July 2, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:56
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| Okay, so we're going to look at the strongly approved numbers. | ||
| So this isn't just Republicans who like Donald Trump. | ||
| This is Republicans who love Donald Trump. | ||
| And he's up like a rocket. | ||
| Look at this. | ||
| In July 2017, the strongly approved was 53%. | ||
| That's pretty good. | ||
| But look at where he is now. | ||
| 63% of Republicans strongly approve of the job that Donald Trump is doing about five months into his presidency. | ||
| Republicans love Donald Trump the way that Americans love Disney World. | ||
| The bottom line is 63%. | ||
| That is a huge, huge base. | ||
| And of course, it's just part of a Republican base in which about 90% of them overall approve of him, including the somewhat approves as well. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I mean, any politician would like this number here, especially to see it go up. | |
| How about compared to other presidents who were Republicans? | ||
| Yeah, it's history making. | ||
| It's history making. | ||
| What are we talking about here? | ||
| So why don't we look back? | ||
| We have all the presidents, Republican presidents going back over the last 35, 36, 37 years. | ||
| What are we talking about? | ||
| GOP, who strongly approved five months in. | ||
| Look at this. | ||
| George H.W. Bush, Bush 41, 46%. | ||
| Bush 43, 59. | ||
| You see Trump, the first term, 53. | ||
| But look at this, 63%. | ||
| He beats all the other Republicans on the board here. | ||
| And I was looking even back since Reagan. | ||
| And get this, Donald Trump beats Ronald Reagan when it comes to the strongly approved five months. | ||
| And of course, Reagan was coming off that high after that assassination attempt. | ||
| So the bottom line is Donald Trump is making history with the Republican base. | ||
| He is more beloved by this Republican base than any Republican base loved any GOP president five months in. | ||
| It is history making. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It is a striking number. | |
| Tillis stepping down, stepping aside after President Trump threatened to primary him. | ||
| The question is, how effective is Trump's endorsement? | ||
| We know it can hurt, but how effective is it? | ||
| Yeah, okay. | ||
| So, you know, the bottom line is, if you're a Republican lawmaker, you see this 63%, you say, my goodness gracious, you do not want to go against Donald Trump because the Republican base is with Donald Trump. | ||
| And it's not just the polling. | ||
| We actually have the data to show that the Republican base is with Donald Trump. | ||
| The times Trump endorsees won the GOP primary for governor and congressional races. | ||
| Look at this. | ||
| 2024, 96%. | ||
| 2022, 95%. | ||
| 2020, 98%. | ||
| The bottom line is this. | ||
| 95% plus of the time the Trump endorsed candidate wins in GOP primaries. | ||
| And even in the cases where Donald Trump endorses a challenger to an incumbent, the majority of time, that challenger wins. | ||
| So Donald Trump is a winner in Republican primaries. | ||
| You go against Donald Trump, to quote the movie Goodberger, you go in the grinder. | ||
| Donald Trump is the key nugget. | ||
| His endorsement is the key nugget in GOP primary because he's historically strongly popular with the GOP. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| Here's not got a free shot at all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you've tried to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it. | ||
| It's going to happen. | ||
| And where do people like that go to share the big lie? | ||
| MAGA Media. | ||
| I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. | ||
| Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? | ||
| If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Vannis. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Vannis. | ||
| It's Tuesday, 1 July, Year of our Lord 2025. | ||
| I want to go to the airport and Mike Davis, who's about to fly out of town, and we've got him only because there's a massive storm in the Imperial Capitol. | ||
| He's delayed some flights. | ||
| Mike Davis, the big, beautiful bill kind of lurched to its approval this afternoon, already in the House tomorrow. | ||
| We know it's going to be a pretty big fight. | ||
| We've got some pretty good clips we'll play of some folks that said they're not terribly excited about this. | ||
| But we'll all work through that. | ||
| But one of the biggest thing that was done was taking down the artificial intelligence from the tech bros. | ||
| You've done some more research this afternoon. | ||
| How do we do it, sir? | ||
| This was a Bull the Rabbit out-of-the-hat win. | ||
| And I want to give credit to these people in this order. | ||
| I want to give the credit to President Trump, who resisted tremendous pressure, tremendous pressure to back this AI amnesty. | ||
| And he didn't do it. | ||
| And I want to thank Marsha Blackburn, the great senator from Tennessee, along with her fantastic staff, including Katie Lane, the chief of staff, who's my good friend, the wife of Bill Lane, who was an Article 3 Project volunteer attorney for many years and now a nominee for a top Pentagon post. | ||
| Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Green, MTG, is a rock-solid ally. | ||
| Stephen K. Bannon and his team in the War Room Posse, that is the secret sauce to all of this. | ||
| And the Article III project, of course, teaming up with the War Room Posse, we lit up the Senate. | ||
| We had 3,000 activists make over 9,000 contacts with their home state senators, and we scared the hell out of them. | ||
| This was going to fail. | ||
| At 2 o'clock in the morning, there were reports that the lead proponent of this AI amnesty thought that only three Republicans would defect. | ||
| And by the end of the night, by 5 o'clock in the morning, this went down 99 to 1, including the lead proponents voting against his own bill. | ||
| That's how powerful the war room posse is. | ||
| Yeah, no, it also speaks to how radioactive what the ask was. | ||
| This was so huge. | ||
| The reason we fought this so hard is that, hey, this is just making sure AI is totally unchained. | ||
| That cannot happen. | ||
| You had a lot of things about the creators and the children, and Marsha Blackburn has done such an amazing job on this. | ||
| But it was not for Marsha Blackburn because here's the thing. | ||
| This thing was so radioactive, everybody, including Ted Cruz, ran away from it, okay? | ||
| Ran away from it. | ||
| He's the biggest proponent of trying to get it done. | ||
| Ran away from it. | ||
| MTG and Marsha Blackburn and Senator Blackburn's staff really went to the, and of course Mike Davis and all the Article III team, just incredible. | ||
| War Room posse, Bill Blaster, people were loaded up into that, hammering, hammering, hammering, making sure the Senate offices knew that the people, the populist movement, was awake here. | ||
| And hey, we looked at this thing and we don't want it. | ||
| We don't want any compromise, no two-year, because they had all kind of compromise. | ||
| It's going to be five-year, going to be two-year, going to do this. | ||
| No, how about this? | ||
| Pull it out of the bill. | ||
| And then when the president really had Marsha Blackburn's back, that's when you saw that this thing was getting pulled. | ||
| And kudos to President Trump to finally making sure that he had MAGA's back, and it's a huge MAGA win. | ||
| Now, there's a lot of people, journalists calling up Mike Davis and us all day, there's a lot of people trying to take credit for this. | ||
| Let me be blunt. | ||
| Marsha Blackburn was a hero, stepped into the breach, would not take a compromise, had her staff working nonstop. | ||
| MTG was saying she was not going to vote in the House. | ||
| And the President understands that MTG is one of his fiercest defenders. | ||
| And of course, Mike Davis, your team, and all the war impossibes just continued to pound with calls, text messages, all of it. | ||
| And that's what it took. | ||
| And it's a historic victory. | ||
| And it put the Berligarchs on notice that you're just not going to get everything you want, and you're not going to get it unfettered. | ||
| You want to fight. | ||
| We're prepared to fight. | ||
| And you've seen Elon Elmo all day is tweeting and trying to get up in President Trump's face about nonsense. | ||
| A guy who, I might add, didn't come up with one penny of cuts that he promised of a trillion dollars. | ||
| Mike Davis, this is so important, and it gives us momentum. | ||
| And look, we've got Andrew Ferguson's got Meta in court under the FTC trying to break Facebook up. | ||
| You've got Google being broken up by Gail Slater. | ||
| Where do we go next? | ||
| How do we keep this momentum against the tech bros, sir? | ||
| Well, this is important because they keep going after this many, many different ways. | ||
| We started the Internet Accountability Project, the sister organization Article 3 project, to take on these trillion-dollar big tech monopolists, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple. | ||
| I started this with Rachel Bovart over five years ago. | ||
| Gail Slater may have had a big hand in this, a good friend and an ally. | ||
| And we took on these big tech oligarchs like antitrust, Section 230, data privacy. | ||
| We were laughed at. | ||
| We were laughed at. | ||
| They're not laughing anymore. | ||
| We have, I'll break some news. | ||
| The President of the United States just told me right before this call, and he is very pleased with what we're doing in this fight. | ||
| He knows that we're on the right side on these issues, whether it's judges, whether it's big tech. | ||
| And sometimes he needs a reminder that these tech bros who pretend like they're his buddy after he won tried to bankrupt him for non-fraud. | ||
| They worked with the Democrats to censor silence D platform, cancel conservatives. | ||
| They worked with Democrats to chase him out of office. | ||
| And in 2020, with $400 million from Mark Zuckerberg and all the other tech bros at Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple, who helped rig and steal the election. | ||
| In 2020, President Trump remembers he faced four years of unrelenting lawfare, unprecedented lawfare from bankrupting him for non-fraud, trying to throw him in prison for life four times for non-crimes, trying to throw him off the ballot in several states unconstitutionally. | ||
| And then President Trump's opponents tried to take off his head when they underfunded his Secret Service protection twice. | ||
| And so my job at the Article 3 project is to constantly remind the president and his team who are his friends and who are his enemies. | ||
| And big tech, Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Apple are definitely President Trump and MAGA's enemies. | ||
| Mike Davis, great victory. | ||
| We get so many ahead as tech and AI become such an important part of American life from the schools and education, everything, consumer, government, military, all of it. | ||
| We've got to make sure that the people's voice, that the populist movement here has their voice heard and really listened to in this fight. | ||
| So I just want to thank you. | ||
| I want to thank you again. | ||
| Just excellent work in the War Imposse. | ||
| So glad to jump in and assist and be part of the Article III project. | ||
| So thank you so much. | ||
| Appreciate you, brother. | ||
| Where do people go for your Twitter to go to Article III? | ||
| We got many more fights ahead of victory, but not the final victory. | ||
| Yeah, remember, they're going to keep doing, big tech is going to keep trying to do this AI amnesty to steal everyone's copyrights every chance they can. | ||
| We stopped them when they tried to get a brief from the Justice Department saying stealing copyrights is fair use under the copyright laws. | ||
| We shut that down. | ||
| We shut down where they tried to get backdoor access to every copyright in the world when they fired the Librarian of Congress from the Register of Copyrights. | ||
| And we got good people in there with Todd Blanche and Paul Perkins to protect the copyrights. | ||
| They tried to do this AI amnesty. | ||
| These big tech bros are going to constantly try to go after copyrights, going after kids, going after conservatives. | ||
| They don't care. | ||
| They're just trying to make a lot of money and they don't care who gets hurt along the way. | ||
| The Article 3 Project and Bannon's War Room Posse, we're going to make damn sure that we're on guard and we're protecting this every step of the way. | ||
| And you can go to article3project.org, article number3project.org. | ||
| You can donate, follow us on social media. | ||
| And the superpower of the war room posse is action, action, action. | ||
| Action, action, action. | ||
| Thank you, Mike. | ||
| You can now go get in line to board your plane, and hopefully it takes off in this pretty bad storm. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Bye. | ||
| The Imperial Capitol has been so hot. | ||
| It was like 100 degrees last week. | ||
| Very hot and very muggy. | ||
| If you want to see Washington at its finest, today is one of the days. | ||
| Natalie G. Winters is with us. | ||
| Natalie G. Winters, thank you. | ||
| Welcome. | ||
| Welcome. | ||
| Next man up, Natalie G. Winters. | ||
| How are you doing, Natalie G? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Good. | |
| Well, before you interrupt me and tell me to hang on or that I'm your agent, I think I speak on behalf of the posse when we all say happy one-year anniversary. | ||
| I know that's typically a positive connotation, which I think holds true for you. | ||
| But I think first and foremost, thank you to our audience. | ||
| I think the last words I said before you returned, you know, we always say a republic if you can keep it. | ||
| Well, a war room if you can keep it. | ||
| And we certainly kept it when you went to prison. | ||
| Thanks to our audience, but also I think I speak on behalf of our audience, frankly, the country, and I say thank you to you, Steve. | ||
| I know the Democrats are wasting $20 million to understand what masculinity is, but I think they maybe should come by the embassy and talk to you because not only are you a real man, but you're a true patriot. | ||
| I'm not paid to say this. | ||
| It's all true. | ||
| The audience agrees with me. | ||
| So thank you from the bottom of my heart, showing me what it means to be a leader and giving me the chance to just host War Room and everything you've done for me. | ||
| So thank you. | ||
| And I know our audience thanks you too, and so does our country. | ||
| No, you guys stepped in the breach. | ||
| Here's my operating instructions, knowing I'd be gone for four months on a show that is four hours a day and two on Saturday. | ||
| My total instructions were, next man up, you'll figure it out. | ||
| And then I was so happy to be able to do that. | ||
| Steve, you still owe me the phone call before you went to prison to tell me what to do. | ||
| So let's not go back to prison. | ||
| I know some people are tweeting about that today, but you still owe me that phone call. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's right. | |
| We may have something to say about that. | ||
| Natalie G. Winters is with us. | ||
| The big bill, beautiful bill going to the house. | ||
| Natalie's got a lot to say about this. | ||
| We're going to deconstruct it. | ||
| We're pretty packed for the next hour and 45 minutes. | ||
| Stick around. | ||
| You're in the war. | ||
| And we got a team we're trying to track down in Brazil at the Rio Reset, birchgold.com. | ||
| Stick around. | ||
| You're in the war room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Battle. | |
| You know, the framing of this bill, I don't, I'm not a fan of the way it's been framed. | ||
| What I don't am not a fan of, and maybe some people think it's effective, I just don't happen to, but that's fine. | ||
| Is that talking about the 1.5 trillion over 10 years, I think it gets very confusing, very nebulous. | ||
| Plus, it's, I don't know, 89 trillion in spending over that time. | ||
| And those are cuts, and it has some sort of mathematical meaning. | ||
| And the Congressional Budget Office takes it, and there's a debate. | ||
| It has $3.5 trillion. | ||
| These numbers are so big. | ||
| They're such in the out years and they're confusing. | ||
| I'd just like to stop to the current. | ||
| President Trump and Scott Besson have an economic model that they've thought through. | ||
| That economic model is to unleash the power of American capitalism for growth, to get growth back here. | ||
| That's why it's called a supply-side cut. | ||
| As Scott Besson said on the show, I don't know. | ||
| I think the first time he talked about it was in the spring of 2024. | ||
| And what he said is this is probably the last chance we have to get a supply-side tax cut. | ||
| It was really focused on production and capital investment and the generation of jobs. | ||
| And clearly, President Trump wants to extend the tax cut for the working class and middle class because not to do that would be catastrophic to their own personal finances. | ||
| But obviously, there was a little fight to extend for the wealthy. | ||
| Obviously, we said in the war room, we shouldn't do that. | ||
| We should have the wealthy pay at a 40% rate. | ||
| And that would actually bring that into deficit even more. | ||
| And Scott would get from the 6.5% or 7% where we are now of deficit to GDP down to something manageable of 3%. | ||
| One of the worst things about Elon Musk, he came in here with all this fanfare. | ||
| And let me be brutally frank, and particularly for the Elon Musk fanboys, please write this down. | ||
| He found nothing. | ||
| Nothing. | ||
| The USAID and all that, these were programmatic things that MTG and Eli Kraina people had fought for years. | ||
| He got a little publicity about it, but about the key thing of waste, fraud, and abuse. | ||
| To show us, remember the State of the Union or the Joint Adjusted Congress with all of the Social Security, three and a half minutes of 200-year-old people getting Social Security. | ||
| They did not come back and give us one penny of fraud. | ||
| The same with Medicaid and Medicare. | ||
| Not that Medicaid's not rife with fraud. | ||
| Not that the Defense Department is not rife with abuse. | ||
| That's what we kept saying in the show, banging on the table. | ||
| You got to cross the Pentagon. | ||
| You got to cross the Pentagon. | ||
| But of course, he wasn't going to do anything because he's a government contractor. | ||
| That left the political class off the hook. | ||
| So we did not get all the cuts that we need in this. | ||
| There's no doubt about that. | ||
| However, given the circumstances, there's definitely some good cuts in here, right? | ||
| But also you have a sensitive moment now where you just can't go into Medicaid like you used to because the lack of jobs for the working class and the lack of medical insurance for the working class means that you have to be very sophisticated about how you do this. | ||
| But the key thing is what is the economic model going forward? | ||
| And that is why, and Natalie's going to talk in a moment about rare earths and the centrality of rare earths into the manufacturing production of not just the automotive industry, but virtually every industry we have, including big tech. | ||
| The model itself says that President Trump in his first term had averaged 2.8% growth in those three years. | ||
| In the fourth quarter of 2019, before the Chinese really unleashed the bioweapon that we call the pandemic on the United States of America, the gross was 3.4% in the fourth quarter, with blue-collar wages rising faster than white-collar wages, non-college graduates wages rising higher than college graduate. | ||
| It was actually everything we had fought for, low interest rates, low inflation. | ||
| He had kind of pulled off the trifecta. | ||
| That's what he's trying to do today, but even more aggressive on the business cuts for capital investment, bigger write-offs, write-off everything in period zero, to be very aggressive in bringing manufacturing jobs back. | ||
| And those who are not going to bring manufacturing jobs back, he's going to have tariffs. | ||
| You're going to have tariffs. | ||
| And you say, hey, look, if Lutnik and Besson can't cut these deals, that's fine. | ||
| I'm just going to send you a letter, and that's what you're paying. | ||
| So you have the combination of deregulation, which is deconstruction of the administrative state. | ||
| You have trade relationships, tariff. | ||
| If you're not going to come back, if you come back and reshore, then guess what? | ||
| All that capital investment happens here. | ||
| All the construction happens here. | ||
| The new jobs happen here. | ||
| And in the ecosystem of factories, and this is where Lena Khan was an absolute expert, it's not just a factory, it's the whole ecosystem around it. | ||
| This is what's called a virtuous circle. | ||
| This is what a supply-side cut's about. | ||
| Is the supply-side tax cut perfect? | ||
| No. | ||
| Once again, I would certainly like to do a substantial snapback just to the old rates for the upper bracket or set at a millionaire's rate at 40%. | ||
| But Shazam yesterday, and we'll talk about it when Baccia gets up here, to pay for the rural hospitals, I think Susan Collins put forward a plan of like $25 to $50 billion. | ||
| 18 Republicans voted for a tax increase on the wealthy. | ||
| Now, I think the wealthy were over like $25 million, right? | ||
| And for a couple of $50 million. | ||
| So it's like the super wealthy. | ||
| But the Republican Party actually had 18 senators in the United States Senate that voted to raise taxes on the wealthy. | ||
| That is the beginning of, that's a little bit of dawn on the horizon, right? | ||
| What I keep saying about the sunlit uplands, you can see it way in the distance. | ||
| That's a glimmer right there that people understand in this, in this shared experience we call the United States of America. | ||
| Things like that are going to have to happen. | ||
| So overall, is this thing perfect? | ||
| No, it's not perfect. | ||
| But does it get to the core promises and commitments of President Trump? | ||
| Yes, it does. | ||
| Not all of them perfectly. | ||
| But look at, and this is what I think, I saw President Trump re-energize today because he got out of the White House. | ||
| He got out of Washington, D.C. He got away from all the madness of, you know, let's go regime change in the Middle East again. | ||
| He got down to deportations. | ||
| And when President Trump is sitting there and he's saying, hey, I like the Florida Gators I see in the motor around alligator Alcatraz, but I'm thinking and hearing that maybe I'm going to bring in what, some African crocodiles and put them in the Rio Grande. | ||
| That's the guy I voted for, right? | ||
| He's talking about mass deportations. | ||
| He's on it. | ||
| He's energized. | ||
| And now we're going to get into the House. | ||
| I'm sure there's a spread between the bid and the ass. | ||
| We'll play some of those things maybe in the next block. | ||
| But I want to get back to Natalie because this economic model is based upon the commercial relationships with other countries, trade, tariffs, reassuring manufacturing for high-value added jobs. | ||
| Talk to me. | ||
| One of the biggest things between us and the Chinese, this is why they've had meetings in Geneva, other meetings in London. | ||
| And Scott Bessett is in charge of this because the president says, hey, Bessette's my safe pair of hands to actually deliver something. | ||
| Talk to me about rare earths, ma'am, the centrality of rare earths in the economy and what we're actually, the Trump administration is actually doing to make sure that we can have a manufacturing kind of super boom, ma'am. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure. | |
| Well, I think another promise made and promise kept from President Trump. | ||
| He obviously issued an EO in the early days of his presidency, basically fast-tracking trying to expand American rare earths, whether the actual procuring of them or the processing. | ||
| And today it was just announced that in about a week you're going to have the grand opening of really the first in 70 years of a rare earth mining facility out in Wyoming come to life, which is something that, like I said, we haven't seen for 70 years. | ||
| It's a copper mine. | ||
| It's the first, I believe, in 50 years, particularly that rare earth, like I said, in the state of Wyoming. | ||
| It'll be a big event sort of following the July 4th spirit. | ||
| But I think to your point, so much of this comes back to the rare earths. | ||
| Why do I say that? | ||
| I think after the first trade war, right, the PRC really understood that they needed to change and shift their strategy to sort of fix for some of their shortcomings, of which they identified rare earths, the kind of vertical integration from start to finish, the whole process, smelting or deep processing, whatever. | ||
| And they did that, right, with Made in China 2025, really ratcheting up. | ||
| They sort of combined, made these conglomerates, a lot of their rare earth companies. | ||
| And I think this speaks to President Trump's sort of hemispheric defense policy, right? | ||
| But you sort of put that through the paradigm of unrestricted warfare. | ||
| It's not just kinetic action. | ||
| It's really, like we said, these chips, those semiconductors, name your item, that we see not just in sort of the confines of military civil fusion, but being used just for typical everyday Western life. | ||
| And the PRC certainly understands this. | ||
| If you want to toss an article up on screen from the Wall Street Journal just a few days ago showing that the PRC is actually withholding the passports of Chinese sort of engineers in this field because they don't want them to leave. | ||
| They don't want them to share the technology with the United States. | ||
| And I think this is another called shot for the war room. | ||
| Our intellectual bettors over at foreign policy had a big piece up just today talking extensively about how rare earths have sort of been China's cudgel in this ongoing trade war. | ||
| So I think this is a historic development. | ||
| Of course, no real coverage from the legacy media on anything that this administration is doing on the rare earth front. | ||
| And so, Natalie, we got about a minute until we go to a break. | ||
| I want you to hang around for a few minutes. | ||
| President Trump on the 2.8% growth, really, I think internally they think it would be higher than three. | ||
| This is a big part of it. | ||
| If you haven't seen Peter Navarro a lot on TV lately, I think Peter Navarro is burrowed down into let's make some of these fundamental realignments we have to make so that CCP doesn't have an advantage on supply chains and on rare earths. | ||
| And this thing, I can't tell you how huge it is. | ||
| Of course the mainstream media is not going to cover it because it's such a positive thing for President Trump. | ||
| And this gives it, it has been a cudgel because the magnets, everything that's kind of made in automotive, and this is where people were saying, hey, we're going to have to shut down factory lines. | ||
| This is a very big, important part of it. | ||
| This is central. | ||
| And this also shows you why this negotiation with the CCP has been so tough. | ||
| And it also shows you why, You know, Scott Besson is doing that one. | ||
| I might also add that Howard Lutnick was unacceptable as commerce secretary yesterday in his pitching of the AI moratorium. | ||
| This is another guy that does not get it, he does not understand MAGA. | ||
| It's all kind of phony MAGA. | ||
| So you can sit there and oh, I'm MAGA. | ||
| No, dude, you're far from it. | ||
| You're just too aligned with the tech bros. | ||
| I understand you made your money beforehand with the tech bros, but it's not acceptable. | ||
| This is why President Trump's got the Chinese Communist Party negotiation in Scott Besson's hands, not the Secretary of Commerce. | ||
| Hate to break some inside baseball. | ||
| This is just reality. | ||
| And why this rare earth is so important and vital to that negotiation. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Back in the war room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
just a moment. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Battle. | ||
| Welcome back. | ||
| The team is down, is heading towards Brazil. | ||
| We're going to try to catch up with them. | ||
| I don't think we're going to do it tonight, but tomorrow, Philip Patrick and the team are going to talk everything about the BRICS. | ||
| And this is why, in going back and hitting reset about the actual model, and I think if the Secretary of Treasury, and I think we're trying to get Scott on tomorrow. | ||
| Also, EJ and Tony is going to join us. | ||
| We had Joe Lavanier today, who was spectacular. | ||
| We had Dr. Stephen Myron on yesterday, who's fantastic. | ||
| When you start talking about the holistic economic model, and Natalie just told you how, hey, rare earths is part of everything that he's doing in capital expenditure and reshoring. | ||
| Then you can holistically look at this and understand the premise of their bet is that we can grow the economy at a faster rate than the debts growing and therefore, in that regard, bring down the, which is the key part right now, deficits as percentage of GDP from 6.5%, maybe even 7%, down to 3%. | ||
| It is not sustainable at 6.5%. | ||
| Scott Bessant would tell you that. | ||
| Why is that? | ||
| Because it means you have to sell too many bonds. | ||
| And there's already this controversy in the Financial Times they pointed out. | ||
| I think the Secretary of Treasury has done a good job of refuting it, which they said the other day they're having a difficult time selling 20 years and 30 years, just like the Japanese are having. | ||
| One of the reasons that people are questioning all of the industrial democracies in the West, including Japan, of the sustainability of these business models, given deficits and given debt and given also demographics. | ||
| This is one of the reasons Japan is getting hammered right now. | ||
| I think the treasuries refuted that. | ||
| They don't have a problem. | ||
| And one of the biggest tells we have on the big, beautiful bill, one of the biggest tells that we have, is the fact that the equity markets are at an all-time high, particularly the S ⁇ P 500, which is the best, the 400 and the 500 are the best indicators, much more than the Dow, of the overall health of the equity markets of our economy. | ||
| Number two, the bond markets are not throwing up on this deal. | ||
| They're just not. | ||
| There's relative comm in the bond markets. | ||
| Credits, you know, it's tight spreads. | ||
| And I think the 10-year treasury, which we've taught you, kind of your whole economic life goes off that. | ||
| Your credit card, your home loan, your student loan, your car loan, everything is predicated on that 10-year treasury. | ||
| I think it's at 4.25%, but it's been down. | ||
| Inflation's down. | ||
| The wages, particularly blue-collar wages, are rising. | ||
| The pieces of it are coming together. | ||
| And I realize there's a lot, particularly if you break it apart, people don't like about it, but this was one-time shot to get it all done, to put it in back of us. | ||
| And like I said, it's quite complex. | ||
| We're going to play some in a moment. | ||
| Some of the guys in the house who you're very familiar with, some of the hawks, the deficit hawks, that are not happy with where we stand. | ||
| And that's going to have to be worked out. | ||
| 9 o'clock tomorrow morning. | ||
| They're all called back tonight. | ||
| 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, they're going to vote. | ||
| They're going to meet. | ||
| They're going to, I think, have a conference. | ||
| Then they're going to talk about a rule that they're going to have a rule vote. | ||
| So strap in for the next couple of days. | ||
| Natalie Winters, just the spirit. | ||
| I thought it was great President Trump getting out today, getting down to Florida. | ||
| He's taking a tour. | ||
| He's a builder. | ||
| He's seeing something that's been put together in eight days. | ||
| It actually talks about the action that he's doing on the mass deportations, gets him back into the sweet spot of something he's very focused on. | ||
| The big, beautiful bill got done. | ||
| The Senate part was approved exactly in the middle of his talk. | ||
| I thought it was fantastic. | ||
| What's the energy or the fighting spirit around the White House today over the last couple of days as you because I understand everybody's been at kind of general quarters because of avoiding and not getting sucked into by our ally, a major regime change war in Persia, ma'am? | ||
| Well, I think there's sort of an inverse relationship, right? | ||
| When we're covering deportations, obviously the new media loves it. | ||
| The legacy, my legacy bettors don't particularly like it, though. | ||
| I did love your coverage this morning, but I think there, I have to say, was sort of an coalescence and really convergence between a lot of the new media outlets and the legacy media outlets when it came to everything that was going down in Iran. | ||
| I think for all of the, frankly, hype or meltdown that we heard about how new media was going to bring some new viewpoints into the briefing room and really shift the coverage, I really think we saw sort of a similar WMD style kind of propaganda narrative take over. | ||
| And I wish that a lot of these new media outlets would have, I think, followed in War Room's footsteps and held a stronger line on calling for the actual evidence, not just taking foreign countries' alleged intel reports as gospel. | ||
| But I think, like I'm sure the American electorate, the people who elected President Trump agrees, we should be focusing on mass deportations and not getting entangled in additional foreign conflicts. | ||
| So I think for that reason, a much better day, not just in the press court, but probably the administration more broadly. | ||
| Where do people go for your social media? | ||
| Where do they go for all of it, Natalie? | ||
| Because we've got so much work to do here on internal and just announced President Trump has signed that he's holding back arms shipments to Ukraine. | ||
| We're going to try to get into that, maybe get some understanding of that in the second hour. | ||
| Last time I remember President Trump did that, they impeached him. | ||
| So hopefully this was not done with a phone call with Zelensky, but we'll find out about all of this. | ||
| There's all kind of bombs dropping today that if we don't get to tonight, we're going to get to in the morning. | ||
| Where do people go for your social media, ma'am? | ||
| Well, Natalie G. Winters, but more importantly, happy one year. | ||
| We missed you. | ||
| We're very glad you're back, and please don't go back to prison. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Next man up. | ||
| Next man up. | ||
| Next woman up. | ||
| Besides the fact I had a door. | ||
| Next woman up. | ||
| I say that in the most generic way of all. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It was actually an amazing biological women. | |
| Yes. | ||
| Well, they did this. | ||
| University of Pennsylvania Day, I think, has taken all the trophies and medals away from that. | ||
| I think we've got some clips. | ||
| Let's go ahead and play what we've got. | ||
| I may jump in here because it may run a little long. | ||
| I've got Batia Unger Sargon who's going to join us. | ||
| She's done a great job, and quite frankly, her alerting people to part of this Medicaid issue. | ||
| I think Senator Schmidt and others took care of it. | ||
| Let's go ahead and let some of the responses play. | ||
| Comes to things we disagree with when you just assume what is current policy rather than having us vote on said policy. | ||
| I've seen a lot of messaging and rhetoric coming from very good friends of mine talking about how it's somehow anathema or accepting leftist dogma to say and to ask the question about a policy baseline about whether or not that is foregoing our responsibility to do the math. | ||
| You can believe that the current tax rates that are X, whether it's for the lowest bracket or the highest, should stay the same. | ||
| And I take on face value that many of my colleagues, the administration and myself included, would like them to stay at that level or even lower. | ||
| That's my preference. | ||
| But if you do that, you have to do math. | ||
| What will be the impact then on revenue? | ||
| And my colleagues, I think, in the Senate in particular, because God bless the House, at least we've created a framework by which we were trying to do dollar for dollar. | ||
| I realize my colleagues on the other side of the aisle disagreed with that. | ||
| But I want to give credit to the Budget Committee Chairman for trying to hold a line of saying that there ought to at least be a connection, that we ought to at least say, if we're going to do the tax policy, at least do the spending policy. | ||
| Have the courage and the fortitude to do what you campaign on when you're talking about balancing the dang budget. | ||
| Don't just talk about it. | ||
| Don't talk about balanced budget amendments and then go home and say, look at me. | ||
| I got a balanced budget amendment vote. | ||
| Did it fail? | ||
| No, it failed. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Is it law? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Right? | ||
| But man, I got you your tax cuts. | ||
| But ignore that inflation that is a result of $37 trillion of debt. | ||
| My colleagues in the Senate failed us. | ||
| My colleagues in the Senate failed us. | ||
| They sent us a bill knowingly using a policy baseline gimmick. | ||
| They sent it knowingly. | ||
| And they sent it knowing that it was going to have increased deficits. | ||
| Last question. | ||
| I'm sorry, it's for my good friend from Texas who I don't really want to put on the spot here in a way that's beyond, I think, the core question, but this matters. | ||
| Regardless of what one thinks about these policies and wanting to be able to have the economic growth, I want the tax house to be permanent. | ||
| I want all this stuff. | ||
| But is it fair to say that the lion's share of the deficits will be in the first five years of the 10-year budget window? | ||
| Is that fair to say? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, that's fair. | |
| Is that relatively irrefutably fair to say? | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's irrefutable to my knowledge. | |
| The only way to refute the idea that in the first four to five years of the budget window that we will have significant deficits to the tune of probably close to $2 trillion, $1.8 trillion, even on a dynamic basis, assuming the Budget Committee's numbers, that you have to make up for it in the tail in the last five years of the budget window, the only way to do that, to the best of my knowledge, is to assume more revenue for tariffs and assume higher growth rates. | ||
| So I think you have to assume, I haven't done the exact math, 3 to 3.5 percent growth over 10 years, which I hope we have and we should aspire to get, and tariff revenue at the rate that we currently are bringing it in or more, which CBO has scored to CBO's math, 2.1, 8 trillion. | ||
| I just do that from memory, something like that. | ||
| So it'd be about $280 billion a year. | ||
| So you have to assume that tariff revenue and assume, call it 3.5% roughly growth. | ||
| Then you start to kind of wash out what we're doing in Congress by our choice. | ||
| Everything we just said, we're leaving essentially administration to go carry out. | ||
| If I'm characterizing anything incorrectly, does anybody want to challenge what I just said mathematically? | ||
|
unidentified
|
With that, I will yield back. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Roy. | ||
| And all I would say is that I want to get to Norman in a moment. | ||
| This gets back to what I said, the reason we had Joe on here. | ||
| And look, the administration has to do a better job of this. | ||
| It's your program. | ||
| It's got to be sold. | ||
| And I think it's a disservice to the president. | ||
| I think Treasury, I think NEC, I think Mirant, we had him on yesterday. | ||
| It's a very compelling case. | ||
| You see right there, Chips looking for the answer, and they're not stepping up the answer. | ||
| If you add all of this, and I think the math is, particularly with some of these cuts and additional things to be done, and the tariffs at $300 billion a year or higher, which right now I think is on track for $400 billion, the reshoring, right, occurring at the, and we just had Natalie on here talking about one of the underpinnings of reshoring is eventually the availability of processed rare earths. | ||
| You've got the deregulation. | ||
| You have the deportations and the restrictions are coming across to compete. | ||
| So you've got increasing wages. | ||
| You've got all this that even in the first five years, the Secretary of Treasury said it. | ||
| If my team can pull the clip on Kill Me This Morning, I think we might have played it. | ||
| That the $5 trillion, you're not going to hit, it's a $5 trillion debt ceiling increase. | ||
| We're not going to hit that. | ||
| We're not going to hit that because in the down years, you're not going to hit the two or over $2 trillion deficits. | ||
| The structural cuts, and this is why what the Senate and people are talking about are in the out years. | ||
| Chip Roy just absolutely nailed it. | ||
| The thing we should focus on is the near-term years, period zero now to the fifth year. | ||
| And maybe even I'm a big believer in just this year, next year. | ||
| Where do we stand? | ||
| This is how you do turnarounds, and this is a turnaround or recapitalization, whatever you're going to call it. | ||
| This is a turnaround. | ||
| You got to look at this year and next year. | ||
| After that, you know, we'll figure it out. | ||
| But if you don't make this year and next year work, then you don't have to worry. | ||
| So I think Chip Roy is asking good questions. | ||
| We have to provide, and you have to be aggressive in providing the answers. | ||
| There you got guys, I don't know, shrugging the shoulders. | ||
| That's not how you're going to sell this thing. | ||
| People have to understand it. | ||
| It's a little complicated, but it's clearly understandable. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Back in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We rejoice with the lobo. | |
| Let's take down the CCP. | ||
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Battle. | ||
| BirchGold.com promo code Bannon. | ||
| Make sure you go check it out, The End of the Dollar Empire. | ||
| Get fully up to speed on this. | ||
| The noise that they're making of coming up with an alternative currency, hopefully we're being able to thwart that with the structural changes that we're making. | ||
| Hopefully, I'd say if you had raised taxes on the wealthy, I think we would have gotten there. | ||
| But make sure you understand, and it's much more than that. | ||
| We talk about deficits, we talk about debts, all the nomenclature that you need to really understand. | ||
| When Chiproy talks, you can at least kind of follow along. | ||
| And this is very important because we're going to be fighting about money for a long time. | ||
| This debt and deficits are a central issue. | ||
| Birchgold.com, into the dollar empire. | ||
| Or just take out your phone if you want a quick study. | ||
| They've got a free guide, which I love. | ||
| Just take out your phone, Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N, at 989898. | ||
| You get the ultimate free guide to the investing in gold and precious metals and all the methodologies from Birch Gold. | ||
| In the age of Trump, it's not an era anymore. | ||
| It's an age, an age of Trump. | ||
| And Harry Ann at the top talking about President Trump's amazing polling with the base is incredible. | ||
| So, Baccio, and Baccio, I'd like to keep you into the 6 o'clock hour because we didn't get you on as early. | ||
| I've been pontificating about economic models that I think need to be presented to the American people. | ||
| You brought up something the other day that was very important. | ||
| I think you won a couple of shows. | ||
| You were very upset about one particular item, and I think your voice was heard. | ||
| It was amplified by other people. | ||
| I know the worm and other people were saying, well, hang on for a second. | ||
| The parliamentarians like saying you can't cut out illegal immigrants from Medicaid, but we're going to make that up by taking it from American working people. | ||
| Senator Schmidt, the great Senator Schmidt of Missouri, came out today and said, hey, look, he wants to put everybody's thing to bed. | ||
| I think 1.4 million illegal aliens who are on Medicaid are now fully off, not just partially off. | ||
| What was it about that upset you so much, Bacha, that you would go around and really start to say, hey, if this thing passes, it's going to be a travesty? | ||
| So first of all, happy anniversary, Steve. | ||
| I hope it's okay if I tell the war room posse where I was when I found out that you were actually going to prison as a patriot. | ||
| And I was on a plane and I was on the verge of tears and I texted you and I said, what can I do? | ||
| And you said to me, next man up as you do. | ||
| And it was an honor to hear those words from you. | ||
| So thank you again for your service and God bless. | ||
| And just what a relief that you're here with us and what a service you did to your country. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| So the reason I got so upset about that was it seemed to me in that moment that what we effectively had was two parties. | ||
| One party that wanted millions and millions of illegal immigrants to be on the Medicaid rolls and one party that was going to be kicking off millions and millions of American citizens and neither party doing what the vast majority of working class Americans want, which is greatly reducing the number of immigrants coming into this country and greatly expanding access to affordable, high quality health care. | ||
| I think there's this view in the sort of rhino version of the Republican Party from pre-Trump era that sees health care as like a luxury or like spinning rims or something, you know, something people are like scamming the system in order to get. | ||
| We should all want more people to have better health care because healthy Americans work and work hard. | ||
| And unfortunately, a lot of hardworking Americans don't have access to high quality health care. | ||
| And the thing, Steve, that I don't understand is why do Republicans not get that most of the rich people in this country that they are now helping with tax cuts for the rich are Democrats? | ||
| Whereas most of the people who are working class, that is their base. | ||
| There's like this real fundamental inability of them to understand the political reality right now that of course you understand because you've helped create it here, which is that working class people deserve to have a party that sees them as human and is invested in their flourishing. | ||
| So I feel really strongly about this. | ||
| You know, the raising taxes on the rich is such an obvious winning agenda item. | ||
| It is supported by 80% of Americans. | ||
| So I'm so confused about why this went down the way that it did, and just so totally grateful for this platform that you have, where you are instructing politicians to understand how to relate to their actual voter base. | ||
| Bantri, can you hang on? | ||
| I'm holding six o'clock hour. | ||
| Just to track down Dave Brett, I want to get you into this entire discussion because it was a seismic to have 18 Republicans even think of raising taxes on the wealthy. | ||
| I know it got Grove and Norcross and the people that for years are saying it's absolutely foreboding. | ||
| I think we're seeing a sea change on that. | ||
| I think if we did the snapback for the wealthy, for the top bracket, right? | ||
| Well, the top bracket is not wealthy, but for the top bracket from 37.5% to 39.5%, we would solve some of these problems. | ||
| But I think if we set up a new bracket at 40% for millionaires and above, I think that we could ultimately, you know, it's not perfect. | ||
| It's not going to generate all the revenue we need, but it's directionally in the way we have to go. | ||
| So just hang on. | ||
| Dave Bratt and Dave Walsh are going to talk to us about energy because energy is so central to the Trump economic revolution. | ||
| Mike Lindell, tomorrow I can announce, you're at the factory today, but tomorrow you will be in Washington, D.C. We'll pick you up live from Washington. | ||
| In the interim, sir, you're going to sell me, I want a special deal for the War Room Posse. | ||
| What do you got for us? | ||
| Here's what we got. | ||
| In light of the going to be selling product right from the White House tomorrow, everybody, we're going to announce that we waited all year for this sale, but we're going to do it a day early for the War Room Posse. | ||
| And it's the 50% off or more sale for the July 4th. | ||
| We're going to start it right now. | ||
| And this is a war room exclusive, too. | ||
| So we're going to start it early, celebrate. | ||
| You guys, if you go to the website, use that promo code Warroom and you see every, all these products, 50% or more off. | ||
| You guys, these are the kitchen towels, the main the USA, my pillows, the beds, the mattress toppers, everything site-wide for the war room posse using that promo code war room. | ||
| And you can call 800-873-1062. | ||
| Tell them that you're from the war room posse, that promo code warroom, and you get that 50% off sale early. | ||
| Steve, we're going to have a great time in D.C., and I'm looking forward to coming on tomorrow with the White House right in the background there and celebrate the 4th of July. | ||
| Perfect. | ||
| Mike Lindell in Washington C. Lindell goes to D.C. We love it. | ||
| Now you're going to meet the president. | ||
| Want a full report tomorrow. | ||
| Other activities. | ||
| The president's going to go to Iowa. | ||
| Monica Crowley. | ||
| This is for the kickoff of the celebration of America 250. | ||
| Monica Crowley is going to be on Air Force One. | ||
| We're going to try to get Monica on the show tomorrow as the Ambassador Crowley, I should say, about protocol. | ||
| Talk about what's going to happen in Iowa at the rally. | ||
| We're going to cover that wall-to-wall on Thursday. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Make sure Birch Gold, take out your phone. | ||
| Text Bannon at 989898 to get the ultimate guide for investing in gold and precious metals. | ||
| Stick around. |
Export Selection