All Episodes
Previous Next
May 7, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:54
Episode 4467: Media Continues To Lie About Trade Policy
Participants
Main voices
d
dave brat
17:04
d
dave walsh
05:25
Appearances
e
ej antoni
04:16
e
eric teetsel
04:23
Clips
j
jake tapper
00:08
s
steve bannon
00:15
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
unidentified
Trump keeps saying we're spending $200 billion a year to subsidize Canada.
But for fact's sake, that is not remotely true.
It's not even clear what he's talking about.
He might be talking about the trade deficit.
But last year, America's trade deficit with Canada in goods and services was only about $45 billion.
Even when you look at just the goods, the deficit was $63 billion.
But there is a bigger problem.
This is not a subsidy to begin with.
And I want you to think about this.
Think about this administration for a moment.
It is filled with the wealthiest group of businessmen we have ever seen in any modern White House.
Yet not a single one of them has explained to the president that when the richest country in the world, that's us, buys more stuff from other countries than they buy from us, it's not a subsidy.
We want and need the stuff that those other countries make.
We don't have the resources to make everything in America, or we've chosen not to.
Part of capitalism is American companies making choices about whether or not they would rather produce things here or import them from other countries.
Importing is not necessarily a bad thing.
A trade deficit is not necessarily a bad thing.
And the businessmen surrounding the president in this White House, they know that.
But they appear to have no interest in telling him.
Which leaves our economy in the hands of someone who apparently wants to isolate America as the rest of the world economy is moving on without us.
These cases involving the administration and immigration policy.
We keep hearing about due process applying to non-citizens.
Many people are asking why.
Can you explain this?
Absolutely.
Due process is guaranteed by the Constitution in two different places.
It was one of the foundational guarantees that the founders of this country insisted upon.
It was a key cause of the revolution.
It traces its roots all the way back to the Magna Carta in 1215.
And I say all that because these are not just words on a page.
This is one of the most foundational promises of a free and democratic society.
Snatched up off the street, imprisoned, deported without any trial, without any hearing, without a judge even taking a look to see if there are charges against us, to see if those charges are legitimate.
It is fundamentally anti-American to reject the premise of due process.
After the Civil War, one of the very first things that the Reconstruction Congress did was apply the guarantee of due process to the states so that everyone would be protected.
The states, the federal government, the president himself, every single government official in this country must respect every person's right to due process.
Not just every citizen, not just every lawful immigrant, but every person.
That's not me riffing.
Yeah, I'm kind of surprised to see that this completely unthought-out, sort of off-the-cuff tariff deal...
Hasn't resulted in China bending to American wheel.
Will, who could have predicted that?
Everyone.
Anyone who has ever studied economics, global economics, or China could have told you that.
So you have to wonder what the endgame is here, because it just has seemed to be so haphazard and random and just simply not strategically thought out.
I don't know what they thought was going to be the outcome.
Of this unforced error of just declaring a war on our closest trading partners and allies, it kind of beggars the imagination.
Have we ever seen our Constitution been tested in this way like this before?
I think only the Civil War could be a comparison to our current moment.
To see a president, and frankly also a Congress, abandon these basic premises of our Constitution.
You know, the framers really did not envision a president as corrupt and lawless as Trump entering office.
They constructed an office whose holder would not be able to wield so much power and push down so many checks and balances.
The United States Supreme Court took away a lot of the checks and balances on the president in decisions like the horrible immunity ruling from last summer.
And so we are left now with a president who feels, understandably, that he's empowered to push aside any constitutional restrictions that clash with his agenda.
He came in saying he wanted to do mass deportations, and the reality is you cannot do deportations at that scale without violating due process, the rights of both immigrants and citizens who will be We caught up in those raids.
I mean, we had ICE raids here in Washington, D.C. today, masked.
Agents bursting into restaurants attempting to arrest undocumented immigrants.
What if a citizen was there and was Hispanic and didn't have their passport on them and got snatched up and put on a plane that was sent to El Salvador?
Without due process, that person is gone possibly forever.
That's why the Supreme Court intervened recently to try to put some restraints on what Trump is doing here.
But the Supreme Court has not been a consistent protector of liberty under this administration yet.
And I really hope it wakes up to the threat that Trump poses.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
This is the primal scream of a dying regime.
unidentified
Pray for our enemies.
Because we're going medieval on these people.
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
I got a free shot at all these networks lying about the people.
unidentified
The people have had a belly full of it.
I know you don't like hearing that.
I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it.
It's going to happen.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼
And where do people like that go to share the big lie?
unidentified
MAGA Media.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼
I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience.
unidentified
Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose?
steve bannon ▲ ● ▼
If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved.
unidentified
War Room.
Here's your host, Stephen K. Mann.
War Room.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
All right, morning everyone.
Dave Brat sitting in with the great Stephen K. Bannon.
He's out on assignment today, so I got a thousand newspapers in front of me.
Yesterday was a little bit slower news day.
Today is absolutely huge.
I'll just start off with a few remarks.
Stephanie Ruel from MSNBC there.
The whole world is moving on without us.
The whole world is moving on without us.
I was in a room with 20 ambassadors last night who love the United States.
And are in trade talks with us.
They're not moving on without us.
They want us.
They want to be friends.
So she missed those 20. And I think she's wrong on a whole host of other countries that are moving our way.
But she's not alone.
MSNBC on the more liberal progressive side of things is in agreement with the Wall Street Journal, one of our favorite papers here at the War Room.
Tongue-in-cheek, Washington's trade war spurs other nations to make deals.
So here's the Wall Street Journal.
You'd think they would know their business and economics.
Here, let me read a couple lines.
The U.S. is backing away from free trade under President Trump, but much of the rest of the world is not.
Huh.
The U.S. is backing away from free trade with whom, dear Wall Street Journal?
With China, can you do free trade with a country that's a communist totalitarian surveillance state?
Wall Street Journal, I'd love to hear a response to this.
Are you serious that you can do, that we can do, the U.S. can do free trade with China?
Please just answer me, just that one, right?
And that's a good start.
The rest of the countries, the G20 people, you know, The Trump chart that came up that's kind of correlated with the size of the trade deficits is mirrored by exactly Bank of America with a similar chart.
Bank of America, World Bank, PricewaterhouseCoopers, I think.
All the G20 countries have 200 to 300 percent higher tariff and non-tariff barriers against us than we have on them.
Two to three times.
300 percent.
All of the G20 rich countries.
Tariffs against us.
Are they free trade?
We're backing away from free trade?
And now they're moving toward free trade?
They're lowering their tariff and non-tariff barriers?
And the Wall Street Journal, I mean, come on, guys.
This is just really bad.
Who wrote this thing?
Max Colchester and Kim McRiel.
Quote, the U.S. is acting as an accelerant to the lowering of tariffs by everyone else.
Later in the story.
I mean, economic theory, you know, when you do science, the theory is supposed to try to match the data or tell a story that matches the data.
And that's what theory is.
You guys are not shooting straight here.
And this, reporting by the Wall Street Journal, it seems similar in tone.
I hope you can tell when I'm joking.
No one can match the great Steve Bannon, and so I try to use humor as my source.
But the Wall Street Journal, let me shift over to another great newspaper that the Wall Street Journal seems to be mind-melting with is the China Daily, the China Daily paper.
China, China.
Their headline today, Tariff Barrage Hits Harder in Washington.
Washington's so-called reciprocal tariffs—this is China writing, by the way, right—are hurting the U.S. more than China.
I don't think so, because if you go out on YouTube right now, you're going to see riots and rebellions and marching in the streets of people who are not getting paid.
They're not getting their wages.
They're not getting their retirement benefits.
They're not getting paid.
Their jobs have laid them off.
They're moving on to other people.
In China, what they do to solve that problem is they arrest the employer.
That's a novel idea.
So all the people concerned about civil liberties and justice in the news clips you just saw, you might want to contact China on that one.
In an exclusive interview with China Daily, Justin Yifu Lin, Dean of the Institute of the New Structural...
Economics at Peking University said that the U.S. ignores basic economic rules when it claims to suffer losses from trade with China.
The U.S. is missing the rules.
So we've set up the rules-based order that made the whole world rich after World War II.
Those rules are great.
We follow them.
We put them in place, right?
We founded the World Bank, IMF, the United Nations, all of it.
We allow China into our trade regimes.
They cheat.
They steal our intellectual property rights.
They violated every trade agreement we've had.
Navarro has gone over that.
He's got books on it.
And China writes the following.
Trade is mutually beneficial.
Different countries have different comparative advantages.
The U.S. buys Chinese products because they are of better quality and cheaper than those produced in the U.S. and vice versa.
It does not make any sense for the U.S. administration to claim it suffers losses from trade with China.
Look at our trade deficits.
Look at the gutting of five million manufacturing jobs.
The United States of America is only doing two and a half trillion dollars of manufacturing this year.
China is doing five trillion dollars worth of manufacturing.
A lot of that came from the United States.
That's why Trump is doing what he's doing.
He is moving manufacturing and therefore capital equipment back.
As we said on the show yesterday, we have two trillion commitments from U.S. firms, as Steve pointed out, and seven trillion total.
Capital investment promises, commitments made to President Trump, $7 trillion.
The last administration, no other administration, I've never even heard of a strategy that's in the ballpark here.
So there's going to be a few ripples along the way.
It'd be nice if the Federal Reserve would accommodate that, right, to give American people jobs.
They accommodate $2.5 trillion government spending deficits every year, without question.
They accommodate Wall Street bailouts without question.
But their dual mandate, which includes jobs and employment, it seems to be good to put the American worker back to work at wages that matter.
So that's the China Daily.
And then just one other...
Peace of interest.
If you want to know who China likes and who they don't like.
And this is a hint for the politicians in the U.S. I've heard a lot of folks not talking polite and not being nice to our war room friends around town here when I get up here.
And so here's another headline.
I want you to see it because Steve says the print matters.
This is China Daily again.
Navarro still up to his anti-China tricks.
So who does China name by name when they want to play hardball and make a point and they're spending money on this print?
Peter Navarro seems to be over the target.
China is upset with Peter Navarro.
Not the old establishment in Congress.
The congressmen in this town, they always say, well, there's the Freedom Caucus.
They're a bunch of show horses.
We're the work horses.
Well, those workhorses on the intelligence committees, etc., have missed a thing called China for the past 30 years.
That's why we're in the ditch.
Those workhorses in Congress and the Senate have also put us $37 trillion in debt.
So the next time you hear your congressman or woman or senator mention it, they're the workhorse.
They're working hard.
Well, these show horses are just out making noise.
You may want to educate them, and you might want to ask them for their statements in writing.
Ask them, where have you put in writing your commitment on this new budget deal for $7 trillion in spending?
Let's see what the workhorses have to say on paper on the endless wars, on the $10 billion border invasion, on the $37 trillion debt.
Make sure they use numbers.
And when they make their promises to you, ask them for it in writing.
And then share that with all your friends.
If you've got a good congressman, woman, or senator, that's great.
But the War Room is keeping an eye on everybody.
Back in a second after the break.
unidentified
All right, everybody, back in the War Room.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
We've got E.J. and Tony on the economics coming up.
Eric Tito with the Russ Vote group on the budget.
Eric, why don't you set the table for us on updates on the budget talks.
What can we expect?
The War Room's been all over that.
Bannon's been all over the debt.
And the bond market vigilantes paying attention to the debt.
And so bring us up to speed.
Eric, thank you.
eric teetsel ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, thanks, Dave.
It's great to be with you.
You know, the American people hired the president again because they're fed up with this woke and weaponized government, and they're looking for somebody who's going to get into it and rip it down from the inside.
And that is exactly what is reflected in the president's budget proposal that just came out late last week.
You're talking about a 17% net cut in spending year over year compared to FY25.
That's unprecedented.
I know people are thinking 17%.
How about 70%?
We share your view.
We'd like to get there.
And in some cases, this budget actually...
When we say it's a net 17% cut, that includes a massive investment in national security.
The one thing that the federal government is supposed to do, defend the American people and secure the border, the president is investing in an unprecedented way in national defense while also cutting the woke and weaponized government along the way.
This would be...
Spending levels, non-defense discretionary federal spending at the same level as 2017.
So people talk about getting to pre-COVID spending levels.
This is actually the spending levels under Barack Obama's last year in office before the first President Trump term had his opportunity to get in there and sort of make his mark on spending.
If you include inflation over the years, this would be the lowest level.
of non-defense discretionary spending since the early aughts when I was still in college.
So this is exactly what the people elected the president to do.
The big question, obviously, is what next?
Traditionally, the president's budget has been kind of symbolic, maybe a marker.
And then the House and the Senate start their appropriations process, such as it is or isn't, and work from there.
I think this time is going to be different.
The president means it.
You see that in Doge.
You see that in the work that Russ and the team are doing at OMB.
And I think that this is going to be the framework for the actual FY26 appropriations.
And we should expect nothing less than this budget from the members of the House and Senate.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Great.
That's great, Eric.
Can you explain to the war room also, I mean, the real good news here is this is going into law.
So this budget will become law, and then the left in the future, they'll have to change the law if they still believe in the rule of law.
But can you explain to them, maybe there's some interaction effects between what Doge has been doing, the personnel cuts.
How does all that work together?
That's not clear to many of us.
So you've got the good budget cuts you're talking about, but DOGE has been doing work.
There's a lot of news on USAID, for example, huge personnel cuts there, university funding cuts.
How do all those stories kind of fit together just in a minute or two overview?
eric teetsel ▲ ● ▼
Sure.
Happy to do my best to create some clarity here.
You know, after 15 years in Washington, if there's one thing I'm convinced of, it's that they make this complicated on purpose in order to avoid accountability, right?
So here's what we're talking about.
There was a budget resolution that was passed, and that has to do with teeing up reconciliation.
That is an entirely separate thing from what we're talking about here.
What we're talking about is the president's budget proposal for FY 2026, looking forward.
Reconciliation has to do with reconciling spending that's already been passed into law with a budget resolution.
What we're talking about here is the future.
Where are we going?
And what Congress is supposed to do now is take this budget that the president has proposed and use it as the framework for the FY 2026 appropriations process that they'll go through.
This is the president saying, I think you should do it this way.
And when it comes to DOGE, what you see in this president's budget is the DOGE-identified opportunities for cuts put into law.
Put into writing.
So when the president says we got to get rid of all of this weaponized and wasteful and progressive money that's going to NGOs through international aid programs, that is reflected in the cuts that he's proposed in this budget and so on and so forth.
And now, as I said, it becomes incumbent on Congress to actually take that proposal and make it real.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Right.
Very good.
Excellent.
Outstanding.
Eric, hang with us.
EJ and Tony is also with us.
He's got a bombshell.
Your heads are going to explode on this one.
unidentified
EJ, let us have it.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼
David, I tell you what, the big downward revisions for Biden administration-era data keep coming in thick and fast.
The latest that we literally just got this morning at 10 a.m. from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that in the third quarter of last year, a period when we were previously told the economy added 399,000 jobs, it turns out that private sector job growth in that quarter was precisely zero.
We added no private sector.
Say that again.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
As Steve would say, hit rewind.
Say that one again.
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼
In the third quarter of last year, so that's the period from the end of June through the end of September, we were told that last year the economy added 399,000 jobs after all the already existing downward revisions.
We supposedly added almost 400,000 non-farm payrolls, as they're called.
And now the latest data from the Business Employment Dynamics report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, these are official government numbers.
Shows the private sector added exactly zero jobs on net during that time.
In other words, all the job losses equaled the job gains.
A net zero change.
So there goes 399,000 jobs that we supposedly had.
Once again, David, this is an example.
Of where we got data that was inaccurate.
Of course, it was inaccurate to the upside.
In other words, things looked better than they actually were.
And this is a big reason why President Trump got re-elected last November.
People could only be told so much, don't believe your lying eyes and don't believe your empty wallets.
It didn't matter how many times the media told us.
Everyone has jobs.
There were a lot of people sitting there who couldn't get jobs, at least not very good ones.
And this report confirms that.
Now, of course...
These data that we got today are essentially going to be part of the annual revisions, but those annual revisions don't come out right away, as the name implies, annual.
They only come out once a year, and they cover a period from March of one year to March.
So that means that we're not actually going to get these data until next year.
In other words, we're not going to see the total impact on the jobs numbers during the entirety of the Biden administration until 2026.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
What was last year's revision, just as a reminder to the war room?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼
It was a downward revision of eight...
100,000.
I mean, it was absolutely massive.
And what that essentially covers, though, is just so people understand, these aren't calendar years.
The way the Bureau of Labor Statistics does this is from March of one year to March of the next.
So it essentially includes quarter one of a certain year and quarter two, three, and four of the previous year.
Again, it runs from March of one year to March of the next.
So it doesn't quite line.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Yep, outstanding.
E.J., give me, and then Eric, if you're still with us, give us, you know, we cover the downers and the reality of the papers, but President Trump, you know, $2 trillion capital investment committed by U.S. firms, $7 trillion overall from other countries coming this way.
How would you frame that good news for the American workers for manufacturing for jobs back, E.J. and then Eric?
ej antoni ▲ ● ▼
Well, we got to remember when we're talking about all this investment pouring into this country, what are people getting in exchange for this investment?
In other words, this capital surplus, all this capital flowing into the country, which is going to create American jobs, it's going to create revenue streams for Americans, right?
We're going to see a return on investment here as well as return on investment abroad.
That's great when we see capital flowing into the country.
That's the flip side of the trade deficit.
We often look at the trade deficit and we think that it's always and everywhere bad.
It's really not.
Think of a trade deficit like putting on weight.
You can put on weight for a good reason or a bad reason.
You can either be gaining muscle because you're working out or you can be gaining fat because you're eating too much and not working out.
When we talk about all this investment pouring into the country, that's like putting on muscle.
Conversely, when we're selling off all of our farmland to the Chinese Communist Party, that's like putting on fat.
We are not trying to eliminate the trade deficit.
The trade deficit very oftentimes gets a bad rap.
But the flip side of the trade deficit right now is an investment surplus.
And that's a good thing.
We don't want to see that go away because that investment surplus is how we get, again, more American jobs and more return on investment.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Can you close us out?
One minute left.
Eric, why don't you close us out?
eric teetsel ▲ ● ▼
Just think about what EJ is saying.
Every job that was created under the Biden administration was a government job.
Every single job.
That's not an economy.
I agree with EJ.
You do want this capital investment, but you want it to flow into real...
Productive capacity, real industry.
And I'm excited that the president is leading America into a place where all these government workers whose budget he's cutting will have a place to go and get a real job before long.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Yep, great news.
EJ, Tony, Eric Tietzel, thanks for being with us.
You're not going to get two smarter guys together.
Only on The War Room.
Make sure you're sharing this show, this platform, and all the hard work Steve Vann puts in every day with all your friends.
I have people, I go across the country talking now, and everywhere I go, people, once they watch this show, the other news shows are just weak.
It's the only way to put it.
The War Room stands unique.
What Steve puts together every day with these hundreds of newspapers, unbelievable.
Stay tuned.
unidentified
Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
All right, Dave Brad, War Room, sitting with the great Stephen K. Bannon out on assignment.
I'm just going to share one quick headline today.
It's huge.
New York Times lead opinion piece.
Again, just total distortion of reality coming from the elitist crew.
The presidency has become too powerful by Jack Goldsmith.
President Trump's wrecking ball second term has revealed the full latent power of the presidency.
Thank God.
Perhaps Jack Goldsmith has forgotten about the latent power of President Biden that he exerted bringing in 10 million illegal immigrants.
Strategically coordinated.
A million dead boys laying over Ukraine, Russia that could have been easily avoided.
$37 trillion in debt.
Biden pardons everybody on the way out the door.
And Jack Goldsmith, the opinion leader here at the New York Times, instead of weighing in...
I think he was under George Bush, it says, yeah.
So instead of going after Congress, right, why isn't anybody going after Congress?
If the president's too powerful, well, why don't you write a letter about the Congress not doing anything?
That seems to be a more profitable way to go.
Anyway, on that note, we've got Dave Walsh coming in to explain how President Trump is using his full latent powers to restore our economy and restore energy.
And so, Dave, give it to us.
I think you've got to chart it up for us, so just call for it when you need it.
dave walsh ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, you know, electrification in abundance at low cost is certainly at the core of any ability to reshore manufacturing and restructure and rebuild the economy and for us to export heavily again, industrial products.
We've had recently a majority of the major grid coordinators, PJM, MISO, the Southwest Power Pool, SWEC, which is California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico.
Before Congress, reporting out, in more vigorous terms than I use, the electrification shortage in all of their regions.
And these regions include 280 million U.S. citizens.
We've got half of the regions in the country under warning by NERC for the National Electoral Liability Association for shortages and brownouts, like the one in Spain, affecting possibly up to half the people in the country across the upper Midwest.
The West in SPP, PJM, which is where you're sitting, Dave.
Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio.
MISO, which is 15 states in the Midwest, covering about 40 million people.
Warnings in the peak days of the summer heat and the peak days of winter cold.
The accelerated possibility of brownouts due to not enough electrification.
MISO has made a big point of this.
I have one slide to show about that, how this works.
If you look, the blue line across 2042, this is within MISO.
Again, 15 states across the Midwest, 40 million people.
The blue line is the advertised rating plate capacity of new generation being added out there, which looks like a lot, looks like close to 60 gigawatts.
The trouble is that's momentary maximum capacity, that number, the rating plate number.
The real energy capacity is the red line.
And you can see net capacity, On continuous energy is reducing in the same period by close to 38% because all of the resources being bid in to be built in the next 20 years across MISO basically are solar.
The big part now is solar.
Secondly, wind, third battery storage, a little bit of gas turbine combined cycle that actually runs all the time.
But in the vast majority, 80% of the queue, what investors are bidding into MISO to erect and PJM to erect, and actually around the country, is all solar and battery storage based on taking advantage of these huge incentives.
Incentives to buy equipment from China, install it here, and go ahead and electrify with vastly reduced energy equipment.
So you've got a lot of the country under warning for brownouts, just the same as Spain had.
And we came perilously close last summer in SPP, the Southwest Power Pool, 15 states, on three separate days in August of losing the grid there under severe warnings of a resource advisory on August 23rd, August 25th, a conservative operations advisory.
And finally, on the 26th, an emergency alert because 37,000 megawatts of wind in that region, in that huge region of 15 states, dropped to 1,200 megawatts all of a sudden.
So we had warning advisories that we were that close on a, if you go to a Monte Carlo simulation or gambling, we were that close to losing that whole grid last summer.
Texas, just two years before, eight separate days, we were that close within five to six percent of losing the entire grid because of now not enough electrification due to the mass adoption of part-time, very part-time devices.
This just doesn't work mathematically.
And the grid management are saying it's very loud and clear.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, good.
Dave, give us a closing minute.
How did we get here?
The border invasion, 10 million, orchestrated.
This almost, you know, no one's this incompetent.
How did this happen, and how long will it take us to turn it around in about a minute?
dave walsh ▲ ● ▼
The left and Sierra Club put a wrecking ball to nuclear power about 35 years ago.
Basically, we stopped erecting new nuclear in this country that we now love again, thank God.
We stopped erecting it 35 years ago.
The capacity to build that now is very, very limited here.
Then under the Obama administration, his eight years in office put a wrecking ball, and this is well documented through his DOE and EPA, to the coal industry.
So where we were, about 53% coal-fired, continuous duty, baseload.
Coal pile equals storage, four months worth of storage, put a wrecking ball to that industry, wanted to terminate coal.
And those were the words of his EPA, which helped us attack the Clean Power Plan via SCOTUS, that they were overreaching their power and their charter in doing so.
But he put a wrecking ball to coal.
Biden, during his administration, put a wrecking ball to gas-fired combined cycle power plants, which is now 42% of the electrification of the country, stuff that runs all the time, based on American natural gas.
He put in place EPA mandates to discontinue, unless carbon capture were applied, natural gas-fired power within about six years.
So the Democrats have consistently made moves under the guise of no strategy, only a carbon reduction strategy.
Nothing about added energy to sap the electrification of the country.
So look at the last six years.
We've added supposedly 330,000 megawatts of equipment, adding only 0.4% growth in energy because it's all part-time stuff.
90% of it's battery storage and solar, which operates five hours a day and two hours a day, respectively.
That's a disaster.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Very outstanding.
Dave, we've got to bring in Eric Prince on the latest India-Pakistan news.
How do people get you, Dave?
dave walsh ▲ ● ▼
Okay, David, you can reach me on GetterTruthSocialNX at DaveWalshEnergy.
Thank you, Dave.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Thanks.
Hugely important.
Dave Walsh, follow him.
Eric Prince in the headline, Washington Post today, India hits Pakistan and retaliatory strikes.
Pakistan says they're going to punch back.
How serious is this?
Eric Prince with us.
He's one of the most knowledgeable guys about all things military in the world.
Lucky to have him on the war room.
Welcome, Eric.
What's going on over in India, Pakistan?
unidentified
That's quite an intro, Dave.
Thank you.
Look, the last time that India hit back at Pakistan some years ago, all of their bombs missed.
They had spent a lot of money, and it's very dangerous when you spend a lot of money to think that spending money equals capacity.
Because clearly the last time they hit, the targeting data, the geo-coordinates and elevation have to be exactly right for the bomb to hit where it's supposed to.
I think in this case, the attacks, which were obviously done by Muslim extremists inside India, I'm not convinced that it was with any kind of actual Pakistani government sponsorship.
The fact is the Pakistani military...
Is battling the Pakistani Taliban takes up about 60 percent of the military's efforts, combating them along the Afghan border.
I would not be surprised if those same Pakistani Taliban stimulated this attack to cause this level of trouble with India.
But both the Indian military is not very capable, not very serious.
And, you know, Pakistan will try to hit back.
I don't see this going anywhere because both of those countries would suffer massively if they got into an actual dust-up with tens of millions of refugees on top of displaced people, casualties and mayhem.
Both of those countries are kind of living on the edge as it is.
The last thing they need is a war.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Good.
Good.
Well, hey, that's positive.
More positive news.
You won't hear it on any of the mainstream media.
The Wall Street Journal I just covered today, just total misinformation on the progress Trump's making on trade.
One of the biggest moves is with India.
Modi, they had a great meeting.
It looks like India has made a bunch of moves that are pro-U.S.
Trump likes win-wins.
Are you following India?
How do you think we're doing with India?
And then any more you want to report on the trade wars and how that's going to make the U.S.?
unidentified
You know, I would not be that excited if we got to a zero-zero trade deal with India because their cost of labor is a micro-fraction of what ours is in the United States.
Their cost of environmental compliance is zero compared to what it is in the United States.
It would put a lot of U.S. manufacturing at a significant disadvantage.
Look, Dave, I'm very old school on tariffs.
I think a flat 10% or 15% tariff on anything coming into the United States.
I think protecting domestic manufacturing is a very good thing.
And until the idea of free trade with a country where less than 50% of the people actually use toilets is a fool's errand.
And the last time I was in Delhi was four years ago, and there was a big billboard in the airport from the National Ministry of Health saying, help us reach our goal this year of 50% toilet use across the country.
So I don't get all excited about anything to do with India.
Culturally not like us at all.
And a long ways to go until their manufacturing has the same cost structure that America's does.
And I would rather protect the American heartland versus in any way making India great.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I agree.
I think that's all spot on.
And I think that is part of the trade framework.
It's trade, non-trade, unfair practices.
All that's in the negotiation.
I think you know all that.
And that's why you said the 10%, there's a buffer until we get there.
The good news in my mind there had to do with the second most populous country on earth, India, as a strategic vehicle versus China.
From what I'm, and I want to get you on to hear what you're hearing in China.
I mean, I'm out on YouTube, and there's riots and protests in the streets across China.
It's not a one-off.
People, wages not getting paid, no benefits, retirement is out of whack.
The youth are upset.
Xi could be in trouble, according to some folks.
What do you know on that one, Eric?
unidentified
Even before this trade dust-up, I can even tell you from Trump administration 45, the Chinese Communist Party was very concerned about Trump's policy on trade and actually getting tough with them.
Now that he's actually clearly gotten tough with them, it is a massive threat that the Chinese people kind of have this deal with the Chinese Communist Party that they're supposed to deliver economic development, and in exchange people have effectively no rights and no actual freedoms.
And now that the economic growth is very much in peril in the short term, there's going to be major unrest because of it.
And on top of that, Xi's war on corruption before that really crushed a lot of the entrepreneur class and created the small-medium enterprises which were creating the jobs.
That's all largely dried up.
And when you take Jack Ma, who's the Bezos, Steve Jobs of China, and you disappear him from society, and he reemerges six months later having embraced supervision because he said something negative against his state— that's a problem.
So China has, they rode a wave of massive economic expansion for years and Xi has crushed that innovation and the freedom of maneuvering on the north.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Can you hold with us over the break, Eric?
We're going to break.
I'd love to get you back.
I want to see if there's other even more hardline power brokers in line to replace G. Your comments on that after the break.
Stay tuned.
War Room Posse back in one minute.
unidentified
Let's take down the CCB.
Here's your host, Stephen K. Mann.
you All right, Dave Bratton, War Room.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Great Steve and Kay Bannon.
Today, one of the War Room favorites, Eric Prince.
Everyone weighs his words very carefully.
Eric, give us a closing two-minute summary on China's weakening and Xi's position within that weakening apparatus of the CCP.
unidentified
So, even in China, there's political factions.
Xi is part of the young princelings.
His father literally rolled with Mao back in the day for the Long March.
There's the Shanghai faction, which he really crushed over COVID, and the Communist Youth League.
Those two segments have been degraded a lot.
However, the weakening of the economy, the uncertainty around economic growth, and all those things...
I've definitely made Xi's inevitability impaired.
On top of that, all the generals that surround him have all paid for their positions.
And so it's a very interesting quandary.
What they're going to do on Taiwan, because the generals, I'm sure, are saying, let's go.
They believe they're high on their own supply.
And Xi needs to make a deal to have some kind of economic pathway through this.
So I think Trump is in a very good position to hold their feet to the fire and to correct it.
If Trump had not done this, the consolidation of economic manufacturing in China, outside the United States, was getting to the point of no return.
And so it is high time to bring a lot of that manufacturing back to America, whether it's pharmaceuticals, chips, electronics.
It makes sense to make it in America, not in China, not with people that hate our Constitution, our freedoms, and our way of life.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, excellent.
Outstanding overview.
Last short question.
Is China past the point where they can just crush their population, social media, communication over there?
If the hardliners come in, I think the Taiwan play, like you said, is is a way they can pull that off.
But can they still just 100 percent repress their people like Tiananmen?
unidentified
Well, that was a very small segment.
There was a few thousand people.
They brought troops from the most rural areas, the most ignorant, I'd say, just like the Soviet Union, what the United States did with the Catholic Church and the British MI6, we weakened the ability in Poland and inside the Soviet Union for the state to control everything.
China has dozens of different ethnicities, and if you look at China's history over the last two millennia...
They come together under a strong dictator, and then they fragment apart.
And I think if we help China come apart into some of its component parts, where it's not all under the Chinese Communist Party, that is in our interest.
That's in the neighbor's interest.
And that is a better to reduce the hegemony that China has over their neighbors.
And that will require some strong trade practices, and I would say some strong covert action and cleverness by the U.S. government.
I'm not convinced.
We're there in the trade.
I'm not convinced in the COVID action side the agency is up to it yet, but who knows?
Maybe the leadership will come through.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Unbelievable.
Eric Prince, National Treasure, blessing.
Eric, thanks for being on with us.
God bless you.
unidentified
Thanks, Dave.
Have a good one.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
You too.
All right, Mark Lucas on deck.
Mark, you with us?
And if you want to comment on anything you just heard, and I think you got an ad we're going to play and you can explain that one.
But any comment on the previous?
unidentified
Yes, Dave, thanks for having me on.
We sure live in a very volatile world.
And I think it is just a testimony to the complete freedom of maneuver.
That Joe Biden gave to America's enemies.
You know, I saw this in Afghanistan.
I came in 2010, and the enemy was given quite the freedom of maneuver, and we had to stir up a hortense nest.
So President Trump is America's first foreign policy.
It's going to take some time to get its footing, whether it's with the Houthis or with the Ukraine war.
But I'm very optimistic that President Trump is also our negotiator-in-chief.
Looks like he landed a solid deal with the Houthis because we want peace and veteran action and warfighters like myself.
We do not want to get entangled in these forever wars.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Yep.
You got a clip.
Why don't you set us up for the clip before you play it?
Give us 10 seconds on what we're about ready to see and why veteran action is what you're doing.
unidentified
Pete Buttigieg is coming to my home state of Iowa next week for a veteran town hall, and we want to remind Iowans in the whole country about Pete Buttigieg's woke and radical agenda for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Denver, you want to roll it?
unidentified
Pete Buttigieg is fighting Donald Trump's VA reforms, and he's pushing a woke agenda.
He backed taxpayer-funded sex changes and wanted to rewrite Lincoln's VA motto, making it more gender-inclusive.
Buttigieg wants to take us back to Joe Biden's broken woke VA.
Veterans deserve better, not woke politics.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
All right, Mark, give us what you're up to with your group.
And all political views are my own, but Mark, have at it.
unidentified
Well, Veteran Action, I built this to be a smash-mouth, grassroots political organization that fights for our veterans and promotes President Donald Trump's America First foreign policy.
And we're not going to allow these radical leftists like Pete Buttigieg to come to Iowa.
To attack President Trump and his VA agenda.
You know, Pete Buttigieg, he won the Iowa caucus in 2020.
He narrowly lost the New Hampshire primary.
He was a very formidable candidate and he turned in to be one of the most effective surrogates for Joe Biden.
So no Democrat is going to come into Iowa uncontested and veteran action is going to bring this smash mouth philosophy.
I learned with my good friend Mike Davis.
You know, Mike Davis and I went to college together at the University of Iowa.
He's my senior counsel at Veteran Action, and I helped build the A3P Action Center, which I'm bringing that same approach to Veteran Action.
So not only can you see that ad, but we're encouraging the War Room Posse to go to VeteranAction.org, click on the Take Action button, and contact your lawmakers.
Tell them to pass the Veteran Access Act.
We believe that veterans deserve Choice in their health care.
They should get expedient care.
We shouldn't have to wait for arbitrary wait times like a 30-minute drive or a 20-day wait.
So Veteran Action, you can contact your lawmaker via phone, email, and on social media.
You can take all three of those actions in less than five minutes.
This strategy is proven.
We used it to promote President Trump's cabinet, Kash Patel and...
Pete Hegseth, they told Mike Davis and I that those nominees were dead on arrival.
A3P changed the politics, and now Veteran Action is doing the same thing for vets.
dave brat ▲ ● ▼
Great.
Hey, Mark, we're going to hold you over the break.
Stay with us for a minute.
You can close it up, and we thank you for what you're doing for the veterans.
Get your comments right after the break.
▲
Export Selection