Untitled Document

[00:00:00] There's a lot of economic news. It is [00:00:02] Breitbart economics editor. Uh John, so [00:00:06] this this you know the Chicken Littles, [00:00:08] the sky is falling economist. They have [00:00:11] been proven wrong, but they're still [00:00:12] going after it. They keep saying there [00:00:14] was reports this morning saying that, [00:00:16] you know, his his Fed approach has [00:00:18] already been proven wrong. Can you [00:00:20] describe this story? Uh you know, so [00:00:22] Judge Janine, I call her Judge Janine [00:00:24] still. So she's got charges or she's [00:00:27] indicting Jerome Pal. Some of these [00:00:30] corruption allegations about the federal [00:00:32] building that he's been constructing for [00:00:34] years. They call him too late Pal. Just [00:00:36] give us the the lowdown here with with [00:00:38] Jerome Pal. [00:00:39] >> Right. So what what happened is Jerome [00:00:41] Pal did something unprecedented on [00:00:43] Sunday night. He posted a video in which [00:00:46] he said that he has received subpoenas [00:00:49] from the Justice Department. And he went [00:00:53] far beyond denying having done it, you [00:00:55] know, done anything wrong with the con [00:00:57] renovation uh of what people are calling [00:01:00] the Fed Mahal, this $2.5 billion [00:01:02] renovation to their headquarters. He and [00:01:06] he deni and he went beyond denying [00:01:08] misleading a Senate panel when he [00:01:10] testified about it. He actually accused [00:01:12] the Trump administration of using this [00:01:15] inquiry into these matters uh into to [00:01:18] try to subvert the independence of the [00:01:20] Federal Reserve. He has no evidence of [00:01:22] that at all. And in fact, the president [00:01:24] immediately said, "No, that we're not [00:01:26] doing that." Uh, Judge Janine Janine [00:01:29] Piro, who is the US attorney for the [00:01:32] District of Columbia, said that's not [00:01:34] what's happening. What happened was we [00:01:36] had a bunch of questions about the [00:01:38] renovation. We tried to get the Fed to [00:01:40] answer them. They wouldn't answer the [00:01:42] questions, which is outrageous for any [00:01:44] part of the government to not answer [00:01:46] inquiries from the Department of [00:01:47] Justice. And so we had to issue [00:01:50] subpoenas. She pointed out they haven't [00:01:52] indicted anyone. What they are doing is [00:01:54] just seeking answers to questions. [00:01:56] Powell escalated this into a crisis. Uh [00:02:00] and then you had, you know, the the [00:02:02] legacy media freak out, act like, you [00:02:04] know, Donald, you know, again, sort of [00:02:06] Trump derangement syndrome, assuming the [00:02:09] worst possible interpretation of this, [00:02:11] that Donald Trump was using the Justice [00:02:13] Department to go after Powell to try to [00:02:16] seize control of the Fed. None of that [00:02:17] is happening. And in fact, that's one of [00:02:20] the reasons the markets have reacted to [00:02:22] this so calmly. Uh because people aren't [00:02:25] seeing this as a power grab by Trump. [00:02:28] They're seeing it as actually a a very [00:02:31] aggressive move by Powell. Look, Powell [00:02:34] is out of office as chairman in May. [00:02:38] Trump doesn't need to go after anybody. [00:02:40] He gets to appoint the next guy. So the [00:02:44] idea that like Trump would use the [00:02:45] Justice Department to pursue Pal now [00:02:47] doesn't really make any sense and that [00:02:49] doesn't appear to be what happened. [00:02:51] >> Yeah. So Trump, thank you for that [00:02:53] explanation. That's actually really [00:02:54] clarifying. Uh Trump is touring a Ford [00:02:57] factory right now. He's kind of touting [00:02:59] domestic manufacturing. [00:03:02] So we hear this number a lot, John, [00:03:04] about how many trillions of dollars of [00:03:07] investment, foreign direct investment, [00:03:09] businesses investing in the United [00:03:10] States. Again, Scott Besson has said [00:03:12] that we 2025 was setting the table. 2026 [00:03:15] is the the banquet and the feast. [00:03:18] >> How true is that going to be? What can [00:03:20] we expect? What are you looking at as [00:03:22] far as growth rates in 2026? Because I'm [00:03:25] thinking about midterms. [00:03:26] >> So, I want to I want to know are we [00:03:28] going to make the deadline? Are people [00:03:29] going to feel it financially before the [00:03:31] midterms? [00:03:32] >> I do think they will. Uh, in fact, if [00:03:35] you if you look at the growth rate, we [00:03:36] had 3.8 then 4.1 is 3.8 in the second [00:03:40] term in the second quarter 3 4.1 in the [00:03:44] the second or the third now and now it [00:03:47] looks like we may be growing I again [00:03:49] that Atlanta Fed as you mentioned says [00:03:51] above 5% that seems probably a [00:03:55] overestimation to me but we're certainly [00:03:57] growing at a very rapid rate the the [00:04:00] American people will feel this one of [00:04:02] the probably the biggest way they'll [00:04:03] feel this is in their wages going up [00:04:06] much faster than inflation that's great [00:04:09] because It means people have more [00:04:10] purchasing power. It means that things [00:04:13] that they need to buy become more [00:04:14] affordable. We're also seeing the price [00:04:16] of energy, particularly gasoline, come [00:04:19] down dramatically. That will also help a [00:04:23] lot going into the midterms. It is one [00:04:24] of gasoline is one of those things that [00:04:26] people really get upset about. I think [00:04:29] the relief on the energy side will [00:04:32] actually and then that filters into all [00:04:34] sorts of products you buy. So, I think [00:04:36] that will indeed actually help us grow [00:04:39] really rapidly going into this new year. [00:04:41] We we sort of have this momentum built [00:04:44] up from 2025. 2026 looks like it's going [00:04:47] to be even stronger. [00:04:49] >> Yeah. And and we're going to actually [00:04:50] have uh EPA administrator Lee Zelden on [00:04:53] next. I'm going to talk about utility [00:04:56] >> prices because I'm I don't know that [00:04:58] those are coming down with the, you [00:05:01] know, commensurate with the rate of drop [00:05:03] in gas prices. Right. We had uh Senator [00:05:06] Mark Wayne Mullen on in hour one and he [00:05:08] was talking about you know $183 in some [00:05:11] counties per gallon of gas in Oklahoma. [00:05:15] So we'll we'll see we'll see if utility [00:05:16] bills are coming down with lot to [00:05:18] discuss with him. John Carney, great [00:05:20] work as always. We'll see what happens [00:05:22] with Scotas on the tariff rulings. But [00:05:24] it's good to hear that President Trump [00:05:25] and the Trump administration have other [00:05:27] outs, other levers they can pull to kind [00:05:30] of exert their tariff agenda because I [00:05:32] think it's actually really important [00:05:32] from a foreign policy, also a domestic [00:05:34] policy standpoint. Thank you for adding [00:05:36] a lot of light, a lot of clarity. Thank [00:05:38] you, John Carney. [00:05:39] >> Thanks for having me, guys. [00:05:41] >> Charlie loved this country and he loved [00:05:43] partnering with organizations that truly [00:05:44] stand for what makes America great. One [00:05:46] of our most trusted partners, AAC, the [00:05:48] Association of Mature American Citizens, [00:05:51] is doing something special in Charlie's [00:05:52] honor. AAC is offering free memberships [00:05:55] to all ages. No credit card, no strings [00:05:57] attached, just a chance to stand for [00:05:59] faith, family, and freedom. Join this [00:06:01] movement. Go to amac. us/charlie [00:06:04] today. That is amac [00:06:07] uscharie. [00:06:09] Today, [00:06:14] Trump has this 25% tariff announcement [00:06:17] for anybody doing business with Iran. [00:06:21] Simultaneously, there is a Scotas ruling [00:06:23] that we're eagerly awaiting probably [00:06:25] tomorrow or whether or not he's even [00:06:27] lawfully legally able to do this. Give [00:06:29] us the update, please. [00:06:31] >> So, yeah, we're waiting and it could [00:06:33] come tomorrow. it. The Supreme Court [00:06:35] never tells us what in advance what [00:06:38] decisions they're going to announce. We [00:06:40] think they want to get to this one [00:06:41] pretty quickly. A lot of people thought [00:06:43] it was going to be uh the end of last [00:06:46] week or uh this it could be uh on [00:06:50] Wednesday or Thursday or could be [00:06:53] anytime in the next couple weeks. One of [00:06:55] the things that Trump's recent tariff [00:06:57] announcement does though is shows how [00:06:59] important tariffs can be to foreign [00:07:02] policy. And this is one of the arguments [00:07:04] for why the president should be able to [00:07:08] uh impose tariffs on countries because [00:07:10] it is really important to our attempt to [00:07:13] try to contain Iran and to use the the [00:07:18] US's [00:07:20] consumer market which everybody in the [00:07:22] world wants access to to you discipline [00:07:26] the rest of the world. If you're going [00:07:28] to do business with Iran, you're going [00:07:30] to have to pay a lot higher tariff to [00:07:34] sell your stuff into the US. I think [00:07:36] that's it actually really does [00:07:38] strengthen his position that this is a [00:07:40] core part of for of a president's [00:07:43] ability to deal with the rest of the [00:07:45] world, a core foreign policy power. [00:07:48] >> Yeah. It strikes me, John, as this kind [00:07:50] of like Trump's this this maverick. He's [00:07:53] creative with the way he approaches [00:07:54] foreign policy. And he implements these [00:07:56] new te techniques. They're not new, but [00:07:58] certainly in modern American, especially [00:08:00] presidential history, he's using them in [00:08:02] ways others haven't really done before. [00:08:04] And he's being more public about it. [00:08:05] He's being more brash about it. And [00:08:07] because he's he's been creative with how [00:08:09] he's wielded tariffs, he's now getting [00:08:12] pun punished for it. They're coming [00:08:14] after him saying, "Well, well, now we [00:08:15] want to take that away from you because [00:08:16] you're doing it in a way that we hadn't [00:08:18] thought about before, and so we just [00:08:19] want to p punish Trump." But to your [00:08:21] point, what happens if the Supreme Court [00:08:24] rules against the Trump administration [00:08:25] in this particular case? I've seen some [00:08:29] reports that we have to pay back upwards [00:08:31] of 300 billion dollars in tariff [00:08:33] revenue. Is this even feasible? Is this [00:08:35] possible? Is this going to happen? I [00:08:37] don't think the Supreme Court is likely [00:08:39] to order the the US government to pay [00:08:41] back hundreds of billions in tariffs, [00:08:44] which is one of the reason, look, I [00:08:46] listened to the oral arguments. the uh [00:08:49] they were s the the justices were super [00:08:51] skeptical about whether or not Trump [00:08:54] really does have the statutory authority [00:08:56] because as you point out there's not a [00:08:58] lot of precedent for this the law that [00:09:00] they're using the international [00:09:02] emergency economic uh powers act is [00:09:05] people call it IPA uh has never been [00:09:08] used to impose tariffs ironically [00:09:11] everybody agrees that the president [00:09:13] could sanction a country it could you [00:09:14] could even embargo countries you could [00:09:16] say you can't sell anything. But [00:09:18] apparently their theory is that you can [00:09:21] say you can completely shut off a [00:09:23] country from access to the US market, [00:09:24] but you can't charge a 10% tariff for [00:09:28] them to be able to sell into the US [00:09:30] market. That seems wrong to me. But the [00:09:32] Supreme Court was skeptical that Trump [00:09:34] has this much authority. I don't think [00:09:36] they they rule that he has to that it [00:09:38] all has to be paid back from the US [00:09:40] Treasury. I think what they're most [00:09:42] likely to do is come to some sort of [00:09:44] compromise where they say yes the [00:09:46] president can impose some tariffs and [00:09:49] but there's a you know they might make [00:09:51] up a time limit. It's called the [00:09:52] emergency powers act. So maybe they say [00:09:54] an emergency can't last forever. So you [00:09:56] have a year. So that would mean we could [00:09:58] keep all the tariffs we have and it [00:10:00] gives the Trump administration some time [00:10:02] to there's a lot of other statutes that [00:10:04] allow the president to impose tariffs. [00:10:06] If these ones get struck down or get [00:10:09] timelmited, I think President Trump can [00:10:12] come back with other ways of going of [00:10:15] erecting tariffs. And frankly, I think [00:10:16] the US Senate and the House should, if [00:10:20] the Supreme Court decides this, should [00:10:22] actually just completely reverse it and [00:10:24] say, "No, we think the president does [00:10:25] need this power." [00:10:27] >> Yeah. But wasn't there, I mean, push [00:10:29] back even from the Republican side of [00:10:30] the aisle? There was Ran Paul, uh I [00:10:33] believe Susan Collins, Lisa Marowski. [00:10:35] The question then becomes, [00:10:37] >> you know, you've kind of got these these [00:10:39] tricky uh Republicans in the Senate that [00:10:43] we're not So, we talked about this when [00:10:45] we're, you know, discussing nuking the [00:10:47] filibuster, for example. You've still [00:10:48] got Lisa Marowski, Susan Collins, Ran [00:10:50] Paul, and Mitch McConnell. That puts you [00:10:52] at 49. You're not even at that 50/50 [00:10:54] mark so JD Vance can cast a tiebreaking [00:10:56] vote. You got to get one of those those [00:10:59] tricky senators on board. And then you [00:11:01] got Tom Tillis. Who knows what's [00:11:02] happening with him right now. He's he's [00:11:04] he's causing a stink with the Fed. [00:11:06] >> So, [00:11:08] >> traditionally, you had a lot of [00:11:10] Democrats who would vote in favor of [00:11:13] tariffs and supported tariffs. There may [00:11:15] still be some hiding out there. The [00:11:17] question is whether or not like their [00:11:19] Trump derangement syndrome has overtaken [00:11:23] what used to be their loyalty to the, [00:11:26] you know, to American labor and to the [00:11:27] working class. Maybe it has. Maybe they [00:11:30] cannot as a Democrat bring themselves to [00:11:32] vote for uh a you know an a tariff [00:11:36] authority for Trump, but they should. [00:11:38] It's good for working Americans and [00:11:39] Democrats constantly claim that's who [00:11:41] they're protecting. And so, you know, [00:11:44] the fact that they won't. That would be [00:11:45] a revealing moment. [00:11:47] >> Yeah, I I totally agree. I totally [00:11:49] agree, John. And you've got core [00:11:50] consumer prices rise less than expected. [00:11:52] So core CPI is less than expected. [00:11:55] You've got a what was it a 4 point I [00:11:58] forget now 4.9 number that we got the [00:12:01] revision for Q3 and now you know you [00:12:04] even got the Atlanta Fed uh saying that [00:12:07] we're expecting 5.3% GDP growth in Q4 [00:12:10] potentially that's their estimate might [00:12:11] be high whatever but like the point is [00:12:13] it seems like the economic indicators [00:12:15] are all going in the right direction [00:12:17] right now part of the reason that is is [00:12:19] because the doomsday about tariffs have [00:12:22] been proven wrong again and again and [00:12:24] again uh 30 seconds. We're going to take [00:12:25] a break and then we'll have you back on [00:12:27] the other side, John. [00:12:28] >> Yeah. No, absolutely. Been moving along. [00:12:30] Look, unemployment fell. Inflation is [00:12:32] much lower than anybody expected. The [00:12:35] economy is growing at rates much faster [00:12:37] than anybody expected. I think that uh [00:12:41] everybody's got this wrong when they [00:12:43] said that the tariffs were going to [00:12:44] somehow derail the economy or push up [00:12:46] prices. The opposite has happened. We're [00:12:48] having an investment boom in America. [00:12:50] The news is good. The Trump [00:12:52] administration needs to get that news [00:12:54] out there. But frankly, I think it's [00:12:55] going to get out to the American people [00:12:58] because you just need to drive by a gas [00:13:00] station and see that the Biden inflation [00:13:03] crisis is in our rearview mirror and [00:13:06] what's ahead, what's in our front, [00:13:08] what's in front of us is very