July 22, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:53
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| New information, a new statement coming out from the Justice Department on all of this. | ||
| What are you learning? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, this just came in moments ago, Kate, from a statement from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. | ||
| I want to read for you what it said because it seems like this pressure campaign on the White House is working. | ||
| So Blanche said, quote, at the direction of Attorney General Bondi, I have communicated with counsel for Miss Maxwell. | ||
| He's referring to Ghillaine Maxwell, of course, one of Jeffrey Epstein's associates who has been convicted on some of those crimes, to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the department. | ||
| I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days. | ||
| Now, part of that statement as well, we had heard from Blanche saying that if she has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, he said the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say. | ||
| This is a new development, Kate, and this is exactly what we've been now hearing from not just Democrats and the broader American public, from the president's fiercest supporters. | ||
| You had that graphic of some of the people who are pushing for and supporting that discharge position in the House to try and force a floor vote on this. | ||
| I mean, this has now become an untenable position for the White House. | ||
| This idea, and really their strategy for the last couple weeks now, of trying to move on from this subject. | ||
| We have now seen the pressure really ratcheted up here, and now we are hearing from the Justice Department that they are planning to meet with Ghelene Maxwell and see if they can get more information on what she knows and specifically, as Blanche had said, about anyone who had also committed crimes against victims. | ||
| I think, of course, a key question is, will this be enough? | ||
| Because we have now heard from several different of the president's supporters, people like Steve Bannon, like Laura Loomer, but then also many of his supporters on Capitol Hill, Marjorie Taylor Green, one of them saying, you need to publish this. | ||
| There needs to be more transparency. | ||
| And what I found really interesting about, you know, I was watching some of what our colleague Manu Raju, he was catching up with Republicans on Capitol Hill. | ||
| Many of them were saying, Green, but also Senator Josh Hawley was another example, saying that they're getting calls, Kate, from their constituents. | ||
| Green said that this is what she's been getting calls about more than anything else, is to push for more transparency here. | ||
| And you mentioned this. | ||
| The president so far has, again, really been trying to move on from this. | ||
| He's been trying to change the subject. | ||
| He's been telling his supporters, you know, don't be weaklings. | ||
| We need to move on from this. | ||
| But now it looks like the Justice Department is moving forward and trying to get more information on this beyond what we saw the president do last week, which was ask the Attorney General Pam Bondi to unseal some of the grand jury testimony and transcripts from the Epstein case. | ||
| And we had heard an end from many legal experts and others that that wouldn't be enough. | ||
| We'll see if this quenches the thirst of many of his supporters, this call to interview Gillene Maxwell. | ||
| This is a combination. | ||
| It's the terrorists bringing back manufacturing to the U.S. It's the full expensing in the one big beautiful bill, which I think is one of the most important things that we did. | ||
| Companies can do 100% expensing for equipment, 100% expensing for factories. | ||
| If you bring your factory back here, I think we had big pent-up demand. | ||
| We are in the middle of this incredible AI boom that I don't know whether you want to say this is the third, fourth, fifth industrial revolution. | ||
| So we're seeing the hyperscaler spin like we never have before. | ||
| And I think what's really gone unheralded here is the Trump administration's emphasis on deregulation. | ||
| We are making it possible to build things in America again. | ||
| For years, if you wanted to build a factory, a pipeline, a transmission grid, you were held up by permitting. | ||
| And President Trump has given, whether it's EPA, the Energy Interior, a mandate that these permits should get out within a month. | ||
| So America is building things again. | ||
| And I tell you, this is the way that countries get rich and stay rich is through long-term investment and productivity. | ||
| I want to read for you just more of that statement that we got this morning from the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. | ||
| He said, at the direction of Attorney General Bondi, this is a quote, I've communicated with counsel for Miss Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the department. | ||
| I anticipate meeting with Miss Maxwell in the coming days. | ||
| And then, Kate, we also got a statement from Blaine Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Marcus. | ||
| This is what he told CNN. | ||
| He said, quote, I can confirm that we are in discussions with the government and that Ghillaine will always testify truthfully. | ||
| We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case. | ||
| So again, of course, a couple key questions now about all of this. | ||
| One is, what exactly are they going to glean from this? | ||
| Will Maxwell be truthful? | ||
| Does she have ulterior motives? | ||
| Of course, he mentioned she's in prison now for serving a 20-year sentence. | ||
| You know, they have to determine what she says, whether it's credible, and whether they can release it to the public. | ||
| I'd remind you, the president has now repeatedly said that he's giving the Attorney General Pam Bondi, kind of it's up to her to decide if there's credible information to release. | ||
| She can choose to do so. | ||
| But all of this, again, is another question, really, is if this will be enough for the people who have been pushing for this administration to release the Epstein files. | ||
| That has really been what people have been asking for. | ||
| You mentioned those Republican members in Congress who are pushing this effort to force a floor vote to have them release these Epstein files. | ||
| We heard from many conservative Republicans, Trump allies, I should say, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Senator Josh Hawley, saying that they are getting calls, Kate, from their constituents about this, pressing this White House and this administration to be more transparent on the Epstein case. | ||
| So what I think is very clear from the Attorney General and the DOJ more broadly is doing here is they recognize that their position thus far of trying to get everyone to move on from this, from releasing that memo over two weeks ago now saying that Epstein died by suicide, that there was no so-called clientless. | ||
| They recognize that that is not enough. | ||
| That enough people are now saying we need more in this. | ||
| this story, and this desire to get more information is not going away. | ||
| So now it's really up to seeing what will Maxwell say, what would this meeting with her glean, and whether or not that will be enough for the people who are again calling for far more transparency than this Trump administration has so far been willing to give. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies, because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| You're going to not get 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. Mann. | |
| Three, two, one. | ||
| It's Tuesday, 22 July, Year of the Lord 2025. | ||
| Just to add to the announcements this morning, and I understand they've been worked on, I think, for quite some time. | ||
| Todd Blanche was the president's lawyer. | ||
| He and Emil Bove, as you remember, got him through all the most difficult years of the persecution of President Trump. | ||
| Something I hope that the Justice Department FBI is getting on top of, helping assisting Tulsi Gabbard. | ||
| More on that in a while. | ||
| Colonel Derrick Harvey is going to join us. | ||
| Debras is going to join us. | ||
| I want to just give an update. | ||
| This is Maxwell's attorney, quote, her attorney, David Oscar Marcus, just told CNN, I can confirm that we're in discussions with the government and that Elaine will always testify truthfully. | ||
| We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case, end quote. | ||
| We'll have more on that in a little while. | ||
| Let's go to Signal Not Noise. | ||
| Joe Lavornay joins us from the Treasury Department. | ||
| Axios had a story. | ||
| I don't know if the headline was actually correct, but the story is pretty interesting. | ||
| But it dovetails with what the Secretary of Treasury said. | ||
| I think it was on Maria. | ||
| We covered this in the run-up to the vote of the Big Beautiful bill about the supply-side nature of the tax cut. | ||
| And particularly something that I think that was lost, even on the business press, didn't focus on enough, the expensing of capital equipment, the expensing of entire factories that people want to come here and get around the tariffs and actually build here, which is one of the reasons President Trump is putting up tariff barriers that if you want access to this market, you either manufacture here or you're going to pay some sort of premium. | ||
| And I think the Secretary reiterated today, the Axios piece is pretty smart when you get into it. | ||
| It's got a bunch of buried leads that we could be, because of what we've seen so far in the data and people taking advantage of this expensing of capital equipment and particularly office equipment and other things around manufacturing, you could be building for an absolute boom in the economy, just like you guys forecasted. | ||
| Is that a correct assessment of this, Joe? | ||
| Yes, Steve. | ||
| Thank you for having me. | ||
| It is a correct assessment. | ||
| The Access article, I think the meat of it did a very good job of hammering the key points that we need to make that are accurate. | ||
| I guess I saw that headline there. | ||
| I would say that it's overlooked data that's already consistent with a CapEx comeback, a capital spending comeback. | ||
| We've already seen it. | ||
| We're not predicting anything at this point. | ||
| We're just highlighting the fact that the policies that we were going to implement, President Trump wanted to implement, the One Big Beautiful Bill, is already paying dividends. | ||
| You talked about the CapEx expensing. | ||
| The Secretary was mentioning that this morning. | ||
| And what it meant is that effective inauguration day, you could expense 100% of what you were going to spend to build your business. | ||
| Building that business, giving it capital, is going to make workers more productive. | ||
| It's going to foster a continued blue-collar boom, which has already begun. | ||
| And this data already shows it's happened. | ||
| In other words, companies were behaving in anticipation of the one big beautiful bill being passed. | ||
| But importantly, that bill had that expensing dated back to when President Trump took office. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That was a very smart move. | |
| So, yeah, let's go through this. | ||
| We framed this for the Big Beautiful bill that it was the last chance, as Scott Besson said on the show for years. | ||
| It was the last chance really to have a supply side cut, which really focused on production. | ||
| And a big part of that was the expensing of capital equipment to make sure that we put an emphasis on manufacturing. | ||
| And I just want to tell you, this is how we got into this discussion about business models and forecast. | ||
| You know, people were talking about the CBO was saying, oh, we're going to grow 1.7, 1.8%. | ||
| Yet Treasury and the administration said, hey, we think the growth could actually be 2.8, maybe over 3%, up to 3.5%. | ||
| In President Trump's first term in 2019, when you had the impact of his first tax cut, you saw particularly that he grew it, I think, an average, as you and I have discussed, at 2.8%. | ||
| But most importantly, in the fall of 2019, as it started to peak, he got up to 3.4% growth. | ||
| This is all predicated upon this. | ||
| This is what makes that happen. | ||
| You've got to incentivize corporations. | ||
| You have to incentivize private equity. | ||
| You have to incentivize people to put money into capital equipment. | ||
| Once the money is in capital equipment, workers, managers, et cetera, take advantage of that capital, and that's how you have growth. | ||
| So that theory of the case that you guys argued, and quite frankly, based upon historical data from the first Trump, and this is what the left doesn't want to focus on. | ||
| And quite frankly, the business media has done a terrible job about this. | ||
| But this is the heart of the matter, right? | ||
| To incentivize people to invest in capital equipment, and then basically the workers, mid-managers, et cetera, take advantage of that, sir? | ||
| That's exactly right. | ||
| And I'd say, Steve, this bill is even better than the first bill. | ||
| The first Bill was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that President Trump pushed through. | ||
| This one is better. | ||
| Number one, President Trump wanted it on his desk July 4th, which he got. | ||
| Number two, and that just includes the full expensing of capital equipment, but as Secretary Besson has highlighted, and this is very key, people need to know this: you also get full expensing if you break ground on a new factory. | ||
| That hadn't existed before. | ||
| So to your point about supply side and investing in the future, the U.S. is going to be a reindustrialized manufacturing renaissance where capital comes here both domestically and abroad to invest, to build out the infrastructure, to be able to produce the goods and services that people want. | ||
| And what's important, when we talked about this CapEx comeback, let me just give you a couple of numbers. | ||
| In the first quarter, production of businesses. | ||
| I'll tell you what. | ||
| Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, Joe, hang on for the numbers. | ||
| I want to hold you through the break. | ||
| I want to make sure everybody hears this in its entirety because it's so important. | ||
| This is also President Trump's, what I say, the commercial aspects, the tariffs, are inextricably linked with this. | ||
| Because companies, international companies, foreign companies have a choice. | ||
| You either move your manufacturing here to get through the golden door, right, which they're going to give you advantages on CapEx to do that. | ||
| Or if you don't, there'll be a toll called a tariff to get here. | ||
| And that's why I think it's over $100 billion already in tariffs. | ||
| And there's been no association with any rising prices whatsoever in the tariffs. | ||
| So far, I don't know. | ||
| The theory of the case is working out. | ||
| I certainly wish people that did this full-time, like the business media, maybe, I don't know, the Wall Street Journal, CNBC, just don't have some random, rando names, would get on top of this and understand exactly what the theory of the case was and how it's coming to fulfillment. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to go back to the Treasury Department in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I got American baby in America. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Matt. | ||
| Okay, welcome back. | ||
| Derek Harvey's going to join us. | ||
| We're going to get into a lot of Tulsi, a lot of the upstand, big breaking news on that, obviously from the Justice Department. | ||
| We're going to get into all that. | ||
| Also, the President of the United States removed America from UNESCO. | ||
| We're going to go live to Geneva in our own Noor bin Laden is going to explain all that. | ||
| I know that's a red-letter day for everybody. | ||
| Many years of working on this. | ||
| Dave Brattstrom, we're going to get in some economics because the two things are going to have a massive impact on the midterms is obviously the economy. | ||
| And I want to talk about the rescissions and where are those before these guys go on holiday. | ||
| By the way, I think the House is thinking of getting out of town. | ||
| I'm not making this up. | ||
| I think the House is leaving on Thursday, and they're not back after Labor Day. | ||
| Not kidding. | ||
| Not kidding. | ||
| With a couple of free appropriations bills still hanging out there. | ||
| And Dave Brad will be here. | ||
| We're going to talk about economics. | ||
| Also, the situation in Texas, now it's getting a national profile. | ||
| Very, very, very serious. | ||
| The Hill's got a good piece on it this morning. | ||
| I've talked to Brian Harrison. | ||
| We're going to try to, Natalie's going to do the 5 o'clock show for us as currently scheduled. | ||
| I'm doing the 6 with Joe Allen. | ||
| A big announcement tomorrow, the AI action plan from the White House. | ||
| We're covering that wall-to-wall. | ||
| Tonight, we're going to give you a preview of how that will impact you and your family and the nation's future. | ||
| Joe, let's go back to the numbers. | ||
| The Axios piece, the headline's a little cockeyed, but when you read the piece, it is very informative, particularly about what the plan here was and how it's starting to kick in. | ||
| So walk us through the map as you have it right now, sir. | ||
| Yes, Steve. | ||
| So the fact is the expectation of the one big beautiful bill, which people have to understand is groundbreaking, literally, because it expenses all kinds of capital, plants, equipment, factories, et cetera. | ||
| It's retroactive to January. | ||
| So CapEx comeback, it's already here. | ||
| It's already happening. | ||
| And people need to be aware of that because that positive business psychology, the animal spirits of the business cycle, if you will, will help foster and galvanize very strong growth. | ||
| In the first quarter, the production of business equipment rose over 23% at an annual rate. | ||
| When you have that kind of big gain, typically you see a real big retracement in the second quarter. | ||
| That didn't happen. | ||
| We grew 11%. | ||
| So if you look at the first half growth in the production of business equipment, we're up almost 17% at an annual rate. | ||
| When we look at the GDP data, which is what economists focus on, and we look at that CapEx component for the first quarter, it rose at a similar pace as this business equipment series. | ||
| It rose 24%, actually 1% faster. | ||
| What we have right now in the first half of the year, and this is what your listeners need to know, is a near 17%. | ||
| When you combine both quarters, production of business equipment, CapEx, the lifeblood, the support of productivity growth and wages, all these great things we're seeing rose 17% at an annual rate. | ||
| That is the fat, excluding the pandemic, which can't look at distort everything. | ||
| We're running CapEx spending right now at the fastest rate since 1997. | ||
| So let that sink into people. | ||
| 1997, that's how fast CapEx is. | ||
| And when you have that CapEx growth, you get what economists call capital deepening, you're going to get stronger productivity. | ||
| And when you have stronger productivity, you can pay your workers more. | ||
| So this blue-collar boom that we're seeing under President Trump and that Secretary Besson has talked about should continue and extend through the rest of this year and through President Trump's term. | ||
| And of course, hopefully long thereafter. | ||
| Because as you highlighted earlier, these are supply-side incentives designed to raise the speed limit for how fast this economy can grow. | ||
| So when agencies like the CBO are predicting growth to some 2%, that to me is from a totally different era. | ||
| That doesn't make any sense to what we're seeing right now in the data. | ||
| What should we, what do you, make us smart here. | ||
| When you look at your dashboard going forward, the first six months, obviously amazing. | ||
| As you guys go forward on your dashboard, what are the two or three things we should focus on? | ||
| So number one, certainly, Steve, and the Axios piece was good and highlighted overlook data. | ||
| This business equipment series is very important. | ||
| We're watching that. | ||
| It comes out monthly. | ||
| Within the GDP report, which we're going to get in a few weeks for the second quarter, we want to look at equipment spending or what's known as private business fixed investment. | ||
| Very important. | ||
| That's where all the one big beautiful bill is going to show up. | ||
| Over time, we expect a rising manufacturing share of output. | ||
| So you'll see broadly faster industrial production. | ||
| You'll see things like the ISM Manufacturing Index. | ||
| It's a qualitative survey that should move meaningfully above 50. | ||
| And over time, we should see a lot more manufacturing jobs as the U.S. attracts that foreign capital, as there's more investment, that's more hiring, that's more building, it's more production. | ||
| Joe, where do people track you over in your social media? | ||
| You're over there helping the Secretary execute and implement the Big Beautiful Bill. | ||
| Where do people go? | ||
| At LaVorne Unomics, Steve. | ||
| At LaVorne Unomics. | ||
| Joe, thank you so much. | ||
| Very informative. | ||
| My pleasure, Steve. | ||
| Thank you so much for having me. | ||
| It was a pleasure. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| So if you take the Secretary's interview with Maria and about that 100%, and that's what the business press is not, and they should, that's their job, right? | ||
| To focus on that, you tie it to the axios where they're talking about the data. | ||
| Dave Brett, this is what we've been talking about. | ||
| I want to get to the spending in a second because I'm not feeling it on the rescissions, but I want to, because this strategy of President Trump is, it's not that it's complicated, but it's got a number of pieces that are coming together. | ||
| And he kind of thought this through in his strategy. | ||
| Number one, the tariffs. | ||
| And what do we mean by that? | ||
| It's commercial relationships with the world. | ||
| We're the biggest consumer market. | ||
| We're inside the golden door, right? | ||
| You got to pay a premium. | ||
| He's given people a choice. | ||
| Either bring your manufacturing back here to the United States, of which we would give you certain tax incentives, or you're going to pay some sort of premium, and we're going to figure out what that premium is. | ||
| And that's why even Trump's to the point now saying, hey, I love negotiating these deals, but I'm just going to send you a letter and this is what it's going to be. | ||
| And I think the Treasury already has got almost $100 billion of tariffs. | ||
| You've got energy, right, full-spectrum energy dominance that Dave Walsh walks us through all the time. | ||
| You've got this, the supply-side tax incentive for capex, capital expenditures. | ||
| And in addition, you have to have the rescissions and the spending cuts, right, either through the appropriations process or outside of it. | ||
| But let's go back to the productivity. | ||
| This thing you've been harping on and hammering on for years and years and years. | ||
| You've got to get money. | ||
| You have to have cash spent on capital equipment. | ||
| Therefore, that means you're going to have capital equipment there, capital there that actual workers, managers, entrepreneurs can actually use, sir. | ||
| Yeah, no, Joe Lavornia was spot on. | ||
| I like listening to him. | ||
| He's as clear as can be. | ||
| The only thing I would distinguish there is he's talking, you know, kind of short run, and he said that, right? | ||
| A few years while President Trump is in. | ||
| When I'm talking about productivity and mentioning Robert Gordon, he's the leading growth guy in the field on productivity. | ||
| He's been working in the field for 50 years. | ||
| We've got long run productivity, trend, long-run trend productivity. | ||
| That's the key term. | ||
| People say, Brat's off. | ||
| He's not looking at the right data. | ||
| No, I'm looking at the right data. | ||
| It's been going down for 70 years in a row, right? | ||
| So there's blips like President Trump in his first term when he did everything right. | ||
| And we had the most striking feature, right? | ||
| The one after CapEx, I want to see wages go up for the middle class worker, right? | ||
| The working class. | ||
| That's the key. | ||
| And the left has never gotten near that one. | ||
| And President Trump did, and it's happening right now for all the reasons Joe just listed. | ||
| So long run productivity, you're right. | ||
| CBO has it at 1.7% for the next 20 years, right? | ||
| So that's the long-run trend of productivity growth. | ||
| What causes that? | ||
| What are the three causes of that in the macro growth literature? | ||
| Number one, capital investment. | ||
| I'll just give you a short primer right there. | ||
| China's got $100 trillion in capital, plant, physical capital. | ||
| The U.S. only has $70 trillion, right? | ||
| So that's why they were growing. | ||
| They had huge productivity growth, huge GDP growth because of that variable. | ||
| Human capital is one-third of economic growth. | ||
| It's a disaster in the United States. | ||
| CEOs have been investing in plants, green stuff on their rooftops, instead of in the workforce in their own communities. | ||
| It's a disaster. | ||
| You should get all over to the CEOs in your region. | ||
| If they're not investing in the workforce and they're saying we don't have American workers, that's a disgrace. | ||
| And then the third part, about a third of economic growth is productivity growth itself, technological change. | ||
| That's hard to measure, but they do a pretty good job in the growth literature. | ||
| And that you can just symbolize is the magnificent seven. | ||
| Artificial intelligence is coming. | ||
| That's what we mean by technological growth. | ||
| It makes both human capital and capital more efficient. | ||
| But all of that goes to the wealthy, right? | ||
| The proceeds from technological growth goes to the venture capital crew, the Wall Street crew, not to Main Street. | ||
| And that's the part Trump is correcting with the tariffs and leveling the playing field and focusing on reshoring and bringing capital back. | ||
| And it looks like a huge success in the short run. | ||
| In the short run, it's a huge success. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| The golden, they refer to 1997. | ||
| Remember, in 1997, you had Newt Gingrich control the House. | ||
| You had Bill Clinton in the president. | ||
| You had Bob Rubin was his Secretary of Treasury. | ||
| You also had the end of the Cold War. | ||
| So you had potential domestic expansion there. | ||
| You also had, that was the explosive years of the internet. | ||
| But you additionally, you had a Republican House that was able to manage Clinton on the cost side and manage cost and spending. | ||
| And that's what we had. | ||
| I think we had four budget surpluses in a row that only ended when Bush came in. | ||
| This is my point about rescissions. | ||
| The whole package is coming together on kind of the supply side. | ||
| The only part of this equation that's not happening right now is spending cuts. | ||
| And we just passed a historic rescission bill. | ||
| Although as small, it's quite symbolic. | ||
| My understanding is that they got a couple of rescissions backed up. | ||
| And I don't think, you know, I don't know why people are leaving this Thursday. | ||
| I don't know why they leave in town before these, because these rescissions are in 2025 fiscal year. | ||
| This is now. | ||
| They have bigger rescissions packages. | ||
| And if you add the rescissions and the cut in spending with what you're seeing on the supply side with the potential growth and productivity, this is the way you get a renaissance. | ||
| But you also have to, you have to address the spending. | ||
| You have to, and they've got a way to do it. | ||
| Hey, I'm old-fashioned. | ||
| I want to go back and challenge the Impalment Act of 1971, the one that, or 72 when they had Nixon, the second coup when they had Nixon up against the wall. | ||
| Anyway, short break. | ||
| Colonel Derek Harvey, Dave Bratt, Noor Bin Laden, all of it this morning in the world. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Mann. | |
| Okay. | ||
| The President of the Republic of the Philippines is coming to the White House this morning. | ||
| A very important meeting given the Three Island Chain, our shift. | ||
| I think President Trump said it. | ||
| We've got to see it. | ||
| I haven't seen it yet in the defense bill, but to hemispheric defense, the Three Island Chain. | ||
| The Philippines, absolutely central in the fight against the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| In fact, I would say even more than Taiwan, although Taiwan, they're doing the not exercises, they're doing rehearsals. | ||
| They're really head-to-head right now in the South China Sea is between the Filipino Navy and the island of the Philippines and the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| They're coming today at 11, 11.15. | ||
| We will cut for their formal arrival, what they do on the West Wing. | ||
| And then I believe President Trump's going to do a press surveille. | ||
| If it's not on the schedule now, it will be. | ||
| I'm sure President Trump will have people in. | ||
| But that's very important given how critical the Philippines is to the national defense of the United States of America. | ||
| And speaking as a sailor that spent a little bit of time in the Philippines and the Pacific Fleet back in the 70s. | ||
| I got Derek Harvey here. | ||
| Derek, I've got you here because, Colonel, I want to go through Tulsi. | ||
| You know it better than anybody what's happening. | ||
| A lot of explosive developments in that. | ||
| I understand Grassley's going to put out some more things today, his staff either today or tomorrow. | ||
| So this is really starting to explode. | ||
| But I got Brad here. | ||
| Right now, you see us beginning to get on a roll, getting, I would say, the traction to get on a roll. | ||
| And the way you need that is investment in capital equipment, right, and production and manufacturing. | ||
| So everything Trump's done to make America great again is built around returning America to a manufacturing superpower and not sending those jobs and those opportunities overseas, particularly to the mortal threat of the Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Brett continues, and he does this, he says, the only thing could throw us off here is actually getting into a war. | ||
| Now, we know the kinetic part of the Third World War is already on. | ||
| The situation in Ukraine couldn't be more deadly or more serious. | ||
| The situation now in, although it looks like the Persian side of it settled down for a while because of President Trump, in Syria, in Gaza, I mean, this thing is heating up nonstop. | ||
| So, Brett, make your case, make your case, and I want to have Derek respond to that. | ||
| Make your case. | ||
| The only thing to throw us off here is actually getting into war because I thought, given the size of the defense budget, America is basically on a wartime economy anyway. | ||
| This is what our only industrial policy we have in this country is about defense. | ||
| That's the trillion dollars that goes into the manufacturing of weapons. | ||
| We have not beaten our swords into plowshares yet, right? | ||
| And artificial intelligence, and this is why Natalie's going to do the five. | ||
| I got to get ready and do the six with Joe, is that the AI action plan coming from the White House tomorrow, let's be blunt, a lot of the artificial intelligence and the drive to it is to weaponize it and to use it as a weapon, as almost any technology or any technological breakthrough is. | ||
| So, Brett, make your case why war is what could upend us for this. | ||
| And then I want to have Harvey tell us how close we are to actually becoming engaged in a kinetic activity. | ||
| Sir. | ||
| Yeah, well, as you no doubt know, Chicago economics and Austrian economics, which you love, makes the important case that you better be using the price system. | ||
| That's a little humor for Steve in the morning. | ||
| China doesn't use the price system. | ||
| Russia didn't use the price system. | ||
| They're out of business. | ||
| Japan got banking in bed with business and government too much with the MIDI and all that stuff. | ||
| They're out of business. | ||
| The U.S. now is getting an increasingly large size of the government involved in your everyday life. | ||
| That, of course, is lowering productivity. | ||
| But war obliterates the price system. | ||
| There are no more price signals, right? | ||
| Anybody that says war is good for productivity and the economy is just so off base, I cannot tell you. | ||
| Of course, the warmongers are going to say that. | ||
| It's good for the defense industry. | ||
| It is short-term spending. | ||
| Short-term spending growth of G, government will go up. | ||
| But it is not long-run productivity enhancing in any way, shape, or form. | ||
| There are also other absurd articles saying that the immigration invasion, right, if we reduce the border invasion of 20 million people, our GDP will go down. | ||
| Equally wrong-headed, of course, GDP will go down if you get rid of 20 million people, but GDP per capita per person is the only thing you're worried about. | ||
| We're worried about American workers' welfare. | ||
| When 20 million people go out where we're spending vast sums of money on them, like war, it's totally inefficient. | ||
| It lowers the living standards for American workers. | ||
| And President Trump is hitting it across the board. | ||
| And I'll just mention the tariff piece, the G20. | ||
| People need to go look this up. | ||
| Bank of America had this chart. | ||
| It's not just the Trump tariffs in Naviro and that chart. | ||
| The G20 is 80% of world GDP, the richest 20 countries. | ||
| They have 200 to 300% higher tariff And non-tariff barriers on the U.S. than we have on them. | ||
| So, what Trump is doing is long overdue. | ||
| He's bringing us productivity across the board, but it's can we keep it? | ||
| And the warmongers are beating the drums. | ||
| Israel and the U.S. took out Mossadegh in 53. | ||
| It's been a nightmare in the Middle East ever since. | ||
| Israel is supposed to be a light to the nations. | ||
| We're supposed to be a light to the nations, not a bomber of nations. | ||
| So I'm looking forward to hear what the great Derek Harvey has to say. | ||
| By the way, along those lines, this is the whole thing about the BRICS. | ||
| When you talk about the G20, the G7 versus the G20, I think you're seeing solidify right now. | ||
| This is why it's so important for us to get to a Russian rapprochement. | ||
| The West versus the BRICS nations are becoming a geopolitical. | ||
| This is why President Trump was so upset with what they tried to do in a very sophisticated way. | ||
| You couldn't fool Trump. | ||
| People around him saying, hey, they're not going to come out and say de-dollarization. | ||
| They're going to do these bilateral deals in their own currencies. | ||
| They're going to hedge that by buying gold at record rates. | ||
| To understand this, folks, this is the part that you've got to understand. | ||
| Go to birchgold.com slash bannon, the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| Seven free installments. | ||
| We're working on the eighth. | ||
| In fact, we're having a team meeting tomorrow afternoon to make sure that we drive this and get it to you quicker. | ||
| You have to understand the bricks, the de-dollarization movement, the weakness in the dollar of what's causing that the spending and the de-dollarization and how the world is trying to hedge themselves against the American dollar. | ||
| You need to find out how to hedge yourself up against financial insecurity and turbulence. | ||
| Birchgold.com slash bannon. | ||
| End of the dollar empire. | ||
| Get to Philip Patrick and the team. | ||
| That's what we set you up to do. | ||
| All of our sponsors make a commitment to give full access to you to senior level folks. | ||
| So take advantage of it. | ||
| End of the dollar empire, Birch Gold. | ||
| Derek Harvey, then if war, he's making the case that we're actually on a war footing. | ||
| I'm not so sure I totally agree with that, but he's saying war could completely blow up Trump's economic plan. | ||
| How close, you're not just our intelligence guy. | ||
| People should know when you were at NSC and over at House Intel with Nunez, you were considered one of the best strategic thinkers because you're a safe pair of hands that kind of think things through and your hair is never on fire. | ||
| So how close do you think we are actually being sucked in to the kinetic part of the Third World War, sir? | ||
| Well, I agree with Dave that there's a real challenge here if we get into a major conflict overseas, regardless of where it's at. | ||
| And we would not want to get into a conflict with a peer, be it Russia or China. | ||
| I don't think we're close to that in either case right now. | ||
| I'm very troubled about us getting potentially sucked in now with Ukraine in a way that the administration did not want to. | ||
| And so they're trying to work through that with the sanctions that they've threatened to impose in about 45, 43 days now on Russia, as well as some other things, you know, and then increasing the arms sales to NATO countries that then can transfer them to Ukraine. | ||
| But, you know, we need to contain that. | ||
| I still don't see a way out in that conflict right now. | ||
| There has to be some sort of an agreement, and I don't see a pathway to victory for Ukraine. | ||
| But I'll set that aside. | ||
| I think that is containable. | ||
| China has got internal challenges, economic and political. | ||
| And when a country is having internal and political challenges, and someone like President Xi, who has invested so much on this idea of unifying all of ancient China to include current Taiwan, you know, that's a potential spark plug. | ||
| And they continue to be aggressive in that region. | ||
| And I think what the president is doing is really important. | ||
| We need, you know, President Trump is very clear, I think, about his red lines, particularly in private conversations. | ||
| And, you know, being clear about that and being steadfast and a strong leader and communicating is part of the issue. | ||
| The other part is having the capability. | ||
| And I think if we can settle things down in the Middle East to some degree, and we've gone a long ways there with Israel being able to reset the table with our major support in dealing with the Iran problem, at least for the next five to seven years, in my view, the Abraham Accords and expansion of that, there's opportunities there with Syria and with Lebanon, but those are both going to be very hard projects. | ||
| But that should allow us to shift more to the Asia-Pacific, something that we've had the desire to do, but not really the means to do. | ||
| And as far as industrialization and investment in DOD, we are still lacking in investment and building up the types of capabilities in the Navy and the Air Force that are really needed for maintaining deterrence in Asia, as well as having the armed stocks to support contingencies as well as a possibility of a major campaign. | ||
| So I think there needs to be more investment in DOD, but it has to be the right investment. | ||
| And I think that's where you get parochialism in the Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee that prevent us from doing the hard, right things to invest in our military capabilities. | ||
| How do you square it with the American people? | ||
| We're talking about spending cuts and rescissions. | ||
| And the first package was USIAD and PBS and NPR. | ||
| The second package, I understand, is going to be more maybe green new scam things. | ||
| And this is why I think the rescissions package ought to be brought up ASAP. | ||
| When you have almost a you have President Trump that's been very articulate about a hemispheric defense, and that would use the vast Pacific as really the centerpiece for our hemisphere against the Chinese Communist Party with the three island chain. | ||
| You add Greenland access to the Arctic and the Panama Canal and of course allies in South America. | ||
| You've really got it. | ||
| But the NDAA doesn't reflect that. | ||
| So when you sit there and talk like, look, I'm with Captain Finnell on we need a naval shipbuilding. | ||
| I mean, both of us are Pacific Fleet sailors. | ||
| We understand what you have to do with the Navy to build it up. | ||
| But when you Look at the, we're at a trillion dollars right now, and it seems like the Pentagon, the building, and I think this is because of the power of CENTCOM, it's just refute that pivot to Asia. | ||
| Obama didn't do it. | ||
| You know, there may be many reasons for that. | ||
| With Joe Biden, we don't know if they were, you know, how corrupt that was, how embedded with the CCP, but it didn't happen. | ||
| President Trump tried and did a lot in his first term, but there's clearly massive resistance today. | ||
| I mean, how do you give me a minute on that? | ||
| We're going to go to break once you stick around. | ||
| How can you do that and have investments when we're already at a trillion dollars? | ||
| Well, I think part of it is, you know, partnering with our allies and friends in the region. | ||
| And that means the United Arab Emirates, the Saudis, those members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, letting them finance things for other allies and partners, pay for some of the support structure and influence operations. | ||
| And we can be more of an orchestrator. | ||
| We've had some of these ideas and laid them out in times before. | ||
| And there's a way to do that. | ||
| But there is such an entrenchment in the Pentagon of people not wanting to really change what they've been doing for decades. | ||
| And there is an interest in staying engaged there in a way that I think harms our overall interests. | ||
| It doesn't mean that we absolutely can't abandon it because we do have interests there and we could talk about that too. | ||
| But I think there has to be real reform, not just talk about reform. | ||
| And it can't be on the margins in the DOD budget. | ||
| Okay, we're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| Colonel Harvey's with us. | ||
| Dave Bratt's with us. | ||
| Dave's going to have to bounce. | ||
| So we'll get him in here in the D-block. | ||
| Nor Ben Laden is going to join us from Geneva. | ||
| We are out of UNESCO. | ||
| Short break. | ||
| Download the Getter app right now. | ||
| It's totally free. | ||
| It's where I put up exclusively all of my content. | ||
| 24 hours a day. | ||
| You want to know what Steve Bannon's thinking? | ||
| Go to Getter. | ||
| So don't wait. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Download the Getter app now. | |
| Sign up for free and be part of the movement. | ||
| Traditionally, I like to do it early in the morning, at least the first wave. | ||
| Get up on Getter. | ||
| It's totally free. | ||
| Download the app. | ||
| Easiest technology to use. | ||
| An idiot like me can use it. | ||
| You'll be able to use it superbly. | ||
| Also, home title lock. | ||
| We need you on the ramparts. | ||
| Don't need you worried about a hard money lender, someone taking out a loan from a hard money lender, like $50,000, $100,000. | ||
| You got to pay off. | ||
| $1 million triple lock protection, 24-hour a day coverage. | ||
| If anything happens, you get notified immediately. | ||
| And they have a $1 million restoration guarantee if anything happens to your title. | ||
| Go to hometitalock.steve. | ||
| Talk to Natalie Dominguez. | ||
| Get more up to see. | ||
| They give you a free assessment. | ||
| If you go use our promo code, promo code Steve, just go talk to them today. | ||
| With cyber, with artificial intelligence, with rogue lawyers, accountants, maybe even a family member. | ||
| You can't allow 90% of your net worth or 80% of your net worth, if you're lucky enough to own a home, to be vulnerable, particularly given the rudimentary system we have throughout this country of titles. | ||
| So go check it out today. | ||
| HometitalLock.com, promo code Steve. | ||
| Try to keep it simple. | ||
| Dave Bratt, I know you got a bounce. | ||
| Thoughts on the economy, particularly any comments about the Justice Department with Maxwell. | ||
| A lot of news today coming out of there. | ||
| And about, we're going to get Derek Harvey to really drill down on Tulsi and the coup against President Trump. | ||
| I know it's getting heated up. | ||
| Axe has got a great story we'll talk about in a moment. | ||
| Dave Bratt. | ||
| Yeah, on the CIA, FBI, I think it's the greatest historical corruption case in U.S. history. | ||
| And the American people all voted for accountability there. | ||
| I'll just keep it short there because I want to get to the Birch Gold, our friends, and the inflation piece you brought up. | ||
| Inflation is, roughly speaking, too much money chasing too few goods, right? | ||
| So too much money, you got a ton of money going after a few goods. | ||
| So that bids up the prices of the goods. | ||
| That's inflation. | ||
| But if you got the same amount of money and more goods, guess what happens? | ||
| Inflation goes away. | ||
| That's what Trump is doing, right? | ||
| So that's what the Wall Street Journal should focus on. | ||
| It's fairly simple. | ||
| They can handle that. | ||
| Now, second, Trump wants lower interest rates. | ||
| The way to achieve that, and this is terribly hard, but the spending, right? | ||
| We're doing $2 trillion deficits for the next 10 years locked into the budget. | ||
| That is inflationary, right? | ||
| That's expansionary deficit spending. | ||
| If you get rid of that deficit spending, though, you might go into recession. | ||
| So here's where the Fed, the Federal Reserve could actually be useful. | ||
| Trump needs to make a deal with the Fed, say, I'm going to cut some spending, but in tandem with that, I need you to lower interest rates. | ||
| And then that puts the Congress on the hook to reduce spending for the first time ever. | ||
| It's very hard, like defense spending. | ||
| I was in Congress. | ||
| It's employment. | ||
| There's contracts made with big, big, powerful people that they don't want to do. | ||
|
unidentified
|
But hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on, hang on. | |
| The whole thing with the CBO, if there's $2 trillion deficits per year for the next 10 years, I'm not so sure we make it, right? | ||
| I think the theory of the case, and that's what we had Joe on, on the supply side, you're growing at over 3, growing over 3%. | ||
| You have the tariffs that if people are not bringing here to manufacture, you're getting tariff revenue. | ||
| You're having lower energy costs because you're still doing full spectrum dominance on energy, right? | ||
| And you're doing deconstruction administrative state, massive deregulation. | ||
| Plus, either do it through the future appropriations process because it's all out there to cut, or do it through rescissions or impoundments. | ||
| You're going to have to cut the spending, but you've got so many other things that are going to drive revenue that I don't think internally they're looking at $2 trillion deficits for the next 10 years. | ||
| If they are, then, hey, go to Bershkahl, take your phone out, and banning a 98, 98, 98 right now. | ||
| But I don't think internally, I don't think that's the way they look at things. | ||
| Do you, sir? | ||
| Internally, within the administration, I agree with what you just said. | ||
| And that is a rosy scenario that assumes the left is going to behave themselves, not manufacture more crises, not bring about a war in the courts, that we don't go into war, that we don't have other natural disasters. | ||
| That's all, you know, all else held constant, as we say in economics. | ||
| So, yeah, we're doing all the right things. | ||
| Will it last? | ||
| Will we hold the House? | ||
| Will we educate the American people that you've got to do this to save this republic? | ||
| All of that's on the risk side. | ||
| But yeah, if Trump is able to put all this in place, I mean, you can do the math. | ||
| It's still very hard to grow your way out of $60 trillion in debt at the end of that 10 years, right? | ||
| So I think you'd have to be five, six. | ||
| I'll bring in an Excel spreadsheet and show you what 3% growth gets you, what four, what five, what six. | ||
| And you need some explosive growth to do that. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Let's do some perturbations. | ||
| I'm not going to, I'm not. | ||
| Let's start with the 37. | ||
| Let's start with the 37 trillion. | ||
| We'll build off that. | ||
| But yeah, let's model this out and we'll walk through with people. | ||
| I think people, this is the type of signal that they need. | ||
| And that's a baseline and a set of perturbations around it that people can say, okay, I can understand that. | ||
| And then that's what you do a dashboard over and you monitor that every day to see what's happening. | ||
| I know the president's very focused on a rate cut. | ||
| I just don't know if that's going to happen given too late, Powell. | ||
| Give me a minute on Tulsi Gabbard and her heroism in putting this out about the coup driven by Obama and Clinton. | ||
| Yeah, well, I just get, I don't get angry too often, but when I see people ripping on Tulsi Gabbard, there's no finer human being. | ||
| We had her at Liberty last year. | ||
| She is just so charming and friendly and loving to everybody. | ||
| And on top of that, she's powerful, courageous, intelligent, the whole. | ||
| She's just the best leader you could have. | ||
| And so when I hear Senator Mark Warner saying, you know, she doesn't know what she's talking about, he's the one that missed Russia Gate. | ||
| He's the senior member of the intelligence committee, and he's ripping on her for his mistakes. | ||
| The left always does this, but the American people keep voting for the same people who have made these colossal mistakes. | ||
| So I just applaud her. | ||
| She's doing everything right. | ||
| I think she's got the goods. | ||
| The American people want to see consequences. | ||
| We have to see not just the talking. | ||
| We have to see action. | ||
| And people pay for crimes. | ||
| And I think it's coming. | ||
| I think it's coming. | ||
| There's too much there. | ||
| By the way, if you don't, the people are going to be too dispirited. | ||
| Dave Brad, you're social media. | ||
| Where do people get you? | ||
| Yeah, I'll put up the latest charts. | ||
| Brad Economics on Getter and on X. It's amazing. | ||
| Dave Brad, thank you, sir. | ||
| Appreciate you taking the time. | ||
| The next hour will be more intense than the first. | ||
| President's going to welcome the president of the Philippines. | ||
| I'm sure they're going to do a press available. | ||
| Colonel Harvey's going to stick around. | ||
| We're going to get into the coup. | ||
| And Noor bin Laden from Geneva, the United States of America, has withdrawn after a 90-day review, has finally withdrawn from UNESCO, the United Nations Education Fund. |
Export Selection