Venezuela. But you know, sending somebody to a prison,
Speaker 1: or even in this particular case, admitting that you shouldn't
Speaker 1: have done so and under no pretense of a process,
Speaker 1: and then also no pretense of pretending to bring somebody back,
Speaker 1: It's simply not the same debate. And by putting yourself
Speaker 1: on this debate, in my opinion, I'm curious what you think.
Speaker 1: I actually do think this is a big demarcation point
Speaker 1: for the government where a lot of people, yes, Magapolitan,
Speaker 1: and all of them may not be talking. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of normal conservative MAGA folks and others who
Speaker 1: agree with deportation, who are like, yeah, I'm out on
Speaker 1: this one, and I think that they have done that
Speaker 1: with the tariffs, They've done that with the credibility, a
Speaker 1: lot of that with Doe. We'll talk about does too,
Speaker 1: won't we about? You know, some of their redefinitions. At
Speaker 1: a certain point, you got to get the hood pulled
Speaker 1: over from your eyes. You know, you can support a
Speaker 1: lot of these things in principle and you can also
Speaker 1: criticize I think a lot of the ways that not
Speaker 1: even about practicality, but seeing genuinely on the facts of
Speaker 1: the matter, they're not the same thing as to what
Speaker 1: the government is trying to argue. Because you know, every
Speaker 1: time Steven Miller opens his mouth, he's talking to how
Speaker 1: I am about, oh, somebody who came here legally. It's like, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what we're talking about here. Though you could
Speaker 1: have easily deported him again, nobody would have said anything
Speaker 1: unless except for the ACLU and a bunch of other
Speaker 1: like Catholic charities organizations, and nobody really cares what they
Speaker 1: have to say, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: You made this into a national case for basically no reason. Well,
Speaker 1: actually no, I think we do know the reasons, because
Speaker 1: they want the maximum and this is good. They want
Speaker 1: last thing. I'm sorry droning on, but the point about
Speaker 1: mass deportation is it's actually not happening. It's just the
Speaker 1: truth is is that the numbers are not that high,
Speaker 1: and it is obvious that the government is either too
Speaker 1: incompetent or unable to actually even do what they said
Speaker 1: they were going to do, which is start with criminals
Speaker 1: and or whatever, and they're diverting immense amount of resources
Speaker 1: at the exact same time to these palstain and I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, you look at these videos of oz Turk.
Speaker 1: You know there's like five people there. What what are
Speaker 1: we doing? What are we doing, you know, for to
Speaker 1: dedicate all of these resources to this you know, police
Speaker 1: state on behalf of a foreign government. And then same
Speaker 1: in the uh sheer ineptitude and either ineptitude or callousness,
Speaker 1: I don't know which it is for things like this
Speaker 1: where oh just grab them anyway, So there's no rhyme,
Speaker 1: there's no reason, And yeah, they've lost they have lost
Speaker 1: all credibility in the eyes. I think of any you know,
Speaker 1: reasonable person who could look at this now at this point,
Speaker 1: and you know that's uh that they are going to
Speaker 1: validate the immigrant activists more than anybody else on the planet.
Speaker 1: And so four or five years from now, if you
Speaker 1: lose the White House and they mass legalize everybody, that's
Speaker 1: on you at this point, I really, I really believe that.
Speaker 2: Well because they I mean, you're right that they validated
Speaker 2: like the worst, the worst fears. I mean literally beyond honestly,
Speaker 2: and you guys know, like you could accuse me of
Speaker 2: Trump arrangement syndrome, but I was very concerned about this administration.
Speaker 2: This is far beyond, far beyond what I what I
Speaker 2: could have even come up with. And last thing I'll
Speaker 2: say is just, you know, to tie in the piece
Speaker 2: that you were talking about of the crackdown on these
Speaker 2: student protesters and activists and some people who aren't even activists,
Speaker 2: all of this is, you know, they're they're workshopping it
Speaker 2: with immigrants. It will not stay with immigrants. We already
Speaker 2: obviously already see.
Speaker 3: Him out there.
Speaker 2: The homegrowns are next, okay, And you cannot you should
Speaker 2: not expect them to get.
Speaker 3: First of all, no American.
Speaker 2: Citizens should just be shipped, even if you are a criminal,
Speaker 2: should be shipped to this foreign dungeon, in my opinion.
Speaker 2: But even if you're okay with that, why should you
Speaker 2: believe this administration when they say, oh, we're going to
Speaker 2: send the worst of the worst, and they're sending some
Speaker 2: nineteen year old kid who's done nothing wrong. They're sending
Speaker 2: the gay makeup artists who's done nothing wrong. They're sending
Speaker 2: ninety percent of the people they sent no criminal record,
Speaker 2: ninety percent, only five had felony convictions. Okay, so what
Speaker 2: they're testing with the immigrants first is intended for the
Speaker 2: whole population. And yes, we already have indications of that
Speaker 2: with Israel's well, we already have proof of that with
Speaker 2: US citizens who they pressured universities to kick.
Speaker 3: Out of school.
Speaker 1: There.
Speaker 2: They are investigating these pro pales signed protests as terrorism.
Speaker 2: What's starting in the immigrant community, because that's like the
Speaker 2: lowest hanging fruit, and they can argue, we're elected to
Speaker 2: do this, blah blah blah. The plan is to spread
Speaker 2: that to everyone. So that's why everyone should be concerned
Speaker 2: about what is going on here, even if you don't
Speaker 2: care about these particular individuals, you don't care about this
Speaker 2: particular cause.
Speaker 3: First all, I would say you should.
Speaker 2: But even if you don't, this does not stay with
Speaker 2: these individuals. There is nothing that means that keeps this
Speaker 2: infringement on rights among a certain select group of people
Speaker 2: within the country.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's why it's important. As I said, that
Speaker 1: is not hyperbole. That is quite literally true in the
Speaker 1: case of the Abrygo Guercy. And that's part of why
Speaker 1: it's so deeply concerning. Okay, shall we move on to
Speaker 1: Trump and disapproval rating. I think these two things tie in.
Speaker 1: I really do. I think there's been a you know,
Speaker 1: we talked a lot about that vibe shift from November.
Speaker 1: When when do you think the vibe shift peak February?
Speaker 1: What do you want to say? I would say February first.
Speaker 1: That was before true Doge Idiocy started.
Speaker 3: To say, Okay, I'll give you that, right.
Speaker 1: So it was like it was ten days, nine days
Speaker 1: into the first Trump administration. We had the ceasefire in Gaza, right,
Speaker 1: so we could peace post. We had Elon was Elon
Speaker 1: was around, There were the executive orders, there was the
Speaker 1: general vibe like okay, and then you know, buy around
Speaker 1: mid feb that's when I think things really started to shift.
Speaker 1: Let's go ahead and then talk about Trump's approval rating.
Speaker 1: So Trump, as we talked about often in the early days,
Speaker 1: the first month or so, he was doing pretty well,
Speaker 1: even with the highest ever for him. You know, he
Speaker 1: was standing strong on the economy, seemed to be doing
Speaker 1: incredibly well on immigration. Things have now taken a pretty
Speaker 1: significant turn for him, and in the same trend line
Speaker 1: that we saw for Joe Biden after the withdrawal from Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: except this one is just a mere eighty some days
Speaker 1: into his first term. Let's take a listen to Harry
Speaker 1: Anthony breaks a lot of it down.
Speaker 7: I would argue this is the worst set of polling
Speaker 7: data that Donald Trump has had in his entire second
Speaker 7: term as president, in part because the CBS News You Go,
Speaker 7: Paul that came out yesterday has been one of his best.
Speaker 7: Let's first take a look at how folks are feeling
Speaker 7: about the state of the economy. Think that the economy
Speaker 7: is getting worse. What you don't have to be a
Speaker 7: mathematical genius to see the tre line on your screen,
Speaker 7: and it is getting worse. More folks are feeling the
Speaker 7: economy is going southward. Back in November, it was just
Speaker 7: forty two percent of Americans who said the economy is
Speaker 7: getting worse. You jump forward to February, forty nine percent.
Speaker 7: You jump forward to March fifty one percent. Now look
Speaker 7: at this number, fifty three percent. The clear majority of
Speaker 7: Americans think that the economy is getting worse. Donald Trump
Speaker 7: wants to say, don't blame me if you're upset with
Speaker 7: the state of the economy, blame the other guy.
Speaker 1: I don't think.
Speaker 7: Americans are buying what he's selling at this particular point,
Speaker 7: at least anymore more responsible for the economic state. They
Speaker 7: asked about inflation back in March. Look at this, thirty
Speaker 7: eight percent, said Joe Biden. Thirty four percent, said Donald Trump.
Speaker 7: But look at where we are this month when they
Speaker 7: asked about the general state of the economy. Look at
Speaker 7: how much higher the Trump number is fifty four percent.
Speaker 1: That Joe Biden percentage drops through the floor at twenty
Speaker 1: one percent.
Speaker 7: So this idea that Donald Trump will try to sell
Speaker 7: to the American public is trying to sell the American public,
Speaker 7: is that it's the other guy.
Speaker 4: It's not me.
Speaker 1: It's that other guy, that old guy, Joe Biden.
Speaker 7: No longer is this being The American public is no
Speaker 7: longer buying this set of arguments like they were back
Speaker 7: in March.
Speaker 1: So you could see that the turn from blaming Biden
Speaker 1: not exactly positive news there for Donald Trump. The more
Speaker 1: ownership that he has over the economy, the more negative
Speaker 1: that it will be, especially as we see the conflagration
Speaker 1: of tariffs, of consumer sentiment and price increases began to cascade.
Speaker 1: If they do stick to the current policy, don't forget that.
Speaker 1: Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
Speaker 1: We saw a similar decline in the overall tracking index
Speaker 1: of the approval rating. So what Nate silver flags here
Speaker 1: is that the precipitous decline that we saw right now,
Speaker 1: a Trump approval is currently at minus five. But that's
Speaker 1: quote only. If we used poll since Liberation Day, he
Speaker 1: would be at minus eight point five instead. That is
Speaker 1: a pretty significant hit over the span of barely more
Speaker 1: than a week. He was at minus two point five
Speaker 1: on April first, just before Liberation Day. I would also
Speaker 1: note in particular that the focus right now, if you're
Speaker 1: just thinking about the people who are all paying attention
Speaker 1: right to people who are generally looking at the news, etc. Immigration,
Speaker 1: despite the entire segment we just did, was still very
Speaker 1: strong ground I think for Donald Trump. But go ahead
Speaker 1: and put B four up on the screen. This is
Speaker 1: very important that tariffs have actually moved ahead of immigration
Speaker 1: as a top concern for American voters. From the latest
Speaker 1: poll from Echelon Insights, the very concern number at some
Speaker 1: seventy percent there, and actually even more concern in the
Speaker 1: very concern for the tariffs over immigration, with immigration actually
Speaker 1: falling below a fiftieth percentile, with the majority of the
Speaker 1: population really focusing in on tariffs, it's just weak ground
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump because he doesn't even have the conceptual
Speaker 1: fallback that he originally would have had rhetorically on the issue.
Speaker 1: Now it's just all about the process, the whipsaw, the seesaw,
Speaker 1: the chaos that people can tune in to every day.
Speaker 1: And that is a very similar feeling, I think to
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, where they felt as if at the
Speaker 1: end of the day for inflation, there was no steady
Speaker 1: hand on the wheel, there was no plan. That's really
Speaker 1: when Biden sank, right, Yeah, it was twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, and we could see that's when the
Speaker 1: runaway inflation and all that started to happen. And all
Speaker 1: of this is just terrible data for Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: for his White House because they want to try and
Speaker 1: say face, they want to try and actually do something
Speaker 1: after they basically nuked this entire you know, the entire
Speaker 1: economic outlook of the country. But they don't know where
Speaker 1: to fall. They just don't know what they're doing, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Well, and Trump loves the teriffs because he I mean,
Speaker 2: he shouldn't be able to do them unilaterally, but.
Speaker 3: He just is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, change, and so it does give him the power
Speaker 2: of a monarch. I mean, there is a reason why
Speaker 2: tariffs were supposed to be the purview of Congress, so
Speaker 2: that you wouldn't have the dynamic of this like CEO,
Speaker 2: king dictator figure going and doling out, Oh you get
Speaker 2: an exemption, you get an exemption, like and all these
Speaker 2: companies and all the countries coming to call this man
Speaker 2: has development properties all around the world. You don't think
Speaker 2: that these countries are going to be coming to him
Speaker 2: greasing the skids, giving him tax and so whatever it.
Speaker 3: Is going to help his business.
Speaker 2: Making sure that you know, Tesla's on a solid ground
Speaker 2: whatever it is that Trump wants on, and so he
Speaker 2: loves that power.
Speaker 3: But tariffs have actually.
Speaker 2: Always been one of the shakier parts of his plan
Speaker 2: of the things that he ran on. It was always
Speaker 2: during his campaign when we were looking at the numbers,
Speaker 2: it was always sort of like fifty to fifty. People
Speaker 2: were not in love with the idea of tariffs. And
Speaker 2: it makes sense because at this point you had inflation
Speaker 2: as the number one economic concern and people felt like
Speaker 2: terrors are probably going to make things even more expensive.
Speaker 3: And they're right about that.
Speaker 2: You know, in some of that CBS News you go polling,
Speaker 2: they ask people who do you think is going to
Speaker 2: benefit from Trump's trade and tariff policies? Number one answer
Speaker 2: seventy four percent, the wealthy. Number two answers seventy one percent.
Speaker 2: Large corporations, The next one down fifty percent. So big
Speaker 2: is US auto industry, which we'll talk more about in
Speaker 2: the next.
Speaker 3: Block, and then it's all the way down.
Speaker 2: The lowest ones are working class, middle class and small businesses.
Speaker 2: So people don't feel like this is a plan that
Speaker 2: is going to help them, even though it is being
Speaker 2: sold in that way. And at a time when inflation
Speaker 2: continues to be a massive concern for Americans and for
Speaker 2: American consumers. Obviously, they're going to be deeply concerned about
Speaker 2: what is going on here.
Speaker 3: And in some ways, even.
Speaker 2: Like obviously he's pulled back some, although I think I
Speaker 2: honestly think it's been a little bit oversold how much
Speaker 2: he's pulled back. In my whole monologue is about tariffs,
Speaker 2: and I dig into a small business owner who imports
Speaker 2: her product from China. She actually wanted to import it
Speaker 2: from the United Issue, or wanted to produce it in
Speaker 2: the United States. It just was literally impossible, and the
Speaker 2: one hundred and forty five percent China terrors they will
Speaker 2: destroy her business, Like there is no way, no way
Speaker 2: that she can survive, and she is one of many.
Speaker 2: So But even if Trump rolls back on even more
Speaker 2: of the tariffs and makes all these deals and declares
Speaker 2: victory art of the deal, whatever, I do think in
Speaker 2: a lot of ways, the damage has already been done.
Speaker 2: And I do think it is somewhat analogous too. Even
Speaker 2: though I still support Biden having gotten out of Afghanistan,
Speaker 2: there's just no denying that there was a massive hit
Speaker 2: to his approvot he never recovered from. And I do
Speaker 2: think it's analogous like the honeymoon is over for Trump,
Speaker 2: the vibe shift has vibe shifted again, and the economic
Speaker 2: damage that is being done right now in this moment,
Speaker 2: with this level of uncertainty and people feeling like business
Speaker 2: is feeling like I can't do. I just got to
Speaker 2: like hold on to cash and freeze in place and
Speaker 2: hope I can survive this totally unnecessary tumult that is
Speaker 2: not going to be undone no matter what Trump announces today, tomorrow,
Speaker 2: the next day, et cetera.
Speaker 1: What serious person, CEO, even if the administration came out
Speaker 1: tomorrow and was like, this is our plan for the
Speaker 1: next four years, what serious person would actually invest based
Speaker 1: upon that confidence? Serious I said that, Yes, I don't know.
Speaker 1: If you caught this, I was, I would short the
Speaker 1: stock of anybody.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you were like, I would a fire, I would vote.
Speaker 1: To fire that CEO. I'd be like, no, we're not
Speaker 1: doing this. You clearly have no judgment, dude. You need
Speaker 1: to keep hoard the cash and do nothing, absolutely nothing.
Speaker 1: Don't take too big of a risk. And that's because
Speaker 1: there's no confidence, you know. And what drives me nuts
Speaker 1: about this too, is that it's clear that people are
Speaker 1: not even still paying attention to the tax legislation, which
Speaker 1: still has to come out later on this year, and
Speaker 1: there is no really positive sign for Donald Trump in
Speaker 1: the next I would say nine months. We have the
Speaker 1: tariffs that is going to dominate the news elon and
Speaker 1: all that does is basically, I mean, it's still around,
Speaker 1: but it's not really like the number one concern. So
Speaker 1: you've got this immigration stuff, a front page story on
Speaker 1: literally every across the paper at every country. Probably the
Speaker 1: number one thing that most people hear about if they
Speaker 1: are politically engaged, Tariffs is going to be number one,
Speaker 1: and or number two that they're generally who are who
Speaker 1: they're generally in gaging with. Well, what else is on
Speaker 1: the horizon? The only next major thing that we can
Speaker 1: predict on the horizon is the tax legislation. We know
Speaker 1: from baseline the tax legtion is gonna be crazy unpopular.
Speaker 1: There's no there's not even an argument about it's just period,
Speaker 1: and most Republicans will admit that with a straight face.
Speaker 1: There's really nothing you can do. And also Trump said
Speaker 1: I want to cut a trillion dollars, So it's kind
Speaker 1: of like with Biden where we can look ahead to
Speaker 1: whatever is going to come next. We know no major
Speaker 1: piece of legislation in the pass the Senate or the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives before this tax bill. We know that
Speaker 1: it has to happen in the next several months. So
Speaker 1: the next flagship piece of legislation after this whole economy
Speaker 1: and tariff situation is going to be a major tax
Speaker 1: cut for corporations and a trillion dollar According to them,
Speaker 1: it's not my words. They said, I want to cut
Speaker 1: one trillion dollars and I want to increase the Pentagon
Speaker 1: budget by one hundred and fifty billion dollars, which just
Speaker 1: so happens to be the exact amount of money that
Speaker 1: Elon now claves that dough has to be saved. So
Speaker 1: what are we doing here? You know, what's the net
Speaker 1: out effect of this? You would be forgiven to be
Speaker 1: pretty pessimistic about that whole situation, wouldn't you.
Speaker 2: Any lune flying about those savings.
Speaker 1: Even at bakes value completely. But I'm saying from an
Speaker 1: approval rating standpoint, the TCJA, the tax cuts and job
Speaker 1: zack was the lowest single day of Donaldsham's presidency in
Speaker 1: the first term. The lowest day. Again, everybody always forgets
Speaker 1: that people do pay attention sometimes. I think that will
Speaker 1: happen again this time around, and it will be a
Speaker 1: Biden like compounding effect of either bailing out the rich,
Speaker 1: feeling chaotic, not really having a steady hand at the wheel.
Speaker 1: So you can see on approval on approval grounds, on
Speaker 1: the economy, and more. The more you lose that, I mean,
Speaker 1: you and I have said this. Nobody knows what will
Speaker 1: happen at the midterms, okay, And of course nobody knows
Speaker 1: what happen in global affairs. Trump could literally I don't know,
Speaker 1: there could be a crazy pieced in Ukraine. There could
Speaker 1: be this new ceasfire and goudz. There's so many different
Speaker 1: things that could affect it. But in terms of what
Speaker 1: we can predict, that's what we see on the horizon
Speaker 1: as something that is very obvious for his approval rating,
Speaker 1: that is not going to go over well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And the last thing I want to note here
Speaker 2: b three up on the screen Trump's approval rating with
Speaker 2: young people. People were very excited about Trump performing better
Speaker 2: among young people. It's one pole, small sample, who knows, okay,
Speaker 2: But look at the way among eighteen to twenty nine
Speaker 2: year olds. His approval rating has fallen off a frickin
Speaker 2: cliff around the time he got elected. You can see
Speaker 2: him in solidly positive territory. You know, there's been a
Speaker 2: decline among other age groups except those forty five to
Speaker 2: sixty four year olds. Actually they're kind of those gen xers.
Speaker 2: They're kind of hanging in there, aren't they. But among
Speaker 2: eighteen to twenty nine year olds it has plummeted. Now
Speaker 2: at its lowest levels, looks like minus thirty some, oh,
Speaker 2: minus twenty nine here among eighteen to twenty nine year olds. So,
Speaker 2: you know, all of these hopeful takes about how you
Speaker 2: know the young people are going to be they're going
Speaker 2: to be shifting right and they're super conservative and they
Speaker 2: love Donald Trump, that all seems to be evaporating very
Speaker 2: quickly in real time.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, like I said, you never know these
Speaker 1: polls and all that ahead to the election. But I
Speaker 1: do think instead of looking at the poll, let me
Speaker 1: think about the fundamentals. What are young folks tuned into.
Speaker 1: What was the whole vibe shift about on TikTok and others.
Speaker 1: It was about irreverence, specifically for young men. It was
Speaker 1: more of a cultural attitude right now is not a
Speaker 1: cultural moment. Right now is one of the rare times
Speaker 1: in American history where it's actually a policy moment. It's
Speaker 1: about tariffs, it's about immigration. Those are real things, and
Speaker 1: it's not really about pronouns and bios or you know,
Speaker 1: any of that other stuff right now. I think Richard
Speaker 1: Hanania said he's like, it feels indecent to be talking
Speaker 1: about wokeness right now, and I was like, you know,
Speaker 1: that's actually very belief. That is an absolutely correct observation.
Speaker 3: Well, sorry, god, no, no, that's fine.
Speaker 1: I was just gonna say, it's not they're not in
Speaker 1: power anymore. They're gone. We have a different arm. Yeah. Also,
Speaker 1: whoever runs for president next, I have relative confidence they're
Speaker 1: not going to be having their pronouns in bio. Right,
Speaker 1: So we won, all right, congratulations. Yeah. I don't think
Speaker 1: trans athletes are gonna end up in the d one
Speaker 1: at this point anymore. They probably have learned their lesson.
Speaker 1: If they haven't, and they're idiots, but that's their you
Speaker 1: know whatever. My point is, just like those fights are over,
Speaker 1: so in a certain sense that culture has been won.
Speaker 1: Now we're talking about money, future immigration, like actual stuff
Speaker 1: and on that. First of all, TikTok and all of
Speaker 1: that is not very well equipped in my opinion, to
Speaker 1: handle a lot of those issues. And so you know,
Speaker 1: even TikTok is elevating some of the most anti TERRFF voices,
Speaker 1: which is very bad for Trump ironically because he's trying
Speaker 1: to save it. But the vibe right now is not
Speaker 1: one where Republicans are best poised to win because outside
Speaker 1: of genuine like maga sycophants, can you find a serious
Speaker 1: person who is defending the tariffs? No, we got. The
Speaker 1: closest we got was Oron and Orange. Yeah, yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: He just he doesn't want to, you know, completely throw
Speaker 2: terrorists under the bus, right.
Speaker 3: But that's all he got very clear. This is not
Speaker 3: the way orn Cass would have done.
Speaker 1: No, yeah exactly. So you have no serious when you
Speaker 1: have we have nothing like that. Somebody can really articulate
Speaker 1: your case all that well, And then this whole trends
Speaker 1: and pronoun stuff, it's just so like it almost feels
Speaker 1: like a bygone era. You're fighting on very different grounds.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, and if you think about I mean, millennials are
Speaker 2: the most left wing generation like maybe in history, and
Speaker 2: you think about what were their formative experiences. It was
Speaker 2: the Iraq War, and it was the Great Recession. You know,
Speaker 2: it was people coming out of college to an economic
Speaker 2: catastrophe and the way that set that set the entire
Speaker 2: generation back significantly in terms of being able to achieve
Speaker 2: the milestones that their parents had been able to achieve,
Speaker 2: you know, family and being able to get married and
Speaker 2: being able to buy a house. Those sorts of things
Speaker 2: were all pushed into the future because of the economic
Speaker 2: calamity that met millennials when they were you know, just
Speaker 2: coming into the workforce and graduating from college, et cetera.
Speaker 2: And so if you have a similar dynamic with gen Z,
Speaker 2: I don't think they're going to be in love with
Speaker 2: the party that is in power while all of that
Speaker 2: is happening.
Speaker 3: Let's go and shift to terroristor.
Speaker 2: We have some new new news this morning about China's retaliation.
Speaker 2: They have halted all gone and put this up on
Speaker 2: the screen. They have halted all shipments of Boeing products.
Speaker 2: They're ordering Boeing jet delivery to be halted as the
Speaker 2: trade war expands. Boeing I saw it was down on
Speaker 2: this news and before we jumped to the auto piece saga,
Speaker 2: why don't you just go ahead and break down what
Speaker 2: you see as significant about this.
Speaker 1: Well advanced aerospace manufacturing and air that was one of
Speaker 1: the gold standards where the United States still had somewhat
Speaker 1: of a leg up. The Chinese over the last decade
Speaker 1: have pumped billions and billions of dollars into being able
Speaker 1: to develop their own competitor to Airbus and to Boeing.
Speaker 1: They don't want their airline or aerospace industry to be
Speaker 1: reliant on US supply chains and design specifically, So the
Speaker 1: reduction in Boeing is two things. First of all, as
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five, I quote, China accounts for twenty
Speaker 1: to twenty five percent of Boeing's global aircraft deliveries, So
Speaker 1: the flagship United States aerospace company just took a twenty
Speaker 1: five percent haircut on its overall delivery of corporate jets.
Speaker 1: So that's number one. Number two is that the Airbus
Speaker 1: stock is soaring right now, which further means that Airbus
Speaker 1: the major European competitor and frankly much better safety record.
Speaker 1: Can we all admit that in the last decade or
Speaker 1: so is one that's going to be the major beneficiary. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the Chinese are also going to be pumping significant, even
Speaker 1: more amounts of the technology development into their industry at home.
Speaker 1: So this is an alignment against the United States. This
Speaker 1: is part of why I'm so upset about the quote
Speaker 1: implementation of all of these tariffs. In an ideal tariff regime,
Speaker 1: we want Boeing to thrive. Boeing should be the flagship
Speaker 1: of America's industry in the way that it was in
Speaker 1: the nineteen forties and all the way through the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: before deregulation and combination and stock buybacks and all of
Speaker 1: that other it was a goal standard. It was like
Speaker 1: something that everyone could aspire to from a jobs perspective
Speaker 1: and producing and this is the best thing, the most
Speaker 1: important in the best products. Already we've moved away from that,
Speaker 1: but despite legacy, of course, they're still able to develop
Speaker 1: and to pump out quite a few to be cut
Speaker 1: off in the interim. There is no plan by the
Speaker 1: government today to save Boeing. And look, I get it.
Speaker 1: You know, people are animist towards Boeing. We've talked about
Speaker 1: the whistleblowers, et cetera. We can still reform. It's still
Speaker 1: very important. We need an aerospace company. Can we all
Speaker 1: admit that we need to fly people. You know, we
Speaker 1: can't be reliant on the Europeans and on the Brazilians
Speaker 1: to be shipping US jets that are flying us all
Speaker 1: over our country. Not possible in terms of any sort
Speaker 1: of defense industrial base. So this is the exact scenario
Speaker 1: where Boeing flagship American advanced manufacturing, the exact type of
Speaker 1: industry is taking a haircut as a result of the tariff,
Speaker 1: with no plan to actually help Boeing do anything in
Speaker 1: the future.
Speaker 3: And it's awesome.
Speaker 1: That's the problem that we have.
Speaker 2: And China gets kind of kills you birds with one
Speaker 2: stone here because not only do they hobble a critical
Speaker 2: industry for us, but they also bolster the Europeans at
Speaker 2: a time when you know, again, if you were going
Speaker 2: to do this intelligently and you were going to try
Speaker 2: to go directly at China, you would want to have
Speaker 2: the world on your side. You would rather than being
Speaker 2: out there insulting people and throwing tarras all around at
Speaker 2: everybody across the board, et cetera. And so this is
Speaker 2: an opportunity also for China to give the Europeans something
Speaker 2: that is beneficial for them as well. At the same time,
Speaker 2: the tariff roller coaster is far from over. President Trump now,
Speaker 2: in addition to the exemptions of various high tech things
Speaker 2: that benefit like Apple and Nvidia, now he's also considering
Speaker 2: some possible exemptions with regard to the auto terrists.
Speaker 3: Let's go ahead and listen to that.
Speaker 5: So President Trump says that car makers might need a
Speaker 5: little bit more time. When he was asked about any
Speaker 5: potential exemptions coming in the future, he added that he's
Speaker 5: looking at something to help the car companies where they're
Speaker 5: switching parts that were made in Canada and Mexico to
Speaker 5: the US. Of course, a big push of President Trump's
Speaker 5: terrrist plan is to reshore production. But that's been particularly
Speaker 5: difficult four car makers were, particularly when we're looking at
Speaker 5: the USMCA Complyiant Goods North America trade between Canada and Mexico,
Speaker 5: considering that car parts passed between the border so many times.
Speaker 5: So one, we have the current Canada and Mexico tariffs
Speaker 5: that are in place, but also those auto specific sector
Speaker 5: tariffs that went into place last month under Section two
Speaker 5: thirty two, where we saw a twenty five percent auto
Speaker 5: tariff across the board. So it does appear that President
Speaker 5: Trump is opening up a little leeway here potentially for
Speaker 5: negotiations to get underway. We know that the Big three
Speaker 5: auto makers in particular, have been lobbying this White House
Speaker 5: for months. You'll a call during President Trump State of
Speaker 5: the Union address in February. He had said that they
Speaker 5: were in his office and they called him. That's when
Speaker 5: he announced that initial reprieve, but then ended up putting
Speaker 5: those tariffs on.
Speaker 2: And so again this shows you the way this works.
Speaker 2: The Big three automakers, they're able to get him on
Speaker 2: the phone. They're able to say, hey, this is going
Speaker 2: to be a freaking disaster for us because these parts
Speaker 2: across the border multiple times. The cost of a vehicle
Speaker 2: is going to skyrocket like tens of thousands of dollars
Speaker 2: if these actually go into place. And so he hears
Speaker 2: them out and is potentially walking back temporarily some of
Speaker 2: the Oh but they're not exemption Soccer, don't worry some
Speaker 2: of the auto tariffs.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is again you know what what's happening. The
Speaker 1: tariffs are on, they're off, they're twenty percent, they're twenty
Speaker 1: five percent. Now they're exempted, and maybe they're not exempted.
Speaker 1: There's the USMCA. They're spent in all time. Nobody has
Speaker 1: any idea and what most people are doing, and I'm
Speaker 1: telling you this is obvious. They're just stopping all shipping
Speaker 1: anything coming to America. They're like, hold it over there
Speaker 1: and we'll figure it out. Go ahead and put C
Speaker 1: three please up on the screen so you guys can
Speaker 1: see this. This is the week over week drop in
Speaker 1: ocean bookings fifty percent. Overall US imports down sixty four percent,
Speaker 1: Overall US exports down thirty percent, US imports from China
Speaker 1: down sixty four percent, US exports from to China down
Speaker 1: thirty six percent. That's just in a week. Okay, it
Speaker 1: could fall to one hundred inventory. Does anybody remember this
Speaker 1: little term called just in time delivery that we all
Speaker 1: learned about during COVID? Did anything change? Does anyone want
Speaker 1: to tell me did anything change in the last five years? No,
Speaker 1: it didn't. It actually got worse. And so what does
Speaker 1: that mean? It means that we don't have like, we
Speaker 1: don't have stockpiles. We talked yesterday a lot about rare
Speaker 1: earth minerals, still a very important conversation. What did we
Speaker 1: learn from the rare earth mineral discussion is that American companies,
Speaker 1: basically because they run on a cash on a stock basis,
Speaker 1: refuse to stock up. We don't have a supply chain,
Speaker 1: we have no refining ability, we have no ability basically
Speaker 1: to make up for this in the overnight way that
Speaker 1: China has cut us off from it. It will obviously
Speaker 1: have cascading effects throughout our supply chain. A lot of
Speaker 1: this stuff matters, especially for cars, for batteries. It's a
Speaker 1: full court press the Chinese. Again, I have to respect
Speaker 1: them and their competence. They know exactly where to hit
Speaker 1: us hard. The number one industry we care the most
Speaker 1: about is aerospace advanced manufacturing. That's like gold standard for
Speaker 1: the defense industrial base. So what do you do? Screw
Speaker 1: you Boeing? Before that, semiconductors, make sure you cut off
Speaker 1: all the minerals that you need. There. Hope the South
Speaker 1: Koreans and the Japanese can bail us out. From who
Speaker 1: people I've spoken to, they have stock poles of their own,
Speaker 1: but they don't necessarily want to sell it to us. Now,
Speaker 1: what do you do? Semiconductors and then cars? That was
Speaker 1: the final one for magnets and other things that are necessary.
Speaker 1: That is a direct attack by the way, at Tesla
Speaker 1: stock because they need those to be able to build
Speaker 1: all of the cars that they do here in America.
Speaker 1: All three of the things are targeting the growth industries,
Speaker 1: the manufacturing industries, and the exact type of things that
Speaker 1: we can point to and say, this is how tariffs
Speaker 1: could be working and could be saving, and that's what
Speaker 1: they're attacking, and we have no policy right now to
Speaker 1: actually help any of it on the back end.
Speaker 3: That's exactly right. So Interestingly, Sean Faint, who's.
Speaker 2: The head of the United Auto Workers, he has been
Speaker 2: defending the tariffs. You know, he'll say, I'm not just
Speaker 2: with regard I think he tries to make it like
Speaker 2: just with regards to the auto industry. He recently went
Speaker 2: on MSNBC. It was one of these panel shows where
Speaker 2: you've got like AlSi Menandez Simone Sanders and Michael Steele
Speaker 2: I think, and they're all trying to spar with him
Speaker 2: over his position with regard to these tariffs. Let's go
Speaker 2: ahead and take a listen, guys, this is C two
Speaker 2: to a little bit of how that went down.
Speaker 6: You know, let's talk about the realities of what you know.
Speaker 6: And this is the thing, you know, I've been reading
Speaker 6: a lot of this lately. Going back in nineteen ninety two,
Speaker 6: I voted.
Speaker 1: For Ross Pero.
Speaker 6: You know why I voted for Ross PuO for one
Speaker 6: reason because he was the only candidate that talked about
Speaker 6: how devastating NAFTA would be to American jobs and to
Speaker 6: our manufacturing base. And he talked about that giant sucking sound.
Speaker 6: You know, I've read this book here in the last week.
Speaker 6: You know, save your job, save our country. Why NAFTA
Speaker 6: must be stopped.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 6: You know what's interesting since then, Ross pro has become
Speaker 6: a prophet. Since NAFTA was inception in nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 6: we've lost ninety thousand manufacturing facilities in this country, millions
Speaker 6: of jobs. And these weren't, you know, low end jobs.
Speaker 6: These were jobs that paid decent wages, had good benefits.
Speaker 3: Retirement secualized. I agree with.
Speaker 1: You, communities, but here's my thing.
Speaker 3: But here's NAFTA was after was thirty years.
Speaker 8: Ago the situation that we are dealing with now, and
Speaker 8: I agree with you. I'm on the side of the
Speaker 8: folks that said they this did the American workers wrong. Absolutely,
Speaker 8: But right now we are dealing with the situation where
Speaker 8: it's not these are blanket tariffs. We are dealing with
Speaker 8: situation where manufacturing is not going to come back in
Speaker 8: two weeks. So what how I'm just I'm really struggling
Speaker 8: to figure out to understand how UAW has aligned itself
Speaker 8: with Trump on this.
Speaker 6: So, first off, NAFTA is still causing us to lose
Speaker 6: jobs in this country. Our broken trade system is still
Speaker 6: causing us to lose jobs in this country, and no
Speaker 6: one from either party has been willing to even address
Speaker 6: the issue for thirty plus years.
Speaker 1: That's the first thing.
Speaker 6: And we support tariffs as a tool, a tool in
Speaker 6: the toolbox, not the end all be all. We got
Speaker 6: to fix the broken trade system, but tariffs are a
Speaker 6: motivator to make these companies do the right thing. When
Speaker 6: we're talking auto, I can't speak for you know, penguins
Speaker 6: and all this other crazy stuff going on, but I'll
Speaker 6: speak to what I know, and you know, when we
Speaker 6: talk about parts, there's an exclusion for parts sector right now.
Speaker 6: The reason there's this exclusion is because we've been talking
Speaker 6: with the administration about how to make these tariffs work,
Speaker 6: and they've been working with us on that.
Speaker 2: It's frustrating to me watching this exchange. I would love
Speaker 2: if Sean Fayn would come on the show. I'd love
Speaker 2: to have a conversation with that. I'm sympathetic. There's nothing
Speaker 2: that he says, though, that is incorrect about NATA and
Speaker 2: about its impacts specifically on the auto industry, about the
Speaker 2: fact that these terrible trade deals continue to harm American workers.
Speaker 2: All of that is completely accurate. The question is, then,
Speaker 2: what are you going to do about it? And if
Speaker 2: you're just doing this chaotic terrorist are on, they're off,
Speaker 2: They're across the board, They're not across the board.
Speaker 3: One hundred and forty five percent for.
Speaker 2: China, yes auto, no auto, et cetera. It's only going
Speaker 2: to make the situation for American workers worse across the board,
Speaker 2: and the auto industry is one where you know, if
Speaker 2: Trump was just targeting, like, Okay, we're going to restore
Speaker 2: the auto industry, here's how we're going to do it,
Speaker 2: and it was intelligent and coupled with industrial policy as
Speaker 2: we've talked about it. I supported Trump's tariffs on the
Speaker 2: first term. I supported Biden's tariffs in his term. I
Speaker 2: would support something like that that is not what we're
Speaker 2: talking about. So I don't think you can afford in
Speaker 2: this time to ignore the rest of what is going
Speaker 2: on with these tariffs, because they are going to hurt
Speaker 2: that they are going to be a regressive tax on
Speaker 2: working class people. They're going to hurt workers much more
Speaker 2: than they help workers. And the other thing is, you know,
Speaker 2: if you listen to Trump talk and I get into
Speaker 2: some of this day in my monologue, like he doesn't
Speaker 2: want to restore the nineteen fifties height of postwar manufacturing.
Speaker 2: And at that time you had about fifty percent unionization
Speaker 2: in terms of factory workers, so you had a lot
Speaker 2: of labor power, you had an expanding social safety net,
Speaker 2: you had a post war global economy where the US
Speaker 2: was kind of the only game in town because so
Speaker 2: many other countries had been completely devastated.
Speaker 3: But that's not what he's looking to restore.
Speaker 2: And you can tell that by the fact that he's
Speaker 2: a union buster, and by that doge is gutting the
Speaker 2: government so that it can't regulate big business. He wants
Speaker 2: to go back, and he talks about this to the
Speaker 2: guilded age. He wants to go back to the time
Speaker 2: before there were labor regulations, before there were child labor regulations.
Speaker 2: When you know there it was before the progressive era,
Speaker 2: when you really have a large union movement and labor power,
Speaker 2: and before there was an income tax.
Speaker 3: That's what he wants to go back to.
Speaker 2: And you know, these sort of like you know, sweatshop jobs,
Speaker 2: because there's nothing inherent about factory jobs that make them
Speaker 2: good jobs. It was the particular moment in time, and
Speaker 2: also the fact that we had this very large union movement.
Speaker 3: You have to have all of.
Speaker 2: Those pieces if you're actually going to restore something good
Speaker 2: for American workers. Trump has no interest in any of that.
Speaker 2: He wants to go in the complete opposite direction. So
Speaker 2: while listen, I get where Sean Fin's coming from, Like
Speaker 2: I you know, I've seen him be very critical of
Speaker 2: Trump in other areas. I understand his mindset, but this
Speaker 2: from Trump is going to completely go in the opposite
Speaker 2: direction of what you would want from American workers. And
Speaker 2: we already know because we've seen Stalantis already do layoffs
Speaker 2: as a consequence of this.
Speaker 1: The difficulty for him is he has to support tariffs conceptually,
Speaker 1: and look, I get it, like you said, in the
Speaker 1: position that he's in a MSNBC people who are totally
Speaker 1: against tariffs, and he's like, no, that's not what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: What I'm calling for is X, Y and Z tariff
Speaker 1: combined with this policy. The difficulty that you run into
Speaker 1: is that with the chaos of the Trump administration now
Speaker 1: at this point, you never know whether a tariff is
Speaker 1: on or not. You literally And the funny thing is
Speaker 1: even the automakers don't know. They have to call their
Speaker 1: lawyers and be like, what's the guidance from the White
Speaker 1: House today? And then the next day Trump comes out like,
Speaker 1: actually there's no exceptions, and you're like, oh, okay, I mean,
Speaker 1: how can we do business?
Speaker 3: How is it?
Speaker 1: Or employee people?
Speaker 2: How is the domestic auto market going to be if
Speaker 2: we're in a recession? Right, so how's that going to
Speaker 2: be for you know, workers and layoffs?
Speaker 3: And you know what.
Speaker 2: Level of investment in the US do you think that
Speaker 2: you typically get during a recession, which is what he
Speaker 2: is actively courting and what we may already be tipping
Speaker 2: into based on some of the estimates.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean O nine killed GM and still they
Speaker 1: destroyed the Oh it really never came back. Ford. Ford,
Speaker 1: you got to hand it to him. They they were
Speaker 1: able to climb out, and they never took any government money.
Speaker 1: I remember reading a really good book about how they
Speaker 1: were able to handle it. But they're the exception and
Speaker 1: they're not the role. The US auto industry really never
Speaker 1: recovered from that. And then there was that whole cash
Speaker 1: for clunkers thing. They had destroyed these car market. It
Speaker 1: was a disaster.
Speaker 3: Yeah, all bad.
Speaker 2: The bail out was very unpopular at the time, but
Speaker 2: then it ended up being like, was one of those
Speaker 2: things that the Obama administration kind of took a risk
Speaker 2: on because when it was being right, when it was
Speaker 2: being proposed, it was actually really profoundly unpopular, but they
Speaker 2: did it anyway to save those jobs. And it ended
Speaker 2: up being obviously the right call.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know, I still think there should have been.
Speaker 1: I don't know, just if you look at the net
Speaker 1: effect GM and Stilantis, like Ford has minutes of actual cheap,
Speaker 1: decent success, GM is Stilantis. Yes, they paid the money
Speaker 1: back and all that, but like in terms of saving
Speaker 1: the jobs in the industrial base and all, that didn't
Speaker 1: really happen. I mean, they did close a lot of plants,
Speaker 1: they closed them in the interim. But you know, in
Speaker 1: a five year overall period, a lot of those jobs
Speaker 1: did get eventually outsourced. A lot of them went to
Speaker 1: Mexico and or to China. Glow mobilization just ate away
Speaker 1: at it and at the and the worst part is
Speaker 1: they don't create the good products like they just their
Speaker 1: products are bad even today. And you can see, if
Speaker 1: you know, with respect to all these other car manufacturers
Speaker 1: around the world, like they laugh at them.
Speaker 3: So it's not about been such a calamity for Michigan.
Speaker 1: I'm not disagreed. I think it was right to save
Speaker 1: the job, but there should have been a much more
Speaker 1: conservative effort to make sure that they're globally competitive, and
Speaker 1: it just didn't happen. And now we are where we
Speaker 1: are today, some fifteen years later, where you have by
Speaker 1: d Shaomi, you all these other people GM, and still
Speaker 1: they can't they can't make an electric car that's decent.
Speaker 1: To save their life. They've make it for like ninety
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a piece of shit. You know, nobody would
Speaker 1: ben to buy it. And so yeah, we're in a
Speaker 1: tough spot here in our in our car industry. It's
Speaker 1: not good