All Episodes
Previous Next
March 28, 2025 - The Ben Shapiro Show
59:37
TRADE WAR: Trump Declares Massive Car Tariffs
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Folks, there is a ton going on in the news.
A brand new initiation of a brand new trade war.
Everything going on with Doge.
Just tons going on.
First, America is on the comeback.
The fight for truth is far from over, while the left tries desperately to keep its grip on media education in the courts.
Daily Wire continues to lead the charge for fearless journalism, the values that made our country great.
Now is the time to join us.
Stream my show ad-free.
Watch along with my producers in the chat.
Plus, get exclusive content you're not going to find anywhere else.
Access premium entertainment.
Join a community of thinkers, not followers.
Watch anytime, anywhere.
On desktop, mobile, and TV with the Daily Wire Plus app.
Don't just watch the culture war happen all around you.
Be part of the movement.
Subscribe right now at dailywire.com slash subscribe.
Alrighty, so Republicans have some warning signs.
One of the things...
That I'm always warning folks against in politics is the belief that anything that happens is eternal, that the change is eternal, that there will never be another loss in the future.
I'm old enough to remember in 2004, after George W. Bush won re-election and secured the Congress of the United States, that there are Republicans who thought that Republicans would never lose again.
This was the initiation of a brand new era.
And then, of course, by 2006, Democrats had taken the Congress, and by 2008, they had taken the presidency.
I'm also old enough to remember when the Democrats proclaimed in the aftermath of Barack Obama's 2012 victory that they would never lose again.
They had a brand new coalition, an undefeatable coalition, that would just continue to grow and Republicans would be in the minority for literally ever.
And within four years, Republicans had taken the presidency with Donald Trump.
And so now when I hear Republicans who seem triumphalist about the idea that Democrats can never win again, that Democrats will never take power again, that all the trends are against them.
It's true, the trends are against Democrats right now, and that's a wonderful thing.
That's a good thing.
Population movement from north to south, from blue states to red states, electoral votes that will follow, Democratic failures to find any sort of leadership class in the aftermath of the Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders octogenarian triumvirate.
However, politics changes quickly.
Things happen.
And there are warning signs on the horizon.
The biggest one is that President Trump's popularity is not, in fact, transferable to every single other Republican candidate.
You cannot just take President Trump, stamp him on a thing, and then hope that thing is going to be a winner.
That is not how it works.
Barack Obama tried the same thing.
It doesn't work that way either.
Every politician has to build their own coalition.
Every politician has to have their own group of people who follow them for their own personal reasons.
And so this bizarre idea that everyone in politics seems to have on right and left, Smear that over the bread of the normie politicians or any other politicians and it will taste exactly the same.
That is not the truth.
That is not how it works.
The reason I'm warning about this is because this is why President Trump's administration must be successful.
President Trump is doing very important work.
He's doing important work on everything from getting rid of DEI to completely restructuring education in the country to changing how we do spending and waste, fraud, and abuse.
On foreign policy, he's restoring a sense of American military power and deterrence.
He's actually doing peace through strength.
He's looking with fresh eyes at situations like the Middle East or the far...
These are very important things that President Trump is doing.
And that means no mistakes.
No mistakes should be the byword inside the Trump administration.
And the warning signs are there.
Pretending they're not is simply whistling past the graveyard.
I know that Republicans, listen, we're all very happy and want to tell ourselves that President Trump won an extraordinarily broad-ranging victory in his race against Kamala Harris.
The truth is...
That that election result was actually far closer than people would like to acknowledge.
And the reason I'm saying this is not as a rip on President Trump by any measure.
It's because a narrow win means that a few votes shift and suddenly things are different.
And that could happen.
And pretending that it can't happen is a fool's errand.
I mean, in the end, President Trump won 77.3 million votes.
And Kamala Harris, a horrendous candidate running on the back of a dead candidate, won 75 million votes.
President Trump won 49.8% of the vote and Kamala Harris won 48.3% of the vote.
That is a solid electoral victory.
It is not by any stretch of the imagination a giant blowout, which is why I'm saying Republicans need to be careful.
And you're starting to see some early indicators of the fact that a Democratic electorate could revive itself.
One of those sort of warning signs came courtesy of this special election shocker in Pennsylvania, in Lancaster County.
Democrats, of course, are suggesting that this is a reaction to President Trump.
Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania said, Special election races, it's very hard to generalize from those races because they tend to have lower turnout.
And so what you get is opposition turning out at a higher rate and the kind of home party turning out at a lower rate, believing that there's not going to be any sort of competitive election.
But, as the Wall Street Journal points out, Republicans might want to take this surprise loss in MAGA country as a warning.
And that is not wrong.
That is not wrong.
That's also true because yesterday, Elise Stefanik, President Trump's excellent nominee, For the UN Ambassador Post, her nomination was withdrawn by President Trump, not because he doesn't like Elise Stefanik.
He thinks that she's terrific.
The reason he is doing that is because the margin in the Congress of the United States is simply too narrow.
President Trump had made a bunch of moves to take representatives from particular districts and put them in his cabinet.
That includes the National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz.
That was going to include Elise Stefanik.
There were three or four different Congress people who'd been pulled into the administration.
Leaving their districts open for an election.
And President Trump is basically signaling here that the House of Representatives is on a knife's edge and you can't pull good congresspeople from their districts to serve in other aspects of the executive branch for fear that you might lose the district.
Speaker Johnson put out a statement saying he would immediately invite Elise Stefanik to return to the leadership table immediately.
Quote, it's well-known Republicans have a razor-thin House majority.
Elise's agreement to withdraw her nomination will allow us to keep one of the toughest, most resolute members of our conference in place to help drive forward President Trump's America First policies.
Please.
And again, this is being openly acknowledged.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, he said that Stefanik's withdrawal was just a result of the political realities they're grappling with in the House right now.
Every vote counts.
For this, you can thank some Congress people like Thomas Massey of Kentucky, whose reliable no vote on every contentious vote in the House of Representatives, meaning that the majority shrinks by one every single time.
But you can also point out, That there is concern in other districts that there really should not be concern about.
So, for example, Florida's 6th Congressional District, which is Mike Waltz's old seat, that is now a special election seat, and it's really competitive.
Democrats are pouring money into that particular race.
That race is far too close.
Right now, Randy Fiennes, it's Randy Fine who's running for that seat.
Fine has been a state senator in Florida for a while.
President Trump, has phoned in teletown halls in a district that he won by 30 points.
This should not be a competitive district.
Democrats are pouring money in.
Josh Weil, who is Fein's Democratic opponent, has raised $10 million for his campaign.
Meanwhile, a super PAC tied to Elon is getting involved by spending 20 grand to support both Fein and a guy named Jimmy Patronis, who is the Florida chief financial officer.
The seat again is vacant because Mike Walls is now the national security advisor.
One poll from St. Pete Poll suggests the race is within the margin of error despite the fact that Trump won that race by 30 points.
Now again, I expect that Republicans will hold the seat.
I do not think that Republicans are going to lose that seat.
The fact that it's even competitive signals that any sort of sort of overweening confidence that Republicans have is misguided.
You got to act like every possession matters.
You can't act like you're up 30 points when you're up 2 and there's a couple minutes left in the ballgame.
You can't do that.
This is the reason that I think that what President Trump is doing with tariffs right now could be a massive mistake.
Now again, I've said a thousand times, there are many good reasons to do tariffs.
You can do tariffs because you want to protect a national security-laden industry.
So there are certain parts that you need manufactured in the United States because in case of war, you don't want the supply chain broken and then you can't manufacture the parts in the United States.
So you need to have A subsidized domestic industry for those parts, for example.
That's a good reason to have a protective tariff around a particular industry.
You can use a tariff as a punishment for another country.
A country is doing something you don't like, so you use tariffs as a form of economic sanctions against that country.
That's another good reason.
You can use tariffs as a way of leveraging down other tariffs.
This is something that William McKinley famously attempted to do.
So President Trump likes to see himself in the mold of President William McKinley, of course, was president in the late 19th century.
McKinley's tariffs were designed in order to get other places to lower their tariffs.
He openly said so.
So, if that's the agenda, other countries have higher tariffs on us than we have on them.
And so the idea is that we are going to increase our tariffs as a lever to force them to lower their tariffs.
That's just a piece of leveraging.
I'm hopeful that President Trump is doing that.
However, it seems more and more like President Trump is not doing that.
Like he has an actual ideological predilection for tariffs.
The reason I say that...
It's because yesterday, President Trump announced 25% tariffs on all cars, quote, not made in the United States.
This is a massive tariff.
This is a very, very large and powerful tariff that President Trump is placing on the importation of automobiles.
And that's going to affect American companies because an enormous number of American cars from American companies are actually finished in Mexico or Canada before they're shipped down into the United States.
It's very difficult to tell what is even American-made anymore.
I remember when I was growing up, there's a big focus.
I'm buying American.
So my family always bought Ford, for example.
And I remember over time, that taboo sort of went away.
Why? Well, because it turns out that Honda was making like three quarters of its car in the United States.
And meanwhile, companies like Ford were making a bunch of their car abroad.
There are just too many parts in the car.
So how do you determine whether it's an American car or a not-American car?
A bunch of a Toyota is made in Georgia, for example.
Like this sort of stuff.
It's quite real.
But it's difficult to tell what parts of what car are actually made in America, and it's also difficult to do things like trust your internet service provider.
There's good reason not to.
Depending on where you live, internet service providers may be required to keep logs of your online activity.
In the United States, it's even worse.
ISPs can legally sell your browsing history.
So what can you do about it?
The solution is to get a VPN.
The one I use is ExpressVPN.
It's an app that reroutes my online traffic through encrypted servers, so my ISP can't access it.
Neither can data brokers or other third parties.
You also have to trust...
Your VPN.
Any reliable VPN receives data requests from law enforcement and government entities.
ExpressVPN received over 300 of these requests in the past year alone.
None of them resulted in any customer data being exposed.
You simply can't hand over what you don't have.
ExpressVPN does not keep any customer activity logged, thanks to specially engineered servers that run on volatile memory.
Nothing is ever saved to disk.
It's private by design.
I use ExpressVPN all the time on the road whenever I'm in an airport, whenever I'm in a hotel.
Public Wi-Fi means that my data could be exposed.
I don't want it.
To do that, so ExpressVPN is my choice.
It works on all your devices, phones, laptops, tablets.
It's really easy to use.
Tap one button and you're now connected.
So, if you want the VPN I trust to protect my online privacy, get ExpressVPN.
In fact, you can get four extra months of ExpressVPN for free with my special link.
Go to ExpressVPN.com slash Ben.
That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N.com slash Ben.
Get four extra months for free.
Also, news breaks.
All the time.
Having the flexibility to manage my time effectively is not a luxury.
It's essential for delivering the news people need to hear, which is why I appreciate tools that let me handle business tasks on my own schedule, not somebody else's.
Take Stamps.com.
It's revolutionized how you and your business can handle all mailing and shipping needs.
Whether you're sending out important documents, promotional materials, or packages, you can do it all right from your computer or phone any time of day or night.
No lines, no traffic, absolutely no waiting.
Plus, if you sell products online, Stamps.com seamlessly connects with every major marketplace and shopping cart.
Here's what makes it even better.
Stamps.com's Rate Advisor takes all the guesswork out of the shipping costs.
It automatically calculates the best shipping rates and shows you options you're not going to find anywhere else, including up to 88% off USPS and UPS services.
All you need is a computer and printer.
They'll even send you a free scale to get started.
Have more flexibility in your life with Stamps.com.
Sign up at Stamps.com.
Use code Shapiro for a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and free digital scale.
No long-term commitments, no contracts.
Just go to Stamps.com, code Shapiro.
That's Stamps.com, code Shapiro.
So, what are these tariffs designed to do?
Well, President Trump announced this tariff yesterday.
He said he would impose 25% tariffs on all cars not made in the United States.
He said there would be absolutely no tariff for cars that are built in the United States.
These tariffs are going to go into effect on April 2nd.
He said we start collecting April 3rd.
Trump White House aide Will Scharf said the new tariffs apply to foreign-made cars and light trucks.
These come in addition to duties that are already in place.
Scharf said that the tariffs will result in over $100 billion of new annual revenue to the United States.
Now, let's be clear.
When they say that these tariffs are going to result in new annual revenue to the United States government, they mean you are going to pay a higher price for your Hyundai, and the government is going to take a piece of that.
That's what they mean.
Because it's not just the companies pay tariffs.
They then increase their prices.
President Trump said there will be very strong policing on which parts of a car are hit with tariffs.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen quickly criticized the new U.S. tariffs and vowed the EU will continue to seek negotiated solutions while safeguarding its own economic interests.
Auto stocks fell in after-hours trading.
By the way, this includes major American motor vehicle companies.
On March 5th, President Trump gave three automakers, General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford Motor, a one-month exemption from his 25% tariffs.
Go away.
The only company that really is unaffected by this is apparently Tesla, which is manufactured almost wholly in the United States at this point.
The two companies, in fact, that are assembled most in the United States are Rivian, which is an electric car company that makes vehicles that are, in my opinion, too expensive, and Tesla, which, again, is a great car company.
But Tesla and Rivian represent a very small segment of the American car market.
Most people who are buying a car in the United States are not buying a Rivian or buying a Tesla.
For Ford, only 78% of Fords are assembled in the United States.
So that means that 22% of all Ford vehicles are going to hit with a 25% tax.
Honda, 64% are assembled in the United States.
As I said, foreign-owned car companies are still very often assembled in the United States or parts are manufactured in the United States, which is why this is also confusing.
Honda is 64% assembled in the United States.
Stellantis is an American company, 57%.
Subaru, 56%.
Nissan, 53%.
GM, an American car company, like a classic, 52%.
Toyota, 48%.
BMW, 48%.
Mercedes, 43%.
Mazda, 19%.
Volvo. Volvo hardest hit.
The problems with this are that when it comes to your price when you're buying a new vehicle, it is going to go up.
Period. End of story.
It will.
That is what tariffs are designed to do.
They are designed to make foreign imports more expensive, and that allows more room for domestic manufacturers to increase their own prices.
45% of all U.S.
sold vehicles are imported, with the largest percentage coming from Mexico and Canada.
Yeah.
So, what exactly is the purpose of this?
Well, some of it is surely a payoff to some of the auto workers unions who supported President Trump.
UAW President Sean Fain said he's ecstatic.
I'm sure he is.
Because this is an artificial subsidy to his union.
We are ecstatic to see an administration finally address the unfair trade laws in this country.
These laws have destroyed the American working class.
They've destroyed communities in this country and virtually every state for decades.
Okay, so this idea, by the way, that American car companies have suffered because of foreign competition, the real reason that American car companies have suffered, historically speaking, is because of...
Extraordinarily overpaid union contracts.
That is the actual reason.
The UAW is the reason why American cars for decades were uncompetitive with foreign competitors.
So there's a payoff to the UAW.
Sean Fain actually spoke at the DNC, but then was sort of like half warm toward president.
So maybe it's a payoff to the unions.
Caroline Lovett said this is a big deal for auto workers and the nation.
Again, this is a subsidy for one segment of the economy at the expense of the rest of the American economy.
I do not think that this is going to pay off well in the markets.
The reason I'm critical of this is not just because I think it's bad policy, I do, but also because if the economy goes down, if President Trump experiences a significant market correction, it is going to impact the rest of his agenda.
Here's the White House Press Secretary Caroline Lovett celebrating the 25% tariffs.
And I would just like to emphasize these auto tariffs yesterday are a big deal for auto workers in the industry.
And you saw the United Auto Workers Union, Sean Fain, who wasn't the greatest fan of the president on the campaign trail, came out this morning and applauded the president for this move, saying it's a great thing for auto workers who have been sold out by unfair trade practices.
So the president is determined to rebuild our manufacturing base.
We want more jobs, more products made right here in the United States, which means...
More money in the pockets of the American people at the end of the day.
Okay, that last part, more products made in the United States, means more money in the pocket of the American people.
Actually, autarky does not necessarily mean more money in the pocket of the American people.
You can manufacture literally everything on Earth in the United States if you are willing to radically increase the price on consumers.
So it's a thing that sounds good in theory and doesn't actually work particularly well in practice, and you're going to see the stock market react to this if President Trump continues to stick with it.
One of the things that President Trump is doing with the tariffs is he's actually now doing a thing I remember from the Obama administration.
He's calling business people on the carpet and he's telling them they can't do the thing that is the natural economic consequence of the thing that he is doing.
So back during the Obama administration, when Obamacare first broke and he brought in all the health insurers and he said, you're not allowed to raise prices.
And if you raise prices because you're bad and you're mean and you're terrible and all the health insurers went, well, hold up a second.
You just increased our cost structure.
Of course we have to raise prices.
What are you even talking about?
And Democrats were screaming to the heavens because businesses were raising their price based on their increased health care costs, for example.
And then they're saying, well, that's unpatriotic.
Joe Biden, who was the vice president at the time, actually said that.
It was ridiculous on its face.
When you force people to pay more money for things, they are going to raise their prices on the things that they produce.
Well, President Trump is doing that now, apparently, with regard to some of these car companies.
According to the Wall Street Journal, when President Trump convened CEOs of some of the country's top automakers for a call earlier this month, he issued a warning.
They better not raise car prices because of tariffs.
He said that the White House would look unfavorably on such a move, leaving some of them rattled and worried they would face punishment if they increased prices.
Well, I'm sorry, but that is how economics works.
That is how economics works.
This bizarre notion that you can radically increase the cost structure for State Stellantis and they're not going to increase their prices.
What do you expect them to do?
Go bankrupt?
I understand that President Trump did something amazing by getting rid of the electric vehicle mandate.
I totally agree with that.
I think it's great.
But the laws of the economy do not randomly shape themselves around the whim of any president.
Meanwhile, this tariff program is actually propping up in Canada, which is a country that we are largely targeting, the worst person in Canadian politics right now, who's the current Prime Minister, Mark Carney.
So Justin Trudeau, handsome Bernie Sanders, he is gone.
He was replaced by Mark Carney, who is a Green New Deal type, a net zero type, and a person who's totally fine with reorienting trade away from the United States and toward China, which is the predictable result of tariff wars between the United States and Canada.
Canada will start reorienting its economy toward China, which is precisely the opposite of the result, I think, that the Trump administration reorienting.
When there was no trade war, when President Trump had just won, what we saw in the Canadian polling was that Pierre Polyev He was the head of the Canadian Conservative Party, was destroying the Liberal Party, just destroying it.
This is why Justin Trudeau had to step out.
He stepped out because he had basically become dead man walking, politically speaking.
There was no shot that he was going to be the next Prime Minister of Canada.
He replaced himself with Mark Carney.
The Liberal Party put Mark Carney in place.
And simultaneously, the talks about the tariff war and the trade war broke out.
And Pierre Polyev started to slide.
And the reason he started to slide is because Mark Carney and the Liberal Party accused the Conservative Party of being in cahoots.
With President Trump on all of this, while President Trump was making jokes or perhaps half-serious remarks about Canada becoming the 51st state in territorial contiguity and all the rest of it, while that was happening, Mark Carney was gaining in the polls.
Right now, Mark Carney has called a snap election that is set to take place in about one month.
In that snap election, he is now running dead even with the Conservative Party and gaining momentum.
So he is perfectly happy to increase the trade war.
He wants the trade war.
Number one, he's fine with a bigger relationship with China.
Number two, he hates President Trump and is perfectly fine with using his opposition to Trump to jack his poll ratings up in Canada.
None of this is salutary for the United States.
We'd be much better off with Pierre Polyev as the Prime Minister of Canada, a significantly friendlier government, a government that will be tougher on immigration, tougher on fentanyl, better on economics, better on social policy.
Mark Carney is the happiest man in the world that this trade war is happening right now.
The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation is over.
What exactly the United States does next is unclear.
But what is clear?
What is clear?
Is that we, as Canadians, have agency.
We have power.
We are masters in our own home.
Okay, so he is super excited about this.
So the worst people in Canadian politics are really excited about this.
That should be a bad sign.
And meanwhile, again, right now, Americans are giving President Trump the benefit of the doubt, as they should.
He's doing a lot of great things, which we'll get to in a moment, particularly with regard to Doge.
However, this is having an impact on President Trump's approval ratings, particularly on the economy.
And as I've said before, The way that people's relationship with politicians works in terms of public approval rating is sort of like a marriage.
If the marriage is good, it's people doing little things for each other.
It's people with a shared sense of values that carries out over time.
If things go bad, typically there are a bunch of things that are small and that eat away at the back of your mind that are bad.
And then suddenly the bottom goes out.
And right now, if the bottom goes out on the economy, it will take the rest of President Trump's agenda with it.
CNN's Harry Enten was analyzing the polls with regard to the economy, and they are not where they should be for President Trump.
They want him prioritizing inflation.
They don't want him prioritizing tariffs.
Yet that is exactly what he is doing.
So on this particular issue, Donald Trump is simply put not with the American public.
They oppose the tariffs, and yet they believe Donald Trump is going ahead with them.
And that is a big reason why we've seen Donald Trump's overall approval rating take a pretty big dip.
Okay, so, again, President Trump is still riding pretty high, but all of that is predicated on no serious economic downturn.
And there's no reason for this, because the rest of Trump's agenda is highly popular with the American people.
So yesterday, there was a fantastic interview on Fox News between Brett Baier and the Doge team.
It was really tremendous.
And it was particularly tremendous because the left is absolutely bewildered by the fact that they've created all these obstacles To efficacy, both in the governmental sphere and in the private sphere.
On that note, yesterday, Ezra Klein, who has a brand new book out called Abundance with Derek Thompson of The Atlantic, he went on Jon Stewart's show.
Here is Jon Stewart with Ezra Klein, Ezra Klein explaining all the steps that you need to go through in order to achieve a grant or a contract under Build Back Better.
This clip is cut down because this isn't remotely the actual full process.
We have to issue the notice of funding opportunity within 180 days.
That's step one.
Step two is states who want to participate must submit a letter of intent.
Step three, they can request up to $5 million in planning grants.
Just planning.
Just planning.
Step four, the requests are reviewed, approved, and awarded by the NDIA.
Three years later, all 56 applicants had passed through at least step five.
States must submit a five-year action plan.
Then the FCC must publish the broadband data maps before NTIA allocates funds.
So then the NTIA, step seven, has to use the FCC maps to make allocation decisions.
It's hard even to talk about this, man.
Step eight is states must submit an initial proposal.
What the f*** did they apply for?
Step nine, NTIA must review and approve each state's, again, initial proposal.
Step 10. States must publish their own map and allow internal challenges to their own map.
This is the Biden administration's process for its own bill.
They wanted this to happen.
This is how liberal government works now.
This is a bill passed by Democrats with a regulatory structure written by Democratic administration.
Okay. Step 11. The NTIA must review and improve...
The challenge results and the final map.
Step 12. States must run a competitive sub-granting process.
Oh my god!
At step 12, after all this has been done.
Step 13. States must submit a final proposal.
All the proposals weren't enough to NTIA.
So we've gone in the last couple steps from 56 had gone to this point to 3 of 56. Step 14. The NTIA must review and approve the state's final proposal.
And that is three of the 56 jurisdictions and states are there.
In summary, colon, states are nearly at the finish line.
And it says to stop their progress now, or worse, to make them go backwards, would be a stick in the spokes of the most promising broadband deployment plans we have ever seen.
End of scene.
I'm speechless.
Why are you shocked?
Why are you speechless?
You built it.
This is the thing you wanted.
You wanted a government that was so large and intrusive and also ridden with bureaucratic corruption.
This is what you wanted.
Please name all of the steps you wish were removed from that process and who would be damaged from them, please.
That's exactly what Elon's team is trying to do.
They're trying to go through these regulatory structures, through these spending structures.
You want to know why that's popular?
The reason it's popular is because of all the things Ezra Klein just said.
It's hilarious to watch some of these people discover conservatism in real time.
Oh, you mean the giant bureaucratic snafu that you have created that spends $7 trillion a year is bad at things and takes too much money and time?
That's unbelievable.
By the way, this is the reason why Democrats are constantly attempting to declare wars on things because once they've declared a war on poverty or a war on housing shortages, then they can cut out all of the steps and simply ram down what they want to do, which is the thing they really wish they could do.
But it turns out that in a democratic polity, there are a lot of people who have their piece of the game and they want to know what's going on.
So when we are talking here about the wild growth in government that apparently Jon Stewart and Ezra Klein are lamenting, let's be real about this.
The left was responsible for this.
I asked our friends at Perplexity, which of course is the sponsor of the show, how much of both the number and complexity of federal regulations increased from, say, 1950 to 2025.
And here's Perplexity's answer.
In 1950, the Code of Federal Regulations contained approximately 9,562 pages.
By 2020, the Code of Federal Regulations had grown to 87,000.
351 pages.
That is almost a tenfold increase.
The number of restrictive words, meaning words that restrict action, in the Code of Federal Regulations grew from about 400,000 in 1970 to over 1 million by the late 2010s.
As far as complexity, in 1970, it would have taken just under a year for a person to read all the federal regulations assuming that they read 250 words per minute, 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year.
By 2016, It would have required three years, 177 days, and 10 hours to read through all the federal regulations.
The total word count of the Code of Federal Regulations increased from 35.4 million words in 1970 to 104.6 million words in 2016.
This means complexity, regulatory incomprehensibility, and all the sort of stuff that you're seeing Jon Stewart lament.
But who do you think did it, guys?
Obviously, Jon Stewart, Ezra Klein, it's taking them a while to get with it, but here is the reality.
If you're an elite, or if you wish to be elite, then you need an edge.
If you ever wonder what gives elite athletes, business moguls, high performers their edge, many are turning to Armra Colostrum.
This remarkable superfood is nature's original whole food supplement, containing over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at cellular level.
Armra helps build lean muscles, speeds up recovery time, and enhances overall performance without relying on artificial stimulants or synthetic ingredients.
Whether you're running a company, pushing your limits in training, or simply looking for a natural advantage in your daily life, Armra Colostrum optimizes your body's systems for peak performance and sustained energy.
Research has demonstrated Colostrum does more than just strength and performance.
It enhances your body's ability to absorb.
It works at cellular level to accelerate repair and regeneration, helping it bounce back faster after intense physical exertion.
Armra colostrum can also support your microbiome and balance and strengthen immune defenses throughout the body.
It doesn't want a stronger immune system, right?
Well, we've worked out a special offer for my audience.
Receive 15% off your very first order.
Go to tryarmra.com slash Shapiro or enter Shapiro.
Get 15% off your first order.
That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Shapiro.
Also, securing your family's future.
Pretty important.
As someone who always advocates for smart financial planning, I can tell you having the right life insurance coverage is not just about peace of mind.
It's about giving your family options if the unexpected occurs.
Which is why I want to tell you about Policy Genius.
They're not an insurance company themselves.
They are the country's leading online insurance marketplace.
They let you compare quotes from America's top insurers side by side completely free with absolutely no hidden fees.
Their platform uses real licensed insurance experts who work for you, not the insurance companies, so you can find the best fit for your family.
With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies starting at just $292 per year for a million dollars in coverage.
Some options are 100% online and let you avoid unnecessary medical exams.
The process is fast and simple.
Their licensed support team handles everything.
Answering your questions, managing paperwork, advocating for you throughout the entire process.
You don't have to take my word for it.
Thousands of satisfied customers have left five-star reviews on Google and Trustpilot.
No matter what stage of life you're in, Policy Genius helps you find the perfect coverage for your specific situation.
Secure your families tomorrow so you have peace of mind today.
Head over to policygenius.com slash Shapiro or click the link in the description to get your free life insurance quotes.
See how much you could save.
That's policygenius.com slash Shapiro.
In any case, this is why Doge is inherently popular.
And I wish that the Doge team...
Had done this interview with Brett Baer that they did last night, a little bit earlier, but it was really good.
So, last night, as I mentioned, Doge team sat with Brett Baer.
Tyler Hassan, who's a member of the Doge team, he was talking about the Interior Department and the fact that there was basically zero oversight of spending initiatives at the Interior Department during Biden.
Well, Elon and Steve kind of stole my thunder a little bit, but I actually found that customer service survey contract.
I actually have an example of one right here.
I could have done this in high school.
I found it on the weekends because under the Biden administration, there was no departmental oversight within the Department of Interior whatsoever.
None. We are now reviewing every single contract, every single grant, and when things come to my attention that don't make sense, I'm bringing them to Secretary Burgum, and he's been fantastic.
He's a businessman.
He's very supportive of Doge.
It's been wonderful to work with him.
And here is Elon Musk explaining that the federal government has spent a billion dollars on a survey that would cost 10 grand on SurveyMonkey.
For you, what's the most astonishing thing you've found out in this process?
The sheer amount of waste and fraud in the government.
It is astonishing.
It's mind-blowing.
We routinely encounter wastes of a billion dollars or more.
Casually. You know, for example, the simple survey that was literally a 10-question survey that you could do with survey monkey, it cost you about $10,000, the government was being charged almost a billion dollars for that.
For just the survey?
A billion dollars for a simple online survey.
Okay, again, all of this is stuff that, when Americans see it, they resonate to it.
Musk was joined by the Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia, who's working with Doge.
To digitize the government's antiquated retirement process.
You remember that crazy story a few weeks ago where it turns out that the government retirement process is run from like a salt mine.
It's run from a cave with like actual physical files that have to go up and down an elevator.
Here was Joe Gebbia talking about modernizing that.
I bumped into Anthony and Elon probably back in February and they told me something about a mine that was dealt with retirement and they said they needed somebody to help out to fix retirement in the government.
I love the challenge, so I jumped on board.
And it turns out there is actually a mine in Pennsylvania that houses every paper document for the retirement process in the government.
Now picture this.
This giant cave has 22,000 filing cabinets, stacked 10 high to house 400 million pieces of paper.
It's a process that started in the 1950s and largely hasn't changed in the last 70 years.
And so, as you dug into it, we found retirement cases that had so much paper, they had to fit it on a shipping pallet.
So, the process takes many months, and we're going to make it just many days.
Will it be digitized?
Absolutely. So, this will be an online digital process that will take just a few days at most.
And I really think, you know, it's an injustice to civil servants who are subjected to these processes that are older than the age of half the people watching your show tonight.
So, we really believe that the government can have an Apple Store-like experience.
Beautifully designed, great user experience, modern systems.
Okay, now, remember, these are the people you were told were going in with a chainsaw and it was a bunch of 18-year-old kids named Big Balls who are actually just willy-nilly chopping people out of the government.
Is that what it sounds like to you?
Right there?
This is the stuff I want the Trump administration focusing on because when you see this interview, you think, this is great.
This is fantastic.
You know what I really don't want to be focused on?
I really don't want to be focused on increases in car prices because we have to make a payoff to the UAW or because there is a misbegotten notion that tariffs themselves are enriching to the United States.
Again, if you want to argue that tariffs were necessary in 1870 when, you know, we had no income tax, then sure, you can make that case.
But if you think that the levels of international trade today are anything remotely like the levels of international trade in 1870, or that the world is remotely as competitive today as the world was in 1870, that there is an apples to oranges comparison, the tariff wars are unlikely to be easily won or to be wildly productive for the Trump administration.
Now, the thing I know about President Trump more than anything else, I've said this before, is that President Trump knows what a bad headline looks like if the Dow Jones Industrial Average tanks I have faith he will do that.
The problem, of course, is that...
Uncertainty in markets is its own form of threat.
Predictability in markets is what you're looking for.
Again, as somebody who invests a lot of money, as somebody who knows many main investors, big investors, market makers, and all the rest, what they are looking for is a predictable understanding of what the economic environment looks like on a day-to-day level when they put their money in the markets.
And if not, when they see uncertainty, they tend to withdraw their money and wait with their dry powder for the prices to go down.
That is the thing.
That I think President Trump needs to watch out for.
Again, I think that if things do go the wrong way, I think he's going to shift and he's going to move.
And I'm hoping that what these tariffs really are about are, again, prying some sort of serious concession out of Canada on immigration or on fentanyl.
Maybe that's a thing that can happen.
What this administration and what the country cannot afford is a serious economic downturn, not just because of the economic damage, but because the reaction to an economic downturn will be to swivel into hard left economic progressivism that truly will cripple the American economy for a generation.
I mean, these are very serious things that we are talking about in both the short, mid, and long term.
Meanwhile, the fallout supposedly continues from Signalgate, that of course is the gigantic scandal in which a bunch of members of the Trump national security team accidentally included a journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, in their group chat.
Democrats are seeking a head on a pike.
They, of course, would love to be able to say that President Trump surrendered to them and they got ahead and all the rest of this sort of stuff.
Trump is very unlikely to grant that to them, as well he should be.
It's very silly of him to fire a well-regarded and smart national security official because of a screw-up on who was included in the Signal Chat, seriously.
That's what we are talking about right here.
And as we've mentioned before, if the standard is mishandling of classified information on sort of just a raw level, Pretty much every major official of the last 20 years would be out, ridden out of town on a rail.
I mean, that's the reality.
That's not what this is about.
Caroline Lovett says President Trump's perspective on this is clear.
Mike Waltz has taken responsibility.
Pete Hegseth has done nothing wrong.
He's fine.
This, I think, is the right attitude.
Well, we have never denied that this was a mistake, and the National Security Advisor took responsibility for that.
And we have said we are making changes.
We are looking into the matter to ensure it can never happen again.
But, of course, the President has put together a team.
Look at the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, who was voted in by the United States Senate, putting our warfighters first, making the world a safer place for the American people and for all people, and we're going to stay focused on that.
That, of course, I think is the right attitude.
Democrats are trying to ride this thing to electoral victory.
I don't think that's going to work.
The House Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, is suggesting that Pete Hegseth needs to be fired because Pete Hegseth shared all of these updates about what was going on in the strike on Yemen in the Signal chat and Jeffrey Goldberg was in the chat.
So somehow this is Pete Hegseth's fault.
We're in the middle of a fight right now as it relates to Pete Hegseth.
He needs to resign or be fired by Donald Trump.
We've made that clear across the caucus.
And Democrats, I think, showed fight in the Senate hearing on Tuesday and in the House hearing on Wednesday.
So, again, good luck with this.
I don't think that Americans deeply care about this.
And again, that's what the polling data tends to show.
So Americans say that they think that it's a problem.
But when asked if they believe that something criminal happened, then the answer actually is overall no.
So, there's the YouGov poll that came out yesterday.
Did Trump administration members break the law by sharing military plans with a journalist in an unclassified chat app?
All U.S. adults, 48% say broke the law, which means 52% say not sure or did not break the law.
So only a minority of Americans actually believe that somebody broke the law in this particular case.
As far as whether Americans believe that this is a huge deal or not enough of a big deal, basically only 37% of Americans believe that the media are not making a big enough deal about it.
22% say making too big a deal.
17% say just about right.
23% say not sure.
So only a little over a third of Americans actually believe that the media need to be playing this up, that we need more about all of this.
Bottom line, is any of this going to wear?
I really do not think so.
I think that this has already played itself out.
And again, Democrats exaggerating the risk here is pretty ridiculous.
They literally presided over the collapse of Afghanistan and didn't seem to have any problem with that at all.
Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, he said only by the grace of God were there no casualties.
Well, I mean, it's not by the grace of God.
They included an American journalist accidentally in the chat.
It wasn't like they were going to include the leader of the Houthis.
Only by good luck.
And the grace of a higher power, are we not undertaking an after-action report on pilots downed and killed?
Remember, the Houthis have highly sophisticated, lethal, Iran-supplied air defense missiles that can bring down the type of aircraft that were used.
They had every reason to know when those planes would be over targets because they can calculate where they were coming from on aircraft carriers and how long it would take them to get there.
So this information posed a clear and present danger to those pilots and other men and women in New York.
Yeah, except that we eviscerated the Houthis, which is something that Joe Biden really never did.
Meanwhile, Democrats continue to caterwaul over deportations of people who are sympathetic to terrorism, who are here on student visas.
So, the Trump administration...
is going after people who violate their visa requirements basically by lawing to get in.
They say that they're not going to be activists on behalf of terrorism and then they're activists on behalf of terrorism, for example.
One of the people who has now been detained is a Tufts University PhD student whose name is Rumaysa Ozturk.
According to CNN, which of course is biased against the Trump administration, they say that she was on her way to meet friends at an iftar dinner where they would break their Ramadan fast, but instead she was arrested and physically restrained by immigration officers near her apartment.
She's one of several foreign nationals affiliated with American universities to be arrested for purported activities related to terrorist organizations amid the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.
A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said that Ostrich engaged in activities in support of Hamas.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio explained what the standards are for why your visa will be removed and you will be deported.
If you go apply for a visa right now anywhere in the world, let me just send this message out.
If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, We're not going to give you a visa.
If you lie to us and get a visa and then enter the United States and with that visa participate in that sort of activity, we're going to take away your visa.
So this all makes perfect sense.
With that said, the Trump administration should be trotting out.
The entire litany of things that these people do when their visas are removed.
Because otherwise it is going to leave the impression that if you say the wrong thing, not if you're associated with terrorists or even if you stand for Hamas, but you just say the wrong thing in some way that you will be deported.
Now again, I think that we don't have to take anybody in this country we don't want to take into this country.
And so if you express support for a terrorist organization, you shouldn't have been granted a visa in the first place, which is the point that Rubio is making.
But the administration should make very clear on what grounds they are doing this.
Because the sort of countervailing argument is that anybody who comes in at any time could have their visa revoked if they violate the sort of taboos set by any administration, Democrat or Republican.
And so I think that it would behoove the Trump administration to be very, very clear about why each person they are detaining and deporting is being detained and deport, what kind of activity they were engaged in in support of a terrorist group or a terrorist agenda and all the like.
Because otherwise there is going to be a justified free speech backlash that says, well, you're only detaining people because of the things that they are saying that really have nothing to do.
I don't think that's what the Trump administration is doing, by the way.
I do think that they should be very clear about why they are doing what they are doing in each particular case.
Otherwise, it just makes for easy headlines for people who oppose the Trump administration agenda.
Okay, in the stupid news of the day, I do have to bring you the stupid news of the day.
The UK is now finally cracking down on the thing that matters most, ninja swords.
Not even kidding.
According to Sky News, a law banning ninja swords is set to come into force by summer after a relentless campaign by the family of a murdered teenager.
So there was a 16-year-old who was stabbed to death tragically with ninja swords yards from his home in 2022.
So there is a law, it is called Ronan's Law, not Ronan's Law, a series of anti-knife crime measures that make it illegal to possess, sell, make, or import ninja swords beginning August 1st.
This led Keir Starmer The ridiculous Prime Minister of Great Britain to announce his magical ban, celebrating the magic of getting rid of ninja swords.
So I assume this will just lead to a massive upsurge in nunchuck crime in Great Britain.
Because it turns out that when people want to commit crimes, typically they are fully capable of committing crimes.
Like Katana's ban?
What do you do here?
It's just hands are banned.
People do strangulation and assault with them.
No more hands in Great Britain.
This is one of the reasons why the revolution was a very, very good idea in 1776.
Well, joining me on the line is Michael Knowles, host of the Michael Knowles Show.
And I will say that, obviously, for folks who have listened to my show for a long time, they know that I don't not enjoy making Michael Knowles suffer.
And so we made him suffer this week.
He went to see the brand new Snow White movie.
Yeah, the double negative.
The vaunted double negative.
Michael went to see the Snow White movie.
And Michael.
I have to get your take on the horrors and the sufferings that you experienced on a personal level.
Well, the primary suffering is being sent in by my company.
To watch a children's movie as a single man, like 2pm on a Thursday.
That was the first part that was a little bit weird.
But I was basically the only person in the theater.
Very few people wanted to see this.
Even the little kids who like Disney movies.
Even they don't seem to be turning up in droves for the movie.
Because the movie is really, really bad.
And Ben, you know.
You and I have gone back and forth.
You're very harsh on a lot of movies.
I tend to see some redeeming features.
I liked the Barbie movie.
I like Reddy Gerwig generally.
I like movies that conservatives often don't like and liberals do like.
And so I've got some bona fides here on being fair.
The movie was absolutely terrible.
It's not the single worst movie I've ever seen, but in every way that the movie differed from the beloved 1937 original, it was worse.
The way I would describe it is, you know how right now on social media...
Everyone is turning every image ever produced into a Ghibli-style Japanese anime picture.
Basically, this movie was like you took the original Snow White and just put everything through this filter.
Of liberalism.
It wasn't through a filter of Japanese anime.
It was through a filter of liberalism.
So from the casting to the class politics, the sexual politics, the regime politics, everything about it was liberal.
The most obvious difference being, and I don't know if we're allowed, can we point out that Snow White is generally understood to be a very, very white person.
And in this case, they decided, nope, no, that doesn't make any sense.
You know, I don't think that's...
We're allowed to say that, right?
I was referring to the movie as Sandbeige, and it was so noticeable off the top, but it's no really knock on her.
If you did the autobiography of Malcolm X, would you cast Tom Hanks?
If you remade Moana, would you cast a little Irish guy?
No, you wouldn't.
So that was off the top.
And then from there, the sexual politics, the regime politics, the class politics, it all was just bad.
No, I mean, I think to start with that first point.
It is not racist to suggest that a character who is described in the original as skin white as snow, that is literally how the character is described in the original, that's a character description in the same way that, as you mentioned, in Moana, presumably the character is supposed to be Hawaiian in some way, and it would be bizarre to recast that.
In Mulan, if you cast a white lady, this is very weird that Mulan is white considering that we are now in feudal China.
This is sort of strange.
And so this bizarre fixation.
With race-shifting everything, but only in one direction by Disney, obviously is quite strange.
That is the least of the concerns, though.
I want to get to the sexual politics of it, because obviously this is a big thing for Rachel Zegler, the star of the film.
It was a big thing for all the left-wingers who made the movie.
We have this clip that I want to play for you of Rachel Zegler talking about the love story in Snow White and how it has changed.
There was Rachel Zegler talking about this.
The original cartoon came out in 1937, and very evidently so.
There's a big focus on her love story.
With a guy who literally stalks her.
Yeah. Weird.
Weird. Super weird.
So we didn't do that this time.
So no prince or a different kind of prince?
We have a different approach to what I'm sure a lot of people will assume is a love story just because we cast a guy in the movie, Andrew Burnham.
Great dude.
It's one of those things that I think everyone's going to have their assumptions about what it's actually going to be, but it's really not about the love story at all, which is really, really wonderful.
And whether or not she finds love along the way is anybody's guess until 2024.
All of Andrew's scenes could get cut.
Who knows?
It's Hollywood, baby.
We...
Michael, your take.
Sorry, she renders me almost speechless.
She's right.
There are spoiler alerts here if you intend to see the movie, which most likely 100% of your audience does not.
They replace the prince with a common criminal.
So there is a prince-like figure, but he's no longer a prince.
He's a criminal.
And I think this plays first into the class politics of the left, which hates even the very idea of aristocracy or nobility.
Then on the sexual politics front, she's right.
They clearly want to diminish the love story, I think after the backlash.
From those comments a year and a half ago, whenever they were, they did beef up the love story a little bit.
But nevertheless, he plays an ancillary role.
And you see this in the fuller scope of the sexual politics.
One of the most annoying contrivances of Hollywood in the last 10 years is the notion that a woman can physically beat up a man.
You saw it in Star Wars.
You see it in practically every movie out of Hollywood.
And they go for that.
You know, this little girl is physically beating up men with crawlers.
Cospos in armor.
It's totally preposterous.
Then the common criminal comes in.
He does sort of win her heart.
They team up together.
And this leads you, beyond the class politics, even to just the regime politics.
In the original fairy tale, going back to the 19th century and then up through the 1937 movie, it's about a kingdom.
You know, she's a princess.
Her father is a king.
She's inheriting a kingdom.
Here, they've kept the minimum amount of kingliness that you possibly can to maintain the story, but they've replaced all of those elements with lowercase d democratic elements.
So the way that she wins over the kingdom is not by taking her...
her rightful throne.
It's by flattering the guards who are trying to kill her.
It's basically by being a good retail politician.
The fact that she can shake Kiss babies is how she does it.
The way that she defeats the queen is not through some deus ex machina as in the original movie, and it's not through any kind of orderly politics.
It's by effectively leading an insurrection of the mob of people to go in and push her out.
So, you know...
I know that this is reading a little deeply into a kid's movie, but obviously these choices were made for a reason.
Every deviation from the original story was done for a reason.
I guess what's so tedious about this movie is that every single deviation was in favor of liberalism and a radical kind of liberalism at that.
So it just takes a beloved movie and makes it much more boring and much less realistic.
Kind of like society on liberalism.
So, obviously, these changes were made deliberately.
Rachel Lindsay, the host of some podcast or another, she was talking about this movie when it was first being made.
She said it should never have been remade at all.
They should have just dumped the story.
The story is just, it's too dated.
Here's Rachel Lindsay talking about this.
Let's be honest.
This movie should have never been made.
Snow White, when it came out, was huge back in 1937.
But that movie has so many problems.
Where we were in 1937 versus 2025, more than the other Disney movies, this should have never been a movie to remake.
Because think about it.
She's so perfect because her skin is white as snow.
Right. One problem.
She goes and finds the dwarf's house.
She cooks.
She cleans the house.
And why does she get to stay?
Because she agrees to cook and clean for them.
Pull your weight.
Pull your weight.
For these seven men.
Yeah. Why couldn't she go mine with them?
Why couldn't she go hi-ho, hi-ho?
They didn't ask her to hi-ho.
They could have asked her to hi-ho.
Then, beauty was the defining factor of a woman.
Oh, that never happens, right?
Obviously, the depiction of the dwarfs.
Oh, oh.
She was this damsel in distress.
She had to be rescued by a man in order to go on and live this beautiful, happy life.
Only a man could save her.
The movie is problematic.
Certainly for the left.
There's no question.
She hit on a great point there that I actually...
It had escaped my memory, which is when Snow White stumbles upon the dwarves' house in the original, what does she do?
She sweeps the floor, she cleans, she cooks, and the dwarves really like this, and they all live together, and it's really nice.
The change in the new movie is...
She just decides to take a nap.
And if that is not the depiction of modern feminism, I don't know what is.
You don't have to contribute anything.
You're perfect just the way you are.
You're entitled to everything in the world.
You're going to be a girl boss.
She does become a girl boss in as much as when the dwarves wake her up.
She just bosses them around and tells them to clean the home.
And so you wonder, okay, well, why are these dwarves tolerating her?
I know she towers over them, but even at that stature, she's not going to go.
Pick minerals out of the mines, as this random podcaster suggests.
I mean, that is such an amazing point, because the reality is that if you watch the original Snow White, it is a story between her and the dwarves about her actually civilizing the men.
She comes in and she cleans the house, but there's a whole number about how they haven't taken a bath in like a year, and she's going to force them to go and bathe so that they can then come in the house and eat while she makes the dinner.
And this, by the way, is a trope in Hollywood films that stretches for a few decades, from the 30s to the 50s, where one of the ways that women affect men is by civilizing them, by requiring certain behavior of them.
The movie Seven Brides for Seven Brothers comes to mind here, but that is no longer something that we're allowed to talk about, which, of course, is ridiculous because men require civilization.
And women have to sacrifice, and so do men, in order for there to be a relationship between women and men, and for both of them to become better.
But the idea in feminism is that there's nothing wrong with anyone the way that they are, except for men who are naturally pigs, obviously.
Of course, when this podcaster lady, or Rachel Zegler for that matter, when they scoff at the notion that Snow White would need a man, what they're missing is that also...
Implicit in this story and in all of these great stories is that men need women.
Men don't need women in the same way that women need men.
Men and women do different things because men and women are different.
But this is part of that leveling impulse of liberalism that you're seeing.
On the sexual front, the racial front, the regime front, the class front, is this notion that we're all basically just indiscernible individuals.
There's no difference in physical strength between this criminal, this outlaw, and a damsel, you know, who was raised in a castle.
There's no difference, frankly, in stature between the dwarves and the tall people.
You know, it's all just kind of the same.
And so, this is why I say it makes it so tedious.
One, we know that it's not true.
So when we watch these scenes, we just don't believe them.
But two, it just takes away the spice of life.
There was a time when we said, vive la différence.
There was a time when the left at least pretended to believe that diversity is our strength.
But here you have just this bland homogeneity where I can't tell the difference between a prince and a criminal and a dwarf and a snow white princess.
success.
I mean, in the original, my grandmother saw the original in the theaters, obviously, and I remember she told us that...
When people watched it originally in 1937 in the theaters, it was an amazing experience because for most people, it was the first color movie.
And so, first of all, there was the visual of it.
But second of all, people had so connected emotionally with the character of Snow White that when she eats from the apple and she dies, people were literally weeping in the theater because they liked the character of Snow White so much.
It seems like it's difficult to imagine a situation in which anyone was weeping in the theater as Rachel Ziegler's character goes into a coma after eating an apple.
There were actually raucous rounds of applause in the theater.
Of course, I was the only person in the theater, so maybe that might explain it.
Probably in other theaters around the country.
Well, Michael Knowles, I appreciate you undertaking true sacrifice by going to the theater.
It sounds like you were one of the only ones there, just like Rachel Ziegler, as it turns out.
And we part with this video of Rachel Zegler alone in a theater watching herself.
Oh, no.
Bye. Bye.
One of the most unlikable humans.
That is sadder than when the original Snow White eats the apple.
Michael Knowles, they'll enjoy your show.
I'm sure I won't.
I'll catch you in a little bit.
See you later.
Alrighty, coming up.
There is a brand new book and it claims the Democrats actually had a plan to pull Joe Biden as early as 2023.
We'll get to that plus the mailbag in a moment.
Remember, you can only watch my responses to your questions and even ask those questions when you become a member.
Join Daily Wire Plus right now.
If you're not a member, now's the time.
When you become a member and use code SHAPIROCHECCA, you get two months free on all annual plans.
▲
Export Selection