Untitled Document

[00:00:00] The Washington Post fires 300 plus [00:00:02] people and the journalistic world is up [00:00:04] in arms. The latest on the immigration [00:00:06] fiasco in Minnesota. Plus, Scott Besson [00:00:10] goes to Congress and shellaxs a bunch of [00:00:11] Democrats. First, that Daily Wire Plus [00:00:13] app, that is what you need. It's how you [00:00:15] take the Daily Wire with you wherever [00:00:16] you go. Get uncensored, adree daily [00:00:18] shows, real investigative journalism, [00:00:20] and a community of people who share your [00:00:22] values. Right now, that investigative [00:00:23] journalism turns its focus to finding [00:00:25] Nancy Guthrie. That is a Daily Wire true [00:00:27] crime investigation you can follow day [00:00:29] by day. It's brilliant. Again, we are [00:00:31] putting so much fantastic content on the [00:00:33] app and you're just missing it if you're [00:00:34] not on the app. Hosted by journalist [00:00:36] Lyndon Blake. Finding Nancy Guthrie [00:00:38] tracks one of the most shocking missing [00:00:39] person cases in America. The [00:00:40] disappearance of 84year-old Nancy [00:00:42] Guthrie, the mother of Today Show [00:00:43] co-anchor Savannah Guthrie. Each episode [00:00:45] brings the latest developments, official [00:00:47] statements, and breaking updates as the [00:00:49] search continues. That Daily Wire Plus [00:00:50] app is also available on your TV, which [00:00:53] by the way is where you should be [00:00:54] watching. The Pen Dragon Cycle: Rise of [00:00:55] the Merlin. It at least merits a big TV [00:00:58] to watch it on because it is quite [00:00:59] beautiful. Episode 4 is out right now. [00:01:01] And of course, you can get Matt Walsh's [00:01:03] new series, Real History, and of our [00:01:05] brand new show from Matt Frad, Pint's [00:01:07] Last Call. Download the Daily Wire Plus [00:01:09] app on Roku, Amazon Fire TV, Firest [00:01:12] Stick, Apple TV, Samsung, Vizio, LG [00:01:14] Smart TVs, and of course the App Store [00:01:16] and Google Play. Well, tragedy occurred [00:01:18] in the Bezos universe yesterday when [00:01:21] 16,000 people were cut from Amazon. This [00:01:23] is what the media were very, very [00:01:25] concerned about. Amazon said that it was [00:01:27] going to cut some 16,000 corporate [00:01:29] employees. The first round of cuts in [00:01:31] October led to about 14,000 white collar [00:01:33] employees receiving pink slips. And even [00:01:36] at the time, Amazon was talking about [00:01:37] 30,000 job cuts. So, of course, people [00:01:40] in the world of journalism, they were [00:01:41] deeply affected. They were they were [00:01:43] really upset about the tens of thousands [00:01:44] of people who are about to lose their [00:01:46] jobs at Amazon, one of the most [00:01:48] successful companies in America and in [00:01:51] the world. Oh, I'm just kidding. They [00:01:52] didn't care about that. They barely [00:01:53] covered that. That that lasted in the [00:01:55] news for like 5 seconds. What they are [00:01:57] really really upset about in the Bezos [00:01:58] universe is that the Washington Post is [00:02:01] going to lay off onethird of its staff. [00:02:04] [gasps] [00:02:05] Oh no. [00:02:07] So the Washington Post is cutting, wait [00:02:08] for it, wait for it, 300 plus jobs. So, [00:02:11] I'm just going to point out where the [00:02:12] sympathies lie. 30,000 people lose their [00:02:16] jobs at Amazon because Amazon is [00:02:18] costcutting and re-evaluating thanks to [00:02:20] AI. And the journalists are like, well, [00:02:23] you know, those are people who work at [00:02:25] Amazon. Those might be factory workers. [00:02:28] Those might be middle management. [00:02:29] They're not us. But at the Washington [00:02:31] Post, they laid off the third string [00:02:34] journalist in Gaza who may or may not be [00:02:36] a contractor for kamas. They laid off [00:02:39] the race and ethnicity reporter for the [00:02:41] Washington Post. And my god, the [00:02:44] American promise has been sullied and [00:02:47] violated. No, this cannot be. According [00:02:51] to the Wall Street Journal, the [00:02:52] Washington Post is cutting one-third of [00:02:54] its staff, slashing hundreds of jobs [00:02:55] across the newsroom and other [00:02:56] departments in an effort to trim costs [00:02:58] and reshape coverage. They the layoffs [00:03:00] will affect journalists in nearly all [00:03:02] news departments, including the sports, [00:03:03] foreign, technology, and breaking news [00:03:04] teams, as well as business and [00:03:06] technology staff. The executive editor, [00:03:09] Matt Murray, wrote in a note to newsroom [00:03:10] staff on Wednesday, "If we are to [00:03:12] thrive, not just endure, we must [00:03:13] reinvent our journalism and our business [00:03:15] model with renewed ambition." [00:03:18] Unclear how many of these cuts are [00:03:19] coming from the newsroom, the Post is [00:03:20] closing its sports department in its [00:03:22] current form, but is going to retain [00:03:24] some roles in that coverage area. It's [00:03:25] also shrinking its international [00:03:27] coverage and it will focus on national [00:03:28] news and features, investigations and [00:03:30] advice on health and wellness topics. [00:03:33] The Post will continue to have some [00:03:34] correspondence in about a dozen [00:03:35] international locations and they're [00:03:37] going to focus on issues mostly related [00:03:39] to national security because that's what [00:03:40] readers actually want to hear. The Post [00:03:42] lost $77 million in in 2023, $100 [00:03:46] million in 2024. It had significant [00:03:49] traffic declines because digital media [00:03:52] is a tough business. We know we are in [00:03:54] it. In recent weeks, Post journalists [00:03:57] made public pleasing Jeff Bezos to [00:03:59] maintain their jobs. Well, it turns out [00:04:01] that the Washington Post, like the Daily [00:04:04] Wire, like a lot of other for-profit [00:04:05] institutions, is not a nonprofit. If [00:04:07] journalists wish to start their own [00:04:09] nonprofit and get a bunch of left-wing [00:04:11] funders to put millions of dollars [00:04:13] behind their jobs, they are free to do [00:04:15] that. And there are, in fact, [00:04:16] organizations that operate as charitable [00:04:18] organizations that do acts of journalism [00:04:20] on occasion. But the idea that Jeff [00:04:22] Bezos owes it to the employees of the [00:04:26] Washington Post to maintain their jobs [00:04:28] when they are losing money is crazy and [00:04:31] it's stupid. Nonetheless, the response [00:04:34] from the media ecosystem is absolute [00:04:38] shock and horror. Emanuel Felton, the [00:04:41] race and ethnicity reporter at the [00:04:42] Washington Post. I don't even know h how [00:04:44] are you the race and ethnicity? Is there [00:04:46] breaking news in the race and ethnicity [00:04:48] area? Is evolution occurring? like what [00:04:51] what is happening that you need like an [00:04:53] a reporter on race and ethnicity? [00:04:56] Why is that what is that? How is that a [00:04:58] coverage area? By the way, if on the [00:05:00] right there was a race and ethnicity [00:05:02] reporter, we would recognize just how [00:05:03] kind of a little racist that is. If [00:05:05] there was like a race and ethnicity [00:05:06] reporter over at Breitbart or here at [00:05:09] the Daily Wire, I think that the left [00:05:11] would read that in a very different way [00:05:12] than they read the race and ethnicity [00:05:14] reporter over at the Washington Post. So [00:05:17] Emanuel Felton put out a statement. [00:05:19] Quote, "I'm among the hundreds of people [00:05:20] laid off by the Post. This comes six [00:05:22] months after hearing in a national [00:05:23] meeting that race coverage drives [00:05:25] subscriptions. This wasn't a financial [00:05:27] decision. It was an ideological one." He [00:05:30] says the other reporter on my team [00:05:31] covering race was also laid off as well [00:05:33] as the editor in charge of race coverage [00:05:34] across national. The team covering [00:05:36] America Beyond DC is now 90% [00:05:40] quiet. Oh no. Oh no. You mean you mean [00:05:44] that people covering issues, they're [00:05:45] going to be covering issues without [00:05:47] regard to the race of the reporter? That [00:05:49] sounds terribly not racist. We can't [00:05:52] have that. Obviously, this was a [00:05:54] decision driven by Jeff Bezos's inherent [00:05:57] evil white [00:06:00] racism, says the guy who gets paid to [00:06:03] talk about racism all day long. [00:06:06] Robert McCartney, a retired Washington [00:06:08] Post editor, correspondent and [00:06:10] columnist, quote, 39 years had paper [00:06:12] before Bezos began gutting it. He says, [00:06:15] "Reader asks, is democracy dies in [00:06:17] darkness now the mission statement?" [00:06:18] Okay. Do do you remember when the [00:06:19] Washington Post decided after Donald [00:06:21] Trump was elected? This before Basos [00:06:23] bought the paper that they were going to [00:06:25] retitle, they were going to put on their [00:06:27] mast head the statement, "Democracy dies [00:06:29] in darkness." The idea being that Donald [00:06:31] Trump was an inherent threat to all [00:06:33] things democratic. and the Washington [00:06:35] Post would hold him responsible. Yeah, [00:06:37] that worked. Great job, guys. Briana [00:06:40] Tucker, the National Politics Breaking [00:06:42] News reporter and the National [00:06:44] Association of Black Journalist [00:06:45] Political Task Force Chair, put out a [00:06:47] statement, quote, "I'm affected by [00:06:48] layoffs at the Washington Post today. [00:06:50] There aren't enough words to describe [00:06:51] the immense privilege and profound [00:06:53] responsibility I felt since hired at 25 [00:06:55] as an editor. As a black woman covering [00:06:58] politics, a dwindling cohort today, that [00:07:00] feeling is magnified. [00:07:03] Again, if your first take about being [00:07:07] fired by a paper that is bleeding money [00:07:10] is that you were fired because of your [00:07:11] race, perhaps that betrays the style of [00:07:15] coverage that you were doing, which [00:07:16] might be one of the reasons the paper [00:07:18] was suffering. I don't know. I'm just [00:07:19] going to put it out there that if you [00:07:20] see everything through a racial lens and [00:07:23] your paper for whom you are reporting [00:07:25] keeps losing money and then you get [00:07:26] fired and in your firing statement you [00:07:28] talk about your specific race, maybe you [00:07:31] were part of the problem, not part of [00:07:33] the solution. Maybe [00:07:35] Peter Baker over at the New York Times, [00:07:37] the chief White House correspondent, put [00:07:39] out a tweet, quote, "Jeff Bezos wealth [00:07:41] in 2024, $194 billion. Jeff Bezos's [00:07:44] wealth in 2025, $215 billion. Jeff Bezos [00:07:47] wealth today, $249.4 4 billion. Net [00:07:49] increase in Bezos wealth since 2024, [00:07:52] $55.4 billion. Cost of Bezos's 417 ft [00:07:55] super yacht, $500 million. Amazon [00:07:58] investment in Melania, $75 million. [00:08:00] Original Bezos purchase price of the [00:08:02] Washington Post in 2013, $250 million. [00:08:05] Bezos's net worth in 2013, $25.2 [00:08:08] billion. Net increase in Bezos's wealth [00:08:11] since buying the Post, $224.2 [00:08:14] billion. Last reported annual losses [00:08:16] opposed $100 million. Number of years [00:08:19] Bezos could absorb those losses with [00:08:20] what he makes in a single week. Five. [00:08:22] Okay, I love the premise of this tweet, [00:08:24] which is that somehow it's a charity. [00:08:26] That he bought it as a charity [00:08:27] operation. [00:08:29] The only number that matters there, [00:08:30] that's a lot of numbers. The only number [00:08:32] that matters in that tweet is last [00:08:34] reported annual losses of post $100 [00:08:37] million. Maybe one of the reasons that [00:08:39] Jeff Bezos is worth $250 [00:08:43] billion is because he does not hold on [00:08:46] to declining assets. He does not allow [00:08:49] his businesses to be run like a charity. [00:08:51] Maybe that would be the reason. Maybe [00:08:53] that's why he is extraordinarily wealthy [00:08:55] and most of the reporters working for [00:08:57] him are not because maybe they think [00:08:59] they're in the charity business. But [00:09:02] this is crazy. Okay, the approach here [00:09:04] is nuts. Again, as someone who's the [00:09:06] co-founder of a major media organization [00:09:09] in the same business as the Washington [00:09:11] Post, let me just say that when you lose [00:09:14] money and you can see where you're [00:09:16] losing money, you have to lay people [00:09:18] off. That is how business works. And [00:09:19] Jeff Bezos is not doing anything wrong [00:09:21] by doing all of that. [00:09:24] The view of journalists that somehow [00:09:25] they are owed their position because the [00:09:27] person who hires them is rich is [00:09:29] extraordinary. Especially when many of [00:09:31] these same journalists are asking that [00:09:34] the federal government step in and make [00:09:35] the owners of their own businesses not [00:09:37] rich anymore. [00:09:39] And do you understand? They are living [00:09:40] off the charitable giving they think of [00:09:42] the rich people while ripping into the [00:09:44] rich people and declaring that they are [00:09:46] the ones who are very very important and [00:09:47] the people who hire them, they're just [00:09:49] supposed to absorb the losses. [00:09:52] That's an insane tweet. It really is [00:09:54] crazy. [00:09:55] Bernie Sanders, complete leech on the [00:09:59] ass of American society for the last [00:10:00] eight decades, a useless human being in [00:10:03] the extreme, put out a statement, quote, [00:10:06] "If Jeff Bezos could afford to spend $75 [00:10:08] million on the Melania movie and $500 [00:10:10] million for a yacht to sail off to his [00:10:12] $55 million wedding to give his wife a [00:10:14] $5 million ring, please don't tell me he [00:10:16] needed to fire onethird of the [00:10:17] Washington Post staff." Democracy dies [00:10:19] in oligarchy. What is this? He doesn't [00:10:22] need to. He doesn't need I wasn't aware [00:10:25] that every decision that you make in [00:10:27] economic life is dictated by a need. [00:10:28] This is why Bernie Sanders, by the way, [00:10:30] thinks that you should not have shampoo [00:10:31] choices. He has literally said stuff [00:10:33] like this that he I go to the [00:10:34] supermarket and I don't understand why [00:10:36] the 11 choices for deodorant. I don't [00:10:38] wear any. Like, dude, it's not about [00:10:41] what you need in America. It's about [00:10:42] what you want. That's why this country [00:10:44] kicks ass. And that's why your version [00:10:46] of the country sucks. It is not about [00:10:48] what people need. It is about what they [00:10:50] want to do and what they have the [00:10:51] freedom to do. And if Bernie Sanders [00:10:53] wants to get together a bunch of his [00:10:55] left-wing friends to put together a [00:10:56] 501c3 and rehire all the race reporters [00:10:59] at the Washington Post, he is free to do [00:11:01] that. In fact, if Bernie wanted, he [00:11:03] could sell his lakehouse and he could [00:11:05] hire several of these journalists and [00:11:07] they could work for him and they could [00:11:09] gallivant into the utopian socialist [00:11:13] sunset together and enjoy their time. [00:11:16] But he's not going to do any of that. By [00:11:17] the way, when it comes to Bernie Sanders [00:11:19] himself, he spent over 550 grand in 2025 [00:11:22] campaign funds on private jets. How many [00:11:25] Washington Post salaries could that pay? [00:11:28] And the notion that business owners [00:11:29] somehow owe it to their employees to [00:11:32] keep employing them as the business [00:11:33] loses money is crazy towns. It is crazy [00:11:36] towns. It is stupid. And it is driven [00:11:40] again by this bizarre ideology that you [00:11:43] are somehow owed a job if your boss is [00:11:46] rich. Even if the company that you work [00:11:48] for is losing money and you are [00:11:49] unproductive in helping to drive the [00:11:52] business's turnaround, go start a [00:11:54] business yourself if you want to absorb [00:11:55] that risk. The beauty of being a [00:11:57] salaried employee is that the check [00:11:58] comes in the mail every week. The beauty [00:12:00] of being an investor is that you receive [00:12:02] the benefit of the decisions that you [00:12:04] make at the top level. But it also means [00:12:05] you absorb the losses. [00:12:08] And so that means if you don't wish to [00:12:09] absorb losses, you cut costs. That is [00:12:11] how business works. If people want to go [00:12:13] start their own, they can. They are free [00:12:14] to do so. And that the sort of yelling [00:12:16] that Jeff Bezos is really, really rich, [00:12:18] therefore he should just subsidize all [00:12:20] of these journalists or [00:12:21] pseudojournalists, I think many of them [00:12:22] are pseudojournalists in what they do, [00:12:24] is ridiculous. In a second, we'll get to [00:12:27] why the Washington Post is actually in [00:12:29] trouble, why they've been failing. [00:12:30] First, there's a lot of young people [00:12:31] trying to navigate the dating scene [00:12:32] these days. And as you're trying to find [00:12:34] the right person for yourself, you [00:12:35] should probably ask whoever you're [00:12:36] seeing, you know, important questions [00:12:38] like, "Do you want kids in the future?" [00:12:40] or "What are your thoughts on religion?" [00:12:41] That's how you get a better idea of [00:12:42] whether or not that person is the right [00:12:44] person for you. The same goes if you're [00:12:45] hiring for your company. You want the [00:12:47] right person. And that means addressing [00:12:48] key questions first to see if somebody [00:12:50] is right for the role. And that's why [00:12:52] you need our sponsor, Zip Recruiter. [00:12:53] When you post your job, Zip Recruiter [00:12:55] suggests screening questions to help you [00:12:57] hone in on top candidates faster. Today, [00:12:59] you can try it for free at [00:13:00] ziprecruiter.com/dailywire. [00:13:02] Zip Recruiter's matching technology [00:13:04] works fast to find candidates who [00:13:06] actually fit what you're looking for. [00:13:07] The platform will suggest screening [00:13:08] questions that help you zero in on the [00:13:10] best applicants. You can use filters to [00:13:12] see who's been active recently. All of [00:13:14] this has helped Zip Recruiter become the [00:13:15] highest rated hiring site on G2. We here [00:13:18] at the Daily Wire are hiring rapidly [00:13:19] this year. The tools Zip Recruiter [00:13:21] offers employers give hiring managers a [00:13:23] big head start to fill positions quickly [00:13:25] with qualified candidates. Ask key [00:13:27] questions, hire faster with Zip [00:13:28] Recruiter. Four out of five employers [00:13:30] who post on Zip Recruiter get a quality [00:13:31] candidate within day one. Try it for [00:13:33] free at ziprecruiter.com/dailywire. [00:13:35] That's ziprecruiter.com/dailywire. [00:13:38] Meet your match on Ziprecruiter. [00:13:41] Now, I know there's some on the right [00:13:42] today who are suggesting the reason that [00:13:43] the Washington Post is is failing is [00:13:46] because it went so leftwing. I don't [00:13:48] think that's actually true. I think that [00:13:50] the reason the Washington Post is [00:13:51] failing is because it failed to adjust [00:13:53] to the sort of underlying trends in [00:13:55] media. The reality is the New York Times [00:13:58] is every bit as leftwing as it ever was. [00:13:59] And the New York Times has been killing [00:14:00] it. The New York Times went from [00:14:02] something like a million paid [00:14:04] subscribers 10 years ago to 10 million [00:14:06] paid subscribers today. Meanwhile, the [00:14:08] Washington Post is stuck in the doldrums [00:14:09] at 2 million paid subscribers. And that [00:14:12] is less to do with the politics of those [00:14:13] various outlets than it has to do with [00:14:15] their choices in business. This is why [00:14:18] it's so funny when people say, "Why is [00:14:20] the New York Times so successful? It [00:14:21] must be because of their amazing news [00:14:23] coverage." No. Wrong. The reason the New [00:14:26] York Times is successful is because it [00:14:28] made a series of purchases of nearly [00:14:30] unrelated businesses and then drove all [00:14:33] of those businesses toward a [00:14:34] subscriber-based model that is almost [00:14:36] like bundling. It's basically a bundling [00:14:38] strategy in the same way that you are [00:14:40] now seeing major media corporations in [00:14:42] the entertainment space buy one another [00:14:44] and then drive all of the subscription [00:14:46] revenue toward one hub. That is what the [00:14:48] New York Times did to become successful. [00:14:50] It's not because they hired a bunch of [00:14:52] stellar White House reporters. It ain't [00:14:54] Peter Baker who is driving the [00:14:56] subscription model of the New York [00:14:57] Times. He's certainly a reporter who is [00:15:00] doing his job and he's not hurting the [00:15:02] New York Times and it's a very [00:15:03] profitable enterprise the New York [00:15:04] Times. But the idea that the New York [00:15:06] Times chiefly is making bank right now [00:15:09] because of their stellar Middle East [00:15:10] reporting or because they hired a [00:15:11] stringer in Ukraine is nonsense. It's [00:15:13] just not true. And all these journalists [00:15:16] who are proclaiming that it is so are [00:15:18] foolish. They don't understand how [00:15:19] business works and they are self- [00:15:21] glorifying patting themselves on the [00:15:22] back. The reason the New York Times grew [00:15:24] is because they shelled out a bunch of [00:15:25] money in 2022 to buy, for example, The [00:15:27] Athletic, which is a sports outlet, and [00:15:31] then subscriptions are driven back [00:15:32] toward the New York Times company. They [00:15:34] bought Wordle in 2022. What does Wordle [00:15:37] have to do with the New York Times? The [00:15:38] answer is nothing. It raises engagement. [00:15:41] There's a free game played by a lot of [00:15:42] people and it means a lot of people are [00:15:44] on the New York Times app and a certain [00:15:45] percentage of those people will be [00:15:47] upsold into the subscription. They [00:15:49] bought Wire Cutter, which is a product [00:15:51] recommendation site. They expanded [00:15:53] massively. You want to know where the [00:15:54] expansion occurred in the New York Times [00:15:56] staff? It did not occur in their Middle [00:15:57] East reporting. It occurred in their [00:15:59] cooking section because they realized [00:16:01] that high engagement in their cooking [00:16:03] section would get people to subscribe [00:16:05] for the cooking section and then stick [00:16:07] around for everything else. It is fair [00:16:10] to say that the growing components of [00:16:11] the New York Times business subsidized [00:16:13] the newsroom. It's why New York Times [00:16:15] expanded its games section. It's why [00:16:18] they expanded their audio and podcast [00:16:20] section. They changed their strategy [00:16:22] with regard to their registration wall. [00:16:24] They made, in other words, they made a [00:16:25] bunch of business decision at the New [00:16:26] York Times that have not been imitated [00:16:28] by the Washington Post in any real way. [00:16:30] And that is why the Washington Post was [00:16:32] in trouble. Not because the New York [00:16:34] Times is more committed to journalism [00:16:36] than Jeff Bezos over at the Washington [00:16:38] Post. [00:16:40] Cara Swisser, who again is a left-wing [00:16:43] journalist in the tech space, who is [00:16:46] very warm toward the Bernie Sanders view [00:16:47] of the world. Cara apparently led [00:16:50] Washington Post alumni by donating a [00:16:52] staggering $10,000. I don't know why [00:16:54] that's called staggering by media, but [00:16:56] okay. A staggering $10,000 to a rapidly [00:16:58] growing fundraiser for journalists laid [00:17:00] off from the newspaper on Wednesday. [00:17:03] She made the donation to a GoFundMe [00:17:04] organized by the newsroom union and [00:17:06] reporter Rachel Seagull. Apparently, [00:17:08] they have about $322,000 raised. So, [00:17:11] Swisser had floated a bid to buy the [00:17:13] paper from Bezos [00:17:15] in 2024. [00:17:18] She wrote, quote, "The Washington Post, [00:17:19] where I started in the mail room, is the [00:17:21] place that made me everything I am now. [00:17:22] Skinflyn billionaire and failed fashion [00:17:24] model Jeff Bezos has decimated it. But I [00:17:28] have the means now because of what this [00:17:29] legendary institution gave me to donate [00:17:30] a decent chunk of dough to these [00:17:32] hardworking employees. I urge you to [00:17:34] give whatever you can." [00:17:37] Uh, what a hero. Heroic work there. [00:17:40] That's that's just great. How about you [00:17:42] create a business model that can hire [00:17:43] those people? How about that? That's [00:17:45] going to do a lot more than 10 grand. A [00:17:47] successful business model means that you [00:17:49] can keep a lot of people employed. A [00:17:50] failing business model means that people [00:17:52] get fired. That is how the world works. [00:17:54] It is how the world has always worked. [00:17:55] Unless you have somebody subsidizing [00:17:57] your pet interest and being angry at [00:17:59] Jeff Bezos that he's decided not to [00:18:01] subsidize your favorite reporters on [00:18:02] race and ethnicity. That is your [00:18:04] problem, not Jeff Bezos's. silly. And [00:18:07] again, I think there's a fundamental [00:18:08] disconnect happening in the media [00:18:10] between what actually works and what [00:18:12] people wish worked. So Jim Vander over [00:18:14] at Axio and Axios is a nice company. [00:18:16] Like it's a nicesized company. I believe [00:18:17] that they they do a couple hundred [00:18:19] million dollars a year in business [00:18:20] largely based on advertising. They have [00:18:22] some subscription revenue. So Jim Van he [00:18:25] says quote still baffled. Why would a [00:18:27] disinterested, disengaged, distracted [00:18:29] Washington Post owner hire a seemingly [00:18:31] disinterested, disengaged, distracted [00:18:33] CEO suffer perpetual criticism and money [00:18:35] loss? Lots of rich people would buy it. [00:18:37] Even more execs would gladly run it. [00:18:38] Show me a single entity at anywhere [00:18:40] doing anything that worked without a [00:18:41] strong engaged leadership. It kind of [00:18:42] matters. I bet Don Graham or Cara [00:18:45] Swisser would pull together a group to [00:18:46] take it over. Bloomberg could easily [00:18:48] swoop it up himself. Just sell it. So, [00:18:51] um, [00:18:52] if Jeff Bezos wants to sell it and [00:18:54] somebody makes him an offer, I'm sure he [00:18:55] would consider it. [00:18:56] Jake Sherman over at Punch Bowl News, [00:18:58] who again has a very successful [00:19:00] newsletter, [00:19:02] sort of a DC beltway insider newsletter [00:19:04] that's that's really well done. So Jake [00:19:06] tweeted back at Vande, quote, "Okay, hot [00:19:08] shot. What would you do to turn the post [00:19:09] around?" And Vanaye then tweeted out a a [00:19:12] list of things that he would do. Two [00:19:15] reporters on every federal agency. Oh [00:19:17] yeah, that's going to do it. Two [00:19:18] reporters on the EPA. That's going to [00:19:20] turn around your subscription model. [00:19:22] entice post stars who left to return as [00:19:24] service to their city, profession, and [00:19:25] nation. They talk a big game on X. Call [00:19:27] their bluff. Who are these post stars of [00:19:29] whom you speak? If they were stars, they [00:19:31] wouldn't have been fired. Do you mean [00:19:33] people that no one has heard of, but who [00:19:35] have 100,000 followers on Twitter? Is [00:19:37] that who we're talking about right now? [00:19:39] Those are the people. Two reporters on [00:19:41] each of the top local biz sectors, [00:19:43] defense, tech, lobbying, and influence. [00:19:46] Buy punch bowl. [00:19:49] Bonus thought. Buy the information. [00:19:52] Poach Peter Baker. Work with [00:19:54] philanthropists or ProPublica to fund [00:19:56] investigative public trust with stories [00:19:57] made available to other outlets upon. [00:19:59] Yes. Go to ProPublica, the left-wing [00:20:01] organization that is dedicated to half [00:20:04] misinformation. [00:20:07] Ask Marty Baron and Bob Woodward to [00:20:09] train a new generation of diggers. And [00:20:11] like this is this is such old style [00:20:13] thinking. This is not the thing that is [00:20:15] going to turn around the Washington [00:20:16] Post. It is not. [00:20:19] But again, it's not about that for so [00:20:20] many of these journalists. The reason [00:20:21] they are so upset today is because what [00:20:23] the Washington Post just said is that [00:20:25] journalists are subject to the rules of [00:20:27] the market just like everybody else. [00:20:28] They have in the journalistic world [00:20:30] thought that they were immune from this [00:20:32] stuff for legitimately decades. They are [00:20:34] not and they never were. All right. [00:20:36] Meanwhile, on the immigration front, Tom [00:20:38] H. Home. Home. Home. Home. Home. Home. [00:20:38] Home. Home. Home. Homeman says that some [00:20:39] immigration agents are going to leave [00:20:41] Minnesota. According to the Wall Street [00:20:44] Journal, in a press conference Wednesday [00:20:45] morning, Hman said he would be pulling [00:20:47] 700 officers and agents out of [00:20:49] Minnesota, there's still 2,000 who are [00:20:50] going to continue to operate. [00:20:54] Homeman is of course trying to reset the [00:20:55] table. He is trying to make clear that [00:20:58] this is just the efficient and effective [00:20:59] use of law enforcement, that ICE is not [00:21:02] there to quote unquote cause trouble. [00:21:04] And he is trying to negotiate deals with [00:21:05] the locals in Minnesota, Mayor Jacob [00:21:08] Fry, who's terrible, and the Minnesota [00:21:10] Governor Tim Walls, who's trying to make [00:21:11] bank off of this political crisis, in [00:21:13] order to continue effectuating the law. [00:21:17] Hman has repeatedly indicated that he [00:21:19] hoped to move the officers under his [00:21:21] command away from large roving street [00:21:23] sweeps toward more targeted arrests of [00:21:24] known criminals. He said the changes he [00:21:26] was implementing would quote help ensure [00:21:28] accountability and that targeted [00:21:30] enforcement operations have a focus on [00:21:31] national security threats and public [00:21:33] safety threats and they are conducted [00:21:34] effectively, safely and appropriately. [00:21:36] He calls this smarter enforcement, not [00:21:38] less enforcement. President Trump, for [00:21:40] his part, again, President Trump has [00:21:41] very good political instincts which is [00:21:43] why he has been president twice. He [00:21:44] says, you know, that he learned, he said [00:21:46] this to NBC News, that we could use a [00:21:48] softer touch. [00:21:50] >> Speaking of Minneapolis, what did you [00:21:52] learn? [00:21:54] Um, [clears throat] I learned that uh [00:21:58] maybe we can use a little bit of a [00:21:59] softer touch, but you still have to be [00:22:02] tough. These are criminal. We're dealing [00:22:03] with really hard criminals. But, uh, [00:22:07] look, I've called the people. I've [00:22:08] called the governor. I've called the [00:22:10] mayor, spoke to them, had great [00:22:11] conversations with them, and then I see [00:22:13] them ranting and raving out there, uh, [00:22:15] literally as though a call wasn't made. [00:22:19] >> He is right about all of that. and he [00:22:21] says, "Listen, we got to enforce the [00:22:22] law, and we're trying to do it. It's [00:22:24] Democrats who are standing in the way." [00:22:25] This is why I say I think the Democrats [00:22:27] maybe are winning the battle on [00:22:29] immigration, but they're going to lose [00:22:30] the war because, as we'll talk about in [00:22:31] a moment, they are also going completely [00:22:33] radical now that they believe they have [00:22:35] an advantage. Again, political parties [00:22:38] tend to do this. They think they have an [00:22:39] advantage on an issue and then they go [00:22:41] pedal to the metal and proceed to ram [00:22:42] right through all the guard rails. A [00:22:44] journalist also spent the day trying to [00:22:46] get JD Vance, the vice president, to [00:22:48] apologize to Alex Py's family. That did [00:22:50] not go particularly well for him. [00:22:53] >> Did you plan to apologize to the family [00:22:54] of Alex Freddy? [00:22:56] >> For what? [00:22:56] >> For, you know, labeling him an assassin [00:22:58] with ill intent. [00:23:00] >> Well, again, I just described to you [00:23:02] what I said about Alex Prey, which is [00:23:04] that he's a guy who showed up with ill [00:23:05] intent to an ICE protest. [00:23:06] >> But if it is if it's determined that his [00:23:08] civil rights were violated by this FBI [00:23:11] investigation, will you apologize to [00:23:12] that? So if if this hypothetical leads [00:23:15] to that hypothetical leads to another [00:23:17] hypothe [00:23:21] okay and the vice president you know [00:23:23] basically saying when the evidence you [00:23:25] know shows what you're saying that it [00:23:26] shows then maybe the reality is that the [00:23:30] full investigation has not yet been [00:23:31] done. If, as the evidence appears to [00:23:34] show, Alex Prey did not show up to [00:23:36] massacre law enforcement. He was there [00:23:37] to obstruct law enforcement but not [00:23:38] massacre them, does that mean that Greg [00:23:40] Bovino used some overall language and so [00:23:42] did Christine Gnome? Sure. Did did the [00:23:44] vice president say that? I'm not sure [00:23:45] the vice president said that. Christine [00:23:47] Gnome, for her part, points out [00:23:48] correctly that chaos is not compassion. [00:23:50] She was speaking in Ngalas, Arizona. [00:23:53] >> And while the left tries to tell us many [00:23:56] times that it's somehow compassionate to [00:23:57] allow that kind of chaos, it isn't. It [00:24:00] was dangerous. Not just on this side of [00:24:02] the border, but on the Mexican side of [00:24:04] the border as well. We saw many of those [00:24:07] illegal migrants not be able to survive [00:24:09] the brutal terrain. They didn't survive [00:24:11] the river crossing. Those causes of [00:24:14] death of heat and water were dangerous. [00:24:18] And the left behind so many bodies that [00:24:20] in some counties along the border, they [00:24:22] had to install migrant morgs just to [00:24:24] pick up the dead bodies that were [00:24:26] passing away on their way to try to get [00:24:28] into the United States. In fact, during [00:24:31] the Biden administration and those open [00:24:33] border policies, we saw even the UN [00:24:36] declare that the United States and [00:24:38] Mexico border was the deadliest land [00:24:40] route in the world. Countless people [00:24:44] were sexually abused and trafficked over [00:24:46] and over again and exploited. [00:24:50] Of course, she is right about all of [00:24:52] this. Now, again, I think the Trump [00:24:53] administration is course correcting. I [00:24:55] will tell you what is not helpful is [00:24:56] when Steve Bannon, I will say once [00:24:58] again, a person all over the Epstein [00:25:01] files and who did 15 hours of sitdown [00:25:03] interviews with Jeffrey Epste acting as [00:25:05] a quasi PR flack for the child molester. [00:25:09] Steve Bannon, who desperately wants to [00:25:10] run for president apparently in 2028. [00:25:12] Right now, he's playing this game where [00:25:14] he says he wants Trump to run in 2028. [00:25:15] He knows that's not possible. Then he [00:25:16] will reluctantly step into the fray. [00:25:18] Steve has no chance of becoming [00:25:20] president, of course, but he would like [00:25:21] to maximize his profile by doing so and [00:25:23] saying obnoxious things on stage because [00:25:25] that is what Steve Bannon does. He came [00:25:27] out yesterday and suggested, quote, [00:25:29] "We're going to have ICE surround the [00:25:30] polls come November. We're not going to [00:25:32] sit here and allow you to steal the [00:25:33] country again, and you can whine and cry [00:25:34] and throw your toys out of the pram all [00:25:36] you want, but we will never again allow [00:25:38] an election to be stolen." He says, [00:25:40] "President Trump has to nationalize the [00:25:41] election. You've got to put not just I [00:25:43] think ICE, you've got to call it the [00:25:44] 82nd and 101st Airborne on the [00:25:46] Insurrection Act. You've got to get [00:25:48] around every poll and make sure only [00:25:49] people with IDs, people actually [00:25:50] register to vote and people in the [00:25:52] United States as citizens vote in this [00:25:53] election. Now, I'm in favor of voter ID. [00:25:56] I'm very much against voter fraud, but [00:25:57] what Bannon is trying to do here is [00:25:59] actually play into the Democrat's hands. [00:26:01] That's actually what he wants to do. [00:26:02] Seems a clever character, but again, [00:26:04] what he is doing here is fairly obvious. [00:26:06] What he would like to do is say the most [00:26:07] outrageous thing to get the base to [00:26:09] cheer and rally around him and then have [00:26:11] the left attack him in order to maximize [00:26:13] his own profile. The Trump [00:26:14] administration is moderating its [00:26:16] rhetoric for a smart reason because they [00:26:17] would like to see their mission actually [00:26:19] effectuated. Democrats are looking for [00:26:22] precisely that sort of rhetoric in order [00:26:24] to jump on it. [00:26:26] Meanwhile, the Democrats again continue [00:26:28] to go too far on their side of the [00:26:29] aisle. Representative Ayanna Presley, [00:26:31] the Ringo star of the squad, she says [00:26:34] that this is fascism and now is the time [00:26:36] to fight fascism. [00:26:38] Each of you have shown immense courage [00:26:41] and it is time for Democrats to show [00:26:43] that same courage and fight against [00:26:45] fascism. [00:26:47] As we negotiate funding for DHS, we have [00:26:49] a real opportunity to do more than [00:26:51] express concern. We have the chance to [00:26:54] reject this campaign of terror and we [00:26:56] have a responsibility to do so. [00:27:00] >> So again, this is going to be the take [00:27:02] by Democrats. [00:27:04] Minnesota. It it does result in some [00:27:06] fairly funny things how crazy the left [00:27:08] is being on this issue. My my favorite [00:27:10] clip yesterday was a clip of a woman who [00:27:14] identifies as a member of Minnesota ICE [00:27:16] watch setting up a checkpoint. I believe [00:27:19] it was Melissa Chen who pointed out that [00:27:21] this lady is actually rationalizing her [00:27:23] way to borders from first principles [00:27:25] which is pretty hysterical. [00:27:28] We are literally creating a place that [00:27:31] we know who's coming and going in and [00:27:33] out of our neighborhoods. [00:27:34] >> In the middle of the road at 32nd and [00:27:36] Cedar Avenue, a makeshift roadblock [00:27:38] turned this intersection into a [00:27:40] roundabout. [00:27:43] Cars slowed as drivers noticed, some [00:27:45] honked, others asked questions, and one [00:27:48] man brought food for the people standing [00:27:50] watch. [00:27:53] >> They're knowing who goes in and out. I [00:27:54] mean, that sounds very much like a [00:27:55] border right there. Good job. And the [00:27:58] media, of course, are fostering all of [00:28:00] this. This is the thing. They want all [00:28:02] of which is leading to a new Democratic [00:28:04] push for yet another possible shutdown. [00:28:06] They want to curb ISIS power by [00:28:09] apparently pressing for judicial [00:28:11] warrants to be used in arrest of illegal [00:28:13] immigrants as opposed to administrative [00:28:14] warrants. There some of the things that [00:28:16] they they are looking to do. Joining us [00:28:18] on the line to discuss the legality of [00:28:19] what Democrats are now pushing in the [00:28:21] House and the Senate is Gene Hamilton. [00:28:23] He's president of America First Legal [00:28:24] and former deputy White House counsel. [00:28:26] Jean, thanks so much for the time. [00:28:27] Really appreciate it. [00:28:29] >> Thanks for having me on. [00:28:31] >> So, one of the things that we've been [00:28:33] hearing is the Democrats are pushing for [00:28:34] the possibility of yet another partial [00:28:36] government shutdown with regard to the [00:28:38] Department of Homeland Security, and [00:28:39] we've heard rumors that they are pushing [00:28:40] the idea that every arrest must be [00:28:42] accompanied by a judicial warrant for [00:28:44] ICE to affectuate it. What does that [00:28:46] mean? What are we talking about? What is [00:28:47] the legal basis for administrative [00:28:49] warrants, which is typically what ICE [00:28:50] uses when they're effectuating an arrest [00:28:52] for illegal immigration? [00:28:55] >> Yeah, absolutely. It's a great question [00:28:56] and thanks for asking it. Civil [00:28:58] immigration enforcement is the standard [00:29:01] routine immigration enforcement that ICE [00:29:03] has engaged in for decades. Immigration [00:29:06] to the United States and immigration out [00:29:08] of the United States tends to be a civil [00:29:11] matter. Now, there are criminal [00:29:12] penalties associated with violating [00:29:14] those uh civil matters. So if you come [00:29:17] into the United States illegally, you've [00:29:19] committed a crime. If you come into the [00:29:21] United States after being deported [00:29:23] again, you have committed a crime. There [00:29:25] are lots of other crimes that are [00:29:26] associated with it, but generally [00:29:28] speaking, immigration is a civil [00:29:31] function of the federal government. And [00:29:33] so what happens is that you have a [00:29:36] system that's built in the executive [00:29:38] branch to handle this where you have ICE [00:29:41] within the Department of Homeland [00:29:42] Security. They conduct arrests. They [00:29:44] detain aliens in the United States and [00:29:47] they handle deportations. Their cases, [00:29:50] if they have a case that's uh being [00:29:53] heard in immigration court, people have [00:29:55] heard about the immigration court [00:29:56] backlog, all kinds of different things. [00:29:58] Those are actually Department of Justice [00:30:01] lawyers who are functioning as judges [00:30:03] who are adjudicating the cases. There's [00:30:06] no involvement of article 3, the federal [00:30:09] court system. there's no involvement and [00:30:11] it's never been that way and it's for [00:30:13] good reason. It's because these are cut [00:30:15] and dry civil offenses. This is goes to [00:30:18] the ultimate authority of any national [00:30:20] government anywhere across the world. [00:30:22] these we're not talking about really uh [00:30:25] complicated legal trials that are an [00:30:28] issue that need to be heard before an [00:30:30] article 3 judge and it's going to go to [00:30:32] the court of appeals and then the [00:30:33] supreme court and there's going to be [00:30:34] some massive uh uh precedent setting [00:30:38] case that's going to arise that had to [00:30:40] arise in an article 3 district court uh [00:30:43] context. Everybody knows anytime you get [00:30:46] involved in litigation in federal court, [00:30:48] it's going to take time. It's going to [00:30:51] take years to adjudicate a civil claim. [00:30:53] It often takes a lot uh it it can take [00:30:56] depending on the complexity a long time [00:30:58] to adjudicate criminal cases. So with [00:31:01] that background and that table setting, [00:31:03] imagine if ICE every time that they [00:31:06] wanted to go arrest an alien [00:31:09] instead of being able to do it on their [00:31:11] own like Congress directed in the [00:31:14] immigration laws, ICE has authority to [00:31:16] conduct warrantless arrests in many [00:31:18] different uh circumstances. And the [00:31:20] warrants that they do use are [00:31:22] administrative civil warrants. But now [00:31:24] imagine if they had to go to a federal [00:31:27] judge every single time that they wanted [00:31:29] to go um arrest an illegal alien and [00:31:32] they wanted to engage in some kind of [00:31:33] action. It would crush the federal court [00:31:36] system. The volume would be absolutely [00:31:38] crushing. There's already 1 something [00:31:41] million cases pending in the immigration [00:31:44] courts today. Uh there are millions of [00:31:47] illegal aliens who are here today. it [00:31:49] would suck up every resource that's [00:31:52] present in the federal government now to [00:31:54] be able to adjudicate these these [00:31:56] matters. And so it's it's for good [00:31:58] reason that they're not currently done [00:32:00] that way. The Democrats in Congress, [00:32:02] they know this and they want this to [00:32:05] come to a crushing halt. I mean, they [00:32:07] just don't want anybody to be deported. [00:32:09] And so they know that if they toss this [00:32:10] thing on that if you're an average [00:32:12] American and you're just kind of sitting [00:32:13] there thinking, "Oh, that doesn't sound [00:32:15] so bad. Why, you know, why couldn't they [00:32:16] go get a judicial warrant?" They know [00:32:18] that the endgame is the complete uh [00:32:21] slowdown and stoppage of the immigration [00:32:24] enforcement in the United States, which [00:32:26] means that uh they would achieve their [00:32:28] objectives while Donald Trump's in [00:32:31] office that they were trying to do while [00:32:32] Joe Biden was here, which is of course [00:32:34] bring in as many people as they can, [00:32:36] don't deport anybody, and see what [00:32:38] happens to the electorate. [00:32:41] I think one of the things Democrats are [00:32:42] relying upon is that when people hear [00:32:43] warrant, the first thing they think of [00:32:45] is law and order. They think of of a [00:32:47] judge granting a warrant. They don't [00:32:48] they don't know that there are these [00:32:50] things called administrative warrants. [00:32:51] And I I think people really don't sort [00:32:53] of engage with the law enforcement [00:32:54] system this way frequently. So they [00:32:56] don't think about the idea that if [00:32:57] you're arrested, for example, for going [00:32:59] 100 miles an hour in a school zone, it's [00:33:00] not as though the cop is pulling you [00:33:02] over, calling up a judge and asking for [00:33:03] a warrant to arrest you. That they're [00:33:04] just arresting you. And and you know, [00:33:06] the sort of attempt to jerryrig a a [00:33:09] rationale for not arresting people is [00:33:11] pretty astonishing. which goes to the [00:33:13] the sort of Democrats new attempt and it [00:33:16] really is, you know, it's not new, but [00:33:18] it's certainly ramped up to obstruct [00:33:20] federal law enforcement in general. So [00:33:22] Tom Hman, I believe the borders are has [00:33:24] done a much better job of laying out [00:33:25] exactly what the Trump administration is [00:33:26] trying to do than the DHS secretary [00:33:28] Christy Nome. But the things that that [00:33:31] DHS has been doing that that ICE and [00:33:33] Border Patrol have been doing in [00:33:33] Minneapolis, these are well within the [00:33:36] purview of ICE and Border Patrol and [00:33:38] they always have been going back through [00:33:39] the Clinton or Obama administrations, [00:33:41] the Biden administration. [00:33:44] Yeah. Look, the we we are talking about [00:33:46] immigration enforcement that used to be [00:33:48] a routine bipartisan matter uh that [00:33:51] people agreed upon. Hey, if you're an [00:33:53] illegal alien, you need to go home. You [00:33:55] need to be deported. Now, especially if [00:33:58] they say you're an illegal alien who's [00:33:59] committed additional crimes in the [00:34:01] United States, it used to be universal [00:34:03] consensus that even that population [00:34:06] needed to go. You can look at old quotes [00:34:08] and clips from Hillary Clinton, from [00:34:10] Barack Obama, from Joe Biden, from every [00:34:12] Democrat that has been on the national [00:34:14] scene over the last several decades. And [00:34:16] they used to say these things, but of [00:34:18] course now where the rubber is actually [00:34:20] meeting the road in Minneapolis where [00:34:22] ICE and CBP have been engaging in [00:34:24] targeted operations going after these [00:34:27] convicted criminals who either have [00:34:29] removal orders or who because of the [00:34:31] sanctuary city policies in uh Minnesota [00:34:35] don't ICE doesn't have the ability to [00:34:36] detain after they've been encountered by [00:34:38] law enforcement. And so this these guys [00:34:40] these guys and gals are engaging in [00:34:42] things that everybody used to agree was [00:34:45] good and it was good for society and it [00:34:47] was necessary. It's a necessary function [00:34:50] of any sovereign government. But yet [00:34:53] what we what we see now through the [00:34:55] agitators uh present in Minneapolis, [00:34:58] present across other cities across the [00:35:00] United States, wellunded, wellorganized [00:35:03] uh being pushed from all kinds of [00:35:05] different folks behind the scenes, all [00:35:06] kinds of different Marxist networks [00:35:08] behind the scenes that are trying to [00:35:11] create this image of resistance of [00:35:14] overreach by the Trump administration. [00:35:16] And they're trying to do this because [00:35:18] they they want to convince the average [00:35:21] American that they have more in common [00:35:23] with the struggles of some illegal alien [00:35:26] who came here and committed multiple [00:35:28] DUIs and that somehow it's the modern [00:35:31] civil rights uh uh fight of the day. [00:35:35] This is just like Rosa Parks uh in you [00:35:38] know during the civil rights movement. [00:35:40] And so if you're not aligned with Rosa [00:35:42] Parks then my god uh you must be a [00:35:45] fascist. you must be a Nazi, you must be [00:35:47] all these kinds of different things. And [00:35:48] it's because this is I mean this is just [00:35:50] the Marxist worldview time and time [00:35:52] again coming out in different ways in [00:35:54] different manners where they have to [00:35:56] create this constant clash right between [00:35:58] between classes. They have to create [00:36:00] this illusion of this constant fight so [00:36:04] they can maintain their their [00:36:06] fundamental ideology which at the at the [00:36:09] root of which leads to the destruction [00:36:11] of our society. So when we of our of our [00:36:14] constitutional republic and so when we [00:36:16] see what they're doing on the streets of [00:36:18] Minneapolis when these are things that [00:36:20] were routine these are things that [00:36:22] happened under administrations of both [00:36:24] parties years in the past maybe not to [00:36:27] the number that we're seeing today [00:36:28] because they didn't have the same types [00:36:30] of personnel they didn't have the same [00:36:32] types of resources but things that were [00:36:34] done and now they're trying to turn it [00:36:36] into the modern you know civil rights [00:36:38] fight of the day. Uh, I think you can [00:36:41] kind of understand what's happening here [00:36:43] and what their ultimate objective is. [00:36:47] >> Yeah, Jean, I think that the point that [00:36:49] you're making here also underscores why [00:36:51] the Trump administration really needs to [00:36:53] retail the best version of its PR [00:36:54] because this obviously is a chaos [00:36:56] operation with a with a massive PR [00:36:58] angle. It is not an attempt to prevent [00:37:00] law enforcement from from committing [00:37:02] some sort of crime. It's an attempt to [00:37:03] obstruct law enforcement through the [00:37:05] mechanism of of bad press essentially. [00:37:07] And so that's why, you know, when I'm [00:37:08] critical of Christine Gnome in the way [00:37:10] that, for example, she characterizes [00:37:12] situations like Renee Good or Alex Py in [00:37:14] the immediate aftermath and and that [00:37:16] creates backlash that is unnecessary. [00:37:18] The sort of low-key let's go enforce the [00:37:20] law approach of a Tom Hman seems [00:37:22] significantly better calibrated to [00:37:24] achieve the goals of the administration [00:37:26] than the sort of, you know, colorful [00:37:27] chaos that that sometimes seems to [00:37:29] attend some of the people, you know, who [00:37:31] have who have now been actually put out [00:37:32] of of camera view in in the Trump [00:37:34] administration, people like Greg Bavino. [00:37:38] Yeah, I mean look, there's there are uh [00:37:40] lots of folks with lots of different [00:37:42] views on the the PR angle um here. And [00:37:46] look, again, this is immigration [00:37:48] enforcement is not anything new, per se. [00:37:51] Now, we might have forgotten about it [00:37:53] for the last four years as a society [00:37:55] because Joe Biden didn't engage in any [00:37:57] of it, but immigration enforcement [00:38:00] arrests of illegal aliens or of aliens [00:38:03] who have committed offenses in the [00:38:05] United States is a very routine thing. [00:38:08] It's a routine part of life. It's [00:38:11] something that every nation with the [00:38:13] means across the world does every single [00:38:17] day. Try to go violate the immigration [00:38:19] laws in China. try to go violate the [00:38:21] immigration laws in in in anywhere else [00:38:24] in the world as an American and you will [00:38:28] face the enforcement of those [00:38:30] immigration laws against you. You'll be [00:38:31] deported. You'll be put in jail. You'll [00:38:33] be uh uh any number of things [00:38:35] potentially done to you. And so we're [00:38:38] not unique in our need in our desire to [00:38:42] engage in this type of law enforcement [00:38:45] operation. It doesn't do anything to [00:38:47] make us uh less of a country or less of [00:38:50] a people to actually deport uh folks who [00:38:53] have violated our laws. In fact, quite [00:38:55] the opposite. Um and you know, I I it's [00:38:59] very ups what's most upsetting to me is [00:39:02] that when you look at a lot of the uh [00:39:04] ties and connections that are being uh [00:39:06] laid out kind of in public discourse [00:39:09] about what these groups were involved [00:39:11] in, especially in Minneapolis, you look [00:39:13] at their signal chats. you look at who [00:39:15] was in those groups. Um, people who [00:39:18] aren't just agitators, but people [00:39:20] allegedly who appear to be members of [00:39:22] government, uh, members of other, uh, [00:39:24] non-governmental organizations, members [00:39:26] of all kinds of, uh, uh, aspects of [00:39:29] society who are conspiring, appear to be [00:39:32] conspiring together to impede the [00:39:34] enforcement of our laws. And what they [00:39:37] want is they want to draw out this kind [00:39:39] of backlash. They want to draw out this [00:39:42] kind of conflict for the reasons that [00:39:43] we've uh discussed earlier because then [00:39:45] they can say, "Oh, look, these fascists [00:39:47] are overreaching. They're doing too [00:39:49] much. They're running around on the [00:39:50] streets. Now, you as an American [00:39:52] citizen, you're at risk of being, you [00:39:54] know, detained by ICE." Which is just [00:39:56] garbage. Statistically speaking, it's [00:39:58] complete and absolute garbage. But it is [00:40:00] their end goal. And of course, PR does [00:40:02] have an aspect uh here that is important [00:40:04] for the American people to pay attention [00:40:06] to. [00:40:08] >> Well, that's Gene Hamilton. He's [00:40:09] president of America first legal form [00:40:11] deputy white house counsel. Gan, thanks [00:40:12] so much for the time and insight. [00:40:14] >> Thanks for having me on. [00:40:16] >> Okay. [00:40:16] >> Meanwhile, Scott Bessant, the Treasury [00:40:18] Secretary, was on the hill yesterday [00:40:20] speaking with the House Financial [00:40:21] Services Committee and it got pretty [00:40:23] feisty. Democrats tried to go up against [00:40:25] the Treasury Secretary. It seems there [00:40:26] was a pretty significant IQ gap between [00:40:28] many of the Democrats and the Treasury [00:40:30] Secretary who is one of the more [00:40:31] intelligent people in American politics. [00:40:33] what whatever you say about Scott [00:40:34] Bessant's actual perspectives on things [00:40:37] like tariffs and you know I have some [00:40:38] quibbles uh there's no question that [00:40:40] Scott Bessant is a brilliant human [00:40:42] anyway Scott Bessant was appearing [00:40:44] before the house financial services [00:40:46] committee and he was asked about [00:40:47] inflation in housing and he started [00:40:49] talking about the fact that you need to [00:40:51] deport people and if you deport people [00:40:53] then that is going to reduce the demand [00:40:55] for housing because you're reducing the [00:40:56] demand for housing by I mean just [00:40:58] definitionally Maxine Waters had a [00:41:00] problem with this again one of the great [00:41:02] hilarities of the US Congress that [00:41:04] Maxine Waters, who is as corrupt as the [00:41:07] day is long, has been sitting on the [00:41:08] financial services committee for [00:41:09] decades. [00:41:11] >> I believe the ranking member does not [00:41:13] understand the definition of generalized [00:41:15] inflation versus one-time price [00:41:17] increases. I would also note that [00:41:21] housing, especially for working [00:41:23] Americans, a Wharton study has shown [00:41:26] that the mass unfettered immigration [00:41:28] adding 10 to 20 the million new people [00:41:31] demanding housing, Congresswoman, is [00:41:34] what caused a great deal of housing [00:41:36] inflation for working Americans. So you [00:41:38] and the Biden administration should be [00:41:40] ashamed. [00:41:41] >> Which is also which is also why we are [00:41:43] seeing rents. There was just a recent [00:41:45] media story on this. Rents are going [00:41:47] down partially because of that [00:41:49] enforcement. So I Mr. Secretary [00:41:51] >> is supply and demand continues to work. [00:41:54] >> 10 and 20 million immigrants look at the [00:41:57] housing housing stock of working [00:42:00] American. [00:42:03] >> So that was Maxine Waters telling Besson [00:42:05] to shut up because she wanted to seize [00:42:06] back her time. Having participated in [00:42:08] some of these hearings, I I truly [00:42:10] believe that not televising hearings [00:42:12] would be better for the country because [00:42:13] all it is mainly are Congress people who [00:42:16] are posing for the cameras. Maxine [00:42:17] Waters being a key representative of [00:42:20] that particular view on how hearings [00:42:22] ought to be used. Scott Bessant was also [00:42:24] quizzed by Representative Gregory Meeks [00:42:26] on committing to investigate alleged [00:42:28] corruption in the Trump administration. [00:42:29] Here's how that went. [00:42:32] >> All you have to ask is yes or no. Uh, [00:42:33] no. Congressman, the [00:42:35] >> all you have to ask the OC is an [00:42:37] independent entity and I would No, [00:42:38] Congressman [00:42:40] I take that as a no. You traveled to [00:42:42] Vince Vinc. [00:42:48] You do not want to answer that question. [00:42:51] >> I take that as a no for a 7 billion. I'm [00:42:54] asking you to do your responsibility as [00:42:57] secretary of the treasury. [00:42:59] You do not [00:43:00] >> Mr. Makes you time is expired. You You [00:43:03] can erase all the witness and he's the [00:43:05] one that went past your time, Mr. [00:43:07] Chairman. No, [00:43:08] >> he did not answer my question and he [00:43:10] wouldn't make [00:43:12] >> He had six seconds left to try to answer [00:43:14] your question and it [00:43:16] >> was a yes or no. [00:43:17] >> It was a yes or no answer. I asked him [00:43:19] and it was yes or no. Recognizent [00:43:23] covering for the president. [00:43:25] >> Yeah. Well, [00:43:26] >> stop being his fault. [00:43:27] >> Yeah. These hearings are are so uh the [00:43:29] the these these hearings are so useful. [00:43:31] They're so useful. Representative Steven [00:43:33] Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts. He [00:43:36] also went up against Bessant. Again, did [00:43:38] not go amazing for him. [00:43:41] >> Question and a serious issue for the [00:43:43] financial services industry, especially [00:43:45] as a secretary of the treasury. That's [00:43:47] an important No, this is my time. I [00:43:49] haven't asked any more questions. [00:43:52] >> I haven't asked you any more questions. [00:43:53] >> The gentleman from Massachusetts, [00:43:54] >> I'm trying to get to my next question. [00:43:56] Could you speak a little louder? I can't [00:43:58] hear you. Yeah. Okay. I I I might I [00:44:01] might. [00:44:04] >> Okay. So, good times. Good times over in [00:44:07] the House. Now, on a more substantive [00:44:09] level, Scott Besson cited 4.1% growth [00:44:11] under the Trump administration as a big [00:44:13] highlight for the Trump administration. [00:44:14] Obviously, the perception of the economy [00:44:16] is going to have a massive impact on the [00:44:17] 2026 elections and looking forward on [00:44:19] the 2028 presidential election. And here [00:44:21] is best inciting solid growth under [00:44:23] President Trump. Particularly in the [00:44:24] last half of last year, [00:44:27] >> the US will have reported likely despite [00:44:31] the government shutdown, despite the [00:44:33] longest government shutdown in history, [00:44:35] 4.1% growth for the past three quarters. [00:44:39] And so we we have been successful that [00:44:42] at that Europe last week celebrated.3% [00:44:46] growth. So they uh it's no comparison [00:44:51] and I think we are beginning to [00:44:53] accelerate and importantly everything we [00:44:56] are doing is to fix this terrible Biden [00:44:59] inflation from the the past four years [00:45:03] 21.5% [00:45:04] much more for working families and we [00:45:07] are bringing that down [00:45:10] >> and there's no question that the economy [00:45:12] has been chugging forward at a a very [00:45:15] rapid rate at this point that is [00:45:16] particularly again because of the tech [00:45:18] industry that is now being decrieded by [00:45:20] the entire left and populists on the [00:45:23] right. It is the supposedly terrible big [00:45:25] companies that are driving economic [00:45:26] growth in the country right now. Even [00:45:28] though for example software companies [00:45:30] have been taking it on the chin because [00:45:31] AI is now substituting itself for some [00:45:33] of the big software companies. Google [00:45:36] for example is now doubling its spend. [00:45:38] Alphabet reported an 18% jump in fourth [00:45:40] quarter revenue and revealed plans to [00:45:42] roughly double its spend on data centers [00:45:44] and other capital projects. Sales [00:45:46] exceeded analyst expectations and nearly [00:45:48] $114 billion according to the Wall [00:45:50] Street Journal, driven by growth in the [00:45:52] company's digital advertising and cloud [00:45:53] computing units. Net income was $ 34.5 [00:45:56] billion. That is a 30% increase compared [00:45:59] with the same period a year earlier. [00:46:01] Google is using all of that money to [00:46:03] develop AI models and build the data [00:46:04] centers needed to train and run them. [00:46:07] Again, Google is an extraordinarily [00:46:09] well-run business, obviously, which is [00:46:11] why they have such a high valuation. [00:46:15] Now, there are some problems that the [00:46:17] Trump administration needs to move on if [00:46:20] it does wish to shore up the the growth [00:46:23] numbers that it is currently pursuing. [00:46:25] In my opinion, the the tariff uneasiness [00:46:27] is leading to an unnecessary dampening [00:46:30] of economic growth. Now, Scott Besson [00:46:31] did go up against Maxine Waters on [00:46:33] tariffs and inflation. And here's what [00:46:34] he had to say. [00:46:36] >> Quote, "Tariffs are inflationary." Did [00:46:40] Did you say that at that time? Yes or [00:46:42] no? Uh, [00:46:44] no. [00:46:45] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. Again, I want to [00:46:48] be clear. So, just let me ask you, are [00:46:51] tariffs [00:46:53] inflationary? Yes or no? [00:46:54] >> According to the San Francisco Federal [00:46:56] Reserve with 150 years of data, yes or [00:46:59] no? [00:46:59] >> Tariffs do not cause inflation. San [00:47:01] Francisco Federal Reserve. last November [00:47:03] as the Trump administration finally [00:47:05] began to realize [00:47:07] >> that affordability issues in America are [00:47:09] not a hoax. [00:47:12] >> Now again, Scott Scott Besson suggesting [00:47:14] there the tariffs do not cause [00:47:16] inflation. Well, when it comes to [00:47:17] inflation as a generalized phenomenon as [00:47:20] as he has pointed out as opposed to [00:47:21] one-time price increases or temporary [00:47:23] price increases, it's not tariffs [00:47:25] generally that cause inflation. It is [00:47:27] bad monetary policy, loose monetary [00:47:28] policy. As Milton Freeman famously [00:47:30] suggested, inflation is anywhere and [00:47:32] everywhere a monetary phenomenon. With [00:47:34] that said, the study that he is citing [00:47:36] does not claim that tariffs aren't [00:47:37] inflationary. The study that he is [00:47:39] citing says, quote, "Our results suggest [00:47:41] that immediately following an increase [00:47:42] in tariff rates, the unemployment rate [00:47:44] tends to increase and inflation tends to [00:47:46] fall." This pattern suggests that at [00:47:47] first, the effects of tariffs more [00:47:49] closely resemble a negative demand [00:47:50] shock. That is, consumers and businesses [00:47:52] pull back their spending, which slows [00:47:54] economic activity and also slows down [00:47:55] inflation. Over time, however, economic [00:47:57] activity picks back up and inflation [00:47:59] then increases to a higher rate than it [00:48:00] would have been without the tariff [00:48:02] increase. In other words, there's an [00:48:04] immediate pullback in spending that [00:48:06] creates deflation because people aren't [00:48:07] spending as much. So, the prices go [00:48:09] down. Then people come back, they start [00:48:11] spending again, but the prices because [00:48:13] supply is restricted, the prices are a [00:48:14] little bit higher than they would have [00:48:15] been. So, have the tariffs been this [00:48:18] gigantic boon to America's economy? The [00:48:19] evidence has yet to show that they have [00:48:21] been a gigantic boon to America's [00:48:23] economy. The other area where the Trump [00:48:26] administration, again, I think that they [00:48:28] like this is not unique to Trump. This [00:48:30] is every single politician in America, [00:48:32] with very few exceptions, the [00:48:34] willingness to simply ignore our massive [00:48:36] debt crisis is going to cause a problem. [00:48:39] It won't cause a problem in the moment. [00:48:42] It is going to become a bigger and [00:48:43] bigger drag on the economy. Yesterday, [00:48:45] President Trump suggested that we [00:48:47] shouldn't have to worry about the [00:48:48] national debt because our growth will [00:48:49] make the debt look small. [00:48:52] we have now with me and with all the [00:48:54] money I'm I've always been good at money [00:48:57] and with all the money coming into our [00:48:59] country we're a rich country again we [00:49:01] have debt but we also have growth and [00:49:04] the growth will soon make the debt look [00:49:05] very small [00:49:08] okay I wish that were true I wish that [00:49:10] you could simply grow your way out of a [00:49:11] $39 trillion debt but um no that is not [00:49:15] the case actually our current debt [00:49:17] growth if you annualize it is almost 7% [00:49:20] the current deficit is 5.9% of GDP which [00:49:24] means that if you wanted to make up you [00:49:26] know the deficit alone you would have to [00:49:29] grow at a massive rate to make up our [00:49:31] annual deficit this year for example we [00:49:32] would have to grow at a 12 to 15% rate [00:49:35] which of course is not going to happen [00:49:38] if you wanted to reach what's called a [00:49:39] primary surplus which means more is [00:49:41] collected in taxes every year than is [00:49:43] spent on everything except the interest [00:49:45] with the current tax rates and with the [00:49:47] current economic growth rates you [00:49:48] require 3.2% 2% GDP growth continuously [00:49:51] for the next 30 years. And that would [00:49:54] not solve the debt. That would just [00:49:55] solve sort of the the deficit. [00:49:58] So growth alone isn't going to do it. At [00:50:00] some point, we're going to have to look [00:50:01] as a country at all of the measures that [00:50:03] we don't want to look at, namely our [00:50:05] spending. We have a spending problem. We [00:50:06] do not have a tax revenue problem. Our [00:50:08] tax revenue is at all-time highs. We [00:50:09] have a spending problem. And that [00:50:11] spending problem grows worse and worse [00:50:13] as every single party in American life [00:50:15] pledges to spend more on more things. [00:50:18] George Will makes what used to be a [00:50:20] fairly wrote conservative points. It's [00:50:22] kind of amazing that this is, you know, [00:50:23] I mean, I'm old enough to remember the [00:50:24] Tea Party when we worried about these [00:50:26] sorts of things. That wasn't that long [00:50:27] ago. That was 2010. [00:50:29] George Will says, "As the national debt [00:50:31] is a few months from reaching $39 [00:50:32] trillion and perhaps 40 trillion by the [00:50:34] end of the year, it is puzzling how [00:50:36] unperturbed the political class is. Or [00:50:39] perhaps not. Writer and political [00:50:40] agitator Upton Sinclair said, "It is [00:50:42] difficult to get a man to understand [00:50:43] something when his salary depends upon [00:50:45] his not understanding it or pretending [00:50:47] not to," says George Will. "A bipartisan [00:50:49] congressional consensus more alarming [00:50:50] than partisan ranker is, there are no [00:50:52] long-term fiscal gains without intense [00:50:54] short-term political pain. So, because [00:50:56] today's congressional careers do not yet [00:50:58] seem likely to coincide with coming dire [00:51:00] consequences, let them come." [00:51:04] He points out that according to the [00:51:05] committee for a responsible federal [00:51:07] budget. [00:51:09] There are six possible crisis scenarios. [00:51:11] Five are dramatic. The sixth is less so [00:51:14] but most alarming and also most likely. [00:51:17] First, you could have a financial crisis [00:51:19] where investors look at how fast the [00:51:20] debt is acrewing and say, "We're not [00:51:22] going to invest in bonds anymore." [00:51:24] Second, you could have an inflation [00:51:25] crisis because if you have a financial [00:51:27] crisis, then you have to inflate the [00:51:29] currency in order to deal with that. [00:51:32] Inflation would then become baked into [00:51:34] the expectations of investors who demand [00:51:36] higher interest rates. And if that [00:51:38] happens, then says George Will, when [00:51:39] interest rates paid on debt exceed the [00:51:41] rate of economic growth, a crisis [00:51:42] intensifies because rising interest [00:51:44] rates depress economic growth. Then you [00:51:46] would have an austerity crisis where you [00:51:48] have to have massive cutbacks. [00:51:50] You could have a currency crisis where [00:51:52] because of inflation, an appreciating [00:51:54] dollar means that people diversify away [00:51:57] from US debt. The most unlikely is a [00:52:00] default crisis, but the most probable [00:52:02] and most ominous outcome is a gradual [00:52:03] crisis where we kind of just descend [00:52:06] into economic sluggishness. Now, maybe [00:52:09] AI creates massive productivity gains. [00:52:13] But even if AI creates massive [00:52:15] productivity gains, which I believe is [00:52:16] something that's going to happen, until [00:52:18] and unless we have a political class and [00:52:20] an American people, because we're the [00:52:21] ones who elect them, who are willing to [00:52:23] talk about the kinds of cuts necessary [00:52:25] to make America fiscally responsible [00:52:27] again, nothing is going to change. The [00:52:29] trajectory will maintain for a while and [00:52:32] then it will suddenly get much, much [00:52:33] worse. Right now, we're still the best [00:52:34] bet on the block because other countries [00:52:36] are acting in even more fiscally [00:52:38] irresponsible ways than the United [00:52:39] States. But if we continue along the [00:52:42] pathway that we have created with our [00:52:45] gigantic welfare state, particularly our [00:52:48] means-ested welfare state, if we [00:52:51] continue to do that sort of stuff, then [00:52:53] we are going to run into a brick wall at [00:52:56] some point. All righty, folks. The show [00:52:58] continues for our members right now. [00:52:59] We'll get to Scandal in New York at [00:53:01] Zoran Mamani visited a dude who got shot [00:53:04] charging a cop with a knife. What's he [00:53:06] doing? Remember, in order to watch, you [00:53:08] have to be a member. If you're not a [00:53:09] member, become a member. Use code [00:53:10] Shapiro at checkout for two months free [00:53:11] on all annual plans. Click that link in [00:53:12] the description and join us. [00:53:14] >> Okay. [00:53:28] >> No, not even close. Two. Three. [00:53:32] Whatever. You know what? Two. Three. [00:53:35] Four. [00:53:42] I cannot believe we're back here again. [00:53:43] Ben, [00:53:44] >> if the Ben Shapiro shows mom and Ben [00:53:46] after dark is a cool mom. [00:53:50] Jay, [00:53:52] >> you know, like irresponsible [00:53:55] [laughter]