Nov. 5, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
51:55
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| We won because we insisted that no longer would politics be something that is done to us. | ||
| Now it is something that we do. | ||
| Standing before you, I think of the words of Jawaharlal Nehru. | ||
| A moment comes but rarely in history when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation long suppressed finds utterance. | ||
| Tonight we have stepped out from the old into the new. | ||
| So let us speak now with clarity and conviction that cannot be misunderstood about what this new age will deliver and for whom. | ||
| This will be an age where New Yorkers expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve rather than a list of excuses for what we are too timid to attempt. | ||
| Whether you are an immigrant, a member of the trans community, one of the many black women that Donald Trump has fired from a federal job, a single mom still waiting for the cost of groceries to go down, or anyone else with their back against the wall, your struggle is ours too. | ||
| And we will build a city hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of anti-Semitism. | ||
| Where the more than one million Muslims know that they belong. | ||
| Not just in the five boroughs of this city, but in the halls of power. | ||
| No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election. | ||
| He's saying the Democratic Party didn't deliver for working class people forever. | ||
| And this is not populist. | ||
| Please, that's not populist. | ||
| What you heard right there was not even socialist. | ||
| That is neo-Marxism right there. | ||
| Neo-Marxist jihadist. | ||
| That's what this guy is. | ||
| And he's up in your grill. | ||
| And for all the happy skipping around, you know, TikToks and he's going down the aisle and it's all happy smiley. | ||
| I didn't see the happy smiley tonight. | ||
| You saw him when he won what he's really like, right? | ||
| And people got to understand. | ||
| This is brought to you by progressive Democrats. | ||
| This is brought to you the Bill Ackmans of the world, the elites that have managed the decline of this country and what they manage it by was opening up essentially open borders, particularly for these big cities. | ||
| Well, now you got it. | ||
| And he's up in your grill. | ||
| If anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him. | ||
| And if there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power. | ||
| This is not only how we stop Trump, it's how we stop the next one. | ||
| So Donald Trump, since I know you're watching, I have four words for you. | ||
| And so it begins. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Finally, President Trump, that's what we're looking for. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's what we're looking for. | |
| Hey, what does Trump say? | ||
| No games. | ||
| Hey, Zoran, you want to play games? | ||
| Okay. | ||
| You know, game respects game. | ||
| And so it begins. | ||
| New York will remain a city of immigrants, a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants. | ||
| And as of tonight, lead immigrants. | ||
| President Trump, when I say this. | ||
| To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us. | ||
| Enter City Hall in 58 days. | ||
| Patients will be high. | ||
| We will meet them. | ||
| A great New Yorker once said that while you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose. | ||
| If that must be true, let the prose we write still rhyme and let us build a shining city for all. | ||
| And we must chart a new path as bold as the one we have already traveled. | ||
| After all, the conventional wisdom would tell you that I am far from the perfect candidate. | ||
| I am young despite my best efforts to grow older. | ||
| I am Muslim. | ||
| I am a democratic socialist. | ||
| And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this. | ||
| I think he missed an opportunity. | ||
| I think the Mamdani that we saw in the campaign trail, who was a lot more calm, who was a lot warmer, who was a lot more embracing, was not present in that speech. | ||
| And I think that Mamdani is the one you need to hear from tonight. | ||
| There are a lot of people trying to figure out, can I get on this train with him or not? | ||
| Is he going to include me? | ||
| Is he going to be more of a class warrior even in office? | ||
| I think he missed a chance tonight to open up and bring more people into the tent. | ||
| I think his tone was sharp. | ||
| I think he was using the microphone in a way that he was almost yelling. | ||
| And that's not the Mamdaniel that we've seen on TikTok and the great interviews and stuff like that. | ||
| So I felt like there's a little bit of a character switch here where the warm, open, embracing guy that's close to working people was not on stage tonight. | ||
| And there was some other voice on stage. | ||
| That said, he's very young. | ||
| And he just pulled off something that's very, very difficult. | ||
| And I wouldn't write him off, but I think he missed an opportunity to open himself up tonight. | ||
| And I think that that will probably cost him going forward. | ||
| Four words for you, Donald Trump. | ||
| Turn the volume up. | ||
| The extraordinary thing about his campaign and his message tonight, while one might say he's young, he's out there, he's not wild. | ||
| He's as disciplined as they come, especially when it comes to messaging, which is all about affordability. | ||
| So he's goading Donald Trump, who is the opposite of discipline. | ||
| And what Donald Trump is hoping Zora Mamdani will deliver, I don't think he's going to. | ||
| And to Lawrence's point, sort of speaking to all of New York, that was something. | ||
| So let's talk about age of revolutions. | ||
| We have been moving in a direction since 1600, as you're right here, talking about the age of revolution as the West opens up and Western liberalism grows, it thrives, there's progress, their steps go back. | ||
| And you talk about Donald Trump in here, you talk about Steve Bannon, and basically you say the difference between the project that's been moving forward in the West since 1600 and where Donald Trump and Steve Bannon want to take us is the difference between, it's very simple, it's open versus closed. | ||
| That's exactly right. | ||
| I mean, and what I talk about in the book is every time you have these huge movements forward, globalization, you know, massive technological change, cultural change, civil rights, the rise of women in society, you always get a backlash. | ||
| And how you navigate that backlash is what determines how successful you are. | ||
| We are in that backlash right now. | ||
| We are in a backlash against globalization, against this information revolution, against some of the cultural shifts that have taken place. | ||
| And think about last night, though. | ||
| With us. | ||
| Don't forget. | ||
| Their reaction time is not like a decade or a century. | ||
| It's a year where we had the first woman ever elected governor of Virginia. | ||
| We had the first Democratic woman ever elected in the state of New Jersey. | ||
| We had the first Muslim elected statewide in the state of Virginia. | ||
| The first Muslim woman elected statewide in the state of Virginia, the lieutenant governor. | ||
| We had the first Muslim mayor ever elected in New York City. | ||
| I mean, you talk about like a political punch in the face for white nationalists who say, oh, no, no, these people don't belong here. | ||
| They got a message last night from the American people. | ||
| No, you're absolutely right. | ||
| And at the conclusion of the book, I say, look, at the end of the day, don't mistake the undertow for the wave. | ||
| In other words, you have a wave that's moving forward. | ||
| You have undertows. | ||
| You have backlash. | ||
| But the broad message of this book is there's only one path, which is you got to go forward. | ||
| And in this country, I think what we're actually showing and what Mamdani's election showed is we're showing that there is a possibility of building the first truly multicultural, multiracial democracy in the world, a kind of universal nation where everybody belongs. | ||
| And it's messy, and there's people, and there's great cultural anxiety that it produces. | ||
| The right is very good at weaponizing that cultural anxiety. | ||
| And what the left has to learn is how to manage it. | ||
| Don't play the rights game. | ||
| Find a way to talk about, you know, I think Bill Clinton put it very well. | ||
| If you get lost in the cultural issues, the right will always win. | ||
| But if you can navigate them, people will listen to your economic message. | ||
| And broadly speaking, the Democratic Party's economic message is popular. | ||
| It gets drowned out when they enter the cultural realm and get into these issues of trans and this and that. | ||
| And if there's a way for them to navigate that and stay, don't get too far away from mainstream America in that respect. | ||
| Americans are more than willing to listen to the economic message. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going to medieval on these people. | ||
| You're just not got a free shot on 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 try 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
|
War Room. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Mann. | ||
| It's Wednesday, 5 November in the year of our Lord 2025. | ||
| A year ago at this time, we were all, what, on pins and needles? | ||
| You know, we had high confidence that if we executed, we would win the greatest comeback in American political history. | ||
| And that happened. | ||
| A sweeping victory that we found out about, I don't know, 10 or 11 o'clock at night. | ||
| We keep this photo right here in the war room about the very moment, a photo taken at the Willard Hotel on that balcony we use to cover all the big events in Washington, D.C. The very moment of victory, one year ago. | ||
| So today we have a different set of issues. | ||
| Mamdani, and that's why I wanted to play that. | ||
| And Van Jones got it, right? | ||
| He understood. | ||
| The mask came off last night. | ||
| That's not a TikTok video. | ||
| He's not skipping down the aisle with his little basket talking about how they're going to have government run stores or free buses or patting everybody on the head and doing his little dance moves. | ||
| You saw it last night in all its glory, up in your grill, and particularly up in the president's grill. | ||
| So what's the response going to be? | ||
| Last night is a lesson that the old Republican Party, the husk of the Republican Party, is a stiff. | ||
| It's a loser. | ||
| You saw that in the Commonwealth of Virginia. | ||
| You have Never Trumpers, you have Yunkin, you have the Gubernator Canada disaster, Never Trumper. | ||
| Somebody that he weaponized to attack Trump years ago and part of that whole DeSantis move away from Trump. | ||
| It's now time to double and triple down. | ||
| We're going to get into that. | ||
| I want to thank Sheila Matthews for Able Child, one of the actually smart strategists. | ||
| She reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from Sun Tzu in the art of war. | ||
| If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. | ||
| If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. | ||
| So it's gut check time. | ||
| You're the tip of the tip of the spirit. | ||
| Do you know thyself? | ||
| Does God's will channel through you, run through you? | ||
| Are we going to roll over now? | ||
| Oh my gosh, they won New Jersey, won Virginia, they won New York City. | ||
| They blew us out in California. | ||
| It's gut check time in the war room. | ||
| One year anniversary of the greatest political comeback in American history. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Kill America's Voice family. | |
| Are you on Getter yet? | ||
| No. | ||
| What are you waiting for? | ||
| It's free. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's uncensored, and it's where all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out. | |
| 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 get her. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's right. | |
| You can follow all of your favorites. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Steve Bannon, Charlie Hurt, Jack the Soviet, and so many more. | |
| Download the Getter app now, sign up for free, and be part of the new thing. | ||
| So I'll get in a second, an article up on Politico right now, but an interview I did with him last night around midnight on Donnie, right, and about how this has got to be confronted. | ||
| You can't will from it. | ||
| You can't look the other way. | ||
| What is the history of this movement tells us what? | ||
| That we're anti-fragile, we're resilient. | ||
| If you take a punch and then you give a punch back, no retreat, no giving up one foot that you've taken. | ||
| Fix bayonets and go for it. | ||
| Double down and triple down. | ||
| The lesson last night is where the Republican donor class, you know, Jack Citrile and his consultants didn't want Trump's engagement up there. | ||
| Trump drew 100,000 people, 100,000 people on a windy day in 2024 to the Jersey Shore for a rally. | ||
| You fully engage Donald Trump up there. | ||
| You're going to hold those counties. | ||
| You're not going to get wiped like you got. | ||
| If you stiff-arm Trump and have a teletown hall the night before, that's not good enough. | ||
| This is about low-propensity voters, people that will come out for Trump in the MAGA message of economic populism. | ||
| If you give them old, half-baked Republican ideas, which is what New Jersey was, is kind of a variation of Christie, right? | ||
| Chris Christie, with the same type of consultants, don't want Trump. | ||
| And then in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Glenn Young, bro, what do you spend in time in Iowa? | ||
| You just ended your political career last night. | ||
| As a native Virginian, you destroyed, you destroyed the Republican Party for a generation. | ||
| There are seats in the House of Delegates that are unfathomable that were lost last night to a supermajority, a supermajority in the House. | ||
| And hey, guess what? | ||
| This is going to have implications because they're rolling. | ||
| Virginia is going to go 10-1 in-house. | ||
| They're going to be like New England, or they're going to be like Illinois, or they're going to be like California, the Commonwealth of Virginia. | ||
| It is a disgrace that you push that lieutenant government that you weaponized against Trump in 21 and 22 when you wanted DeSantis. | ||
| You weaponized her. | ||
| And then you rigged it. | ||
| There wasn't even a primary. | ||
| She's going to be the candidate. | ||
| And she was an unmitigated Trump-hating disaster. | ||
| And her concession speech last night, which we did not play because she waited until, I don't know, an hour after Spanberger stood up and took credit for the blowout. | ||
| Her thing was all about her, all about her journey. | ||
| I don't give a damn about your journey. | ||
| I care about this country. | ||
| I care about the Commonwealth of Virginia. | ||
| I care about the MAGA movement. | ||
| I care about Western civilization. | ||
| I don't give a damn about your personal journey. | ||
| It's boring. | ||
| You're boring me, like you bored the voters. | ||
| Chip Roy, the good news last night, Lee Womsgan, monumental win. | ||
| She had $3.5 million, $4 million put on her by Chinese casino money on her head and kept the guy that came in to 15 percentage points. | ||
| She would have won outright if the geniuses in Vegas had not come down on top of her, but she's in a runoff and she'll win the runoff. | ||
| But we're going to have to do some work there, but she'll win the runoff. | ||
| But in Texas, I got to tell you, Chip, there's a video out this morning to some imam saying, Texas is the mecca of the West. | ||
| The way to confront New York City is we got to hold Texas. | ||
| I am very worried about Texas, sir. | ||
| Yeah, Steve, me too. | ||
| Look, I don't know if you saw it, but on Friday, I introduced legislation to take away the C3 status, the tax-free status of care and any other organization affiliated or tied to terrorism, introduced legislation to start vetting individuals. | ||
| We should stop admitting people who are adhering to Sharia law. | ||
| We should deport people who are adherent to Sharia law. | ||
| We've got to start getting serious about this. | ||
| And this election, let's be very clear. | ||
| This is a wake-up call that if you don't lead and lead with a clear vision and a clear direction, you're going to get absolutely slaughtered. | ||
| That's what happened in Virginia. | ||
| You're dead right. | ||
| Instead of like going around and whining about, well, you know, the AG candidate said this or said that. | ||
| And, you know, oh, this was my story. | ||
| Like lead with something people can sink their teeth into. | ||
| People are tired of not being able to afford housing. | ||
| They're tired of not being able to afford groceries. | ||
| The president is working on all of that. | ||
| Secretary Besson is working on all of that. | ||
| And it takes a couple of years to get his system fully firing. | ||
| But we've got to have leadership that's going to say we're going to take on the healthcare giants. | ||
| We're going to go after the insurance companies. | ||
| We're going to go after the big monopoly healthcare hospital organizations. | ||
| We're going to stand up and stop Sharia law. | ||
| We're going to stop the radical Marxists who are trying to kill us. | ||
| The vast network of people that are organized with Arabella, with Soros, with Gates, with the United Nations, with all of the international conglomerates that are funding these NGOs that are all being used to attack us, whether it's the Southern Poverty Law Center in Antifa, whether it's the 250 organizations that were shoving people into our country during Biden and my orcas, whether it's the district attorneys that are funded by the Soros regime and the Wren Collective. | ||
| And all of these things are organized and coordinated. | ||
| And Steve, you know it and I know it, but Republicans are sitting around making nice and giving speeches on the steps of the Capitol instead of riproaring coming through behind the president to save this country. | ||
| We've got to start being aggressive and we've got to do something about it. | ||
| I'm going to do it as a Texas Attorney General, but I've got a year left in Congress and I'm going to keep introducing legislation to force Republicans to actually do the hard work of changing the direction of the country. | ||
| And look, I think we've got to be thinking through all of our options right now to make sure we do not waste the remaining three years and change of President Trump's administration. | ||
| Well, it's three and a half years. | ||
| We got to get to get you got it. | ||
| We're burning daylight on all these investigations. | ||
| John Solomon's going to be with us at 11 to go through that. | ||
| But the first order of battle, the midterms started last night. | ||
| And this is why these redistricting fights, the one in Texas, we should have gotten eight seats. | ||
| We only got five because of Abbott and the establishment down there. | ||
| They're terrified of the media, you know, calling them out. | ||
| So they get weak. | ||
| Right now, we're in a range war. | ||
| You know, Virginia is going to go 10-1. | ||
| Maryland last night, you know, Wes Moore wants to be vice president. | ||
| He said he's going to form a commission. | ||
| Mike Pence's group is fighting us ongoing 9-0 in Indiana. | ||
| This fight over the redistricting wars now are going to set up the midterms, which are going to set up 28. | ||
| They're all inextricably linked like last night. | ||
| You can't break these out as individual, just component pieces. | ||
| So what do we got to do on the redistricting? | ||
| You're going to be Texas AG. Would you tell Abbott right now as the Attorney General of Texas, you got three more seats there, bro? | ||
| Let's roll hard. | ||
| Or are you prepared to just sit there with Abbott and Abbott saying, it's so hard, we could lose the court case, sir. | ||
| Yeah, we need to lean into more seats, not just in Texas, but yes, in Texas, Attorney General, but also, you know, Indiana, like you point out, other states that aren't being as aggressive. | ||
| You saw California last night. | ||
| They passed their referendum to basically take their ridiculously paltry nine Republicans out of what, 50, however many seats they have, and they're going to reduce that to what, four or five? | ||
| I mean, they're playing hardball. | ||
| There's not a single Republican seat in New England, not one. | ||
| And yet we get 40% of the vote in New England. | ||
| So they're playing hardball. | ||
| They're at war with us. | ||
| And we're not recognizing the war and fighting in like spirit. | ||
| And look, this is the thing about going back to Islam that we've got to recognize you can't win a war that you don't recognize exists. | ||
| So we should be passing legislation right now. | ||
| Look, fight the Senate, force the votes, but we should be limiting the flow of people into our country that hate our country. | ||
| We should not be expanding it. | ||
| We should be putting and codifying what President Trump is doing to protect us going forward. | ||
| We should be doing the things we should on health care, not crying in a corner saying, oh, well, we'll do Obamacare light. | ||
| We should be aggressive on that stuff. | ||
| And again, it's the insurance companies and the big, you know, monopolistic hospital corporations that are killing our health care system with crony capitalism. | ||
| We don't have capitalism. | ||
| We're running a campaign of weakness. | ||
| We're running a campaign as Republicans of trying to do the Democrat light. | ||
| President Trump wants to lead. | ||
| He wants to go on offense. | ||
| And Republicans on Capitol Hill are just kind of messing around going, well, we got this big, beautiful bill done, and now we're kind of done. | ||
| And let's limp through into the midterms. | ||
| We can't do that. | ||
| And look, in Texas, we've got to double down. | ||
| If there is no Texas, the country completely falls apart. | ||
| And you said it, and people need to know it. | ||
| The Muslim Brotherhood in London and in Paris, they recognize that Dallas in particular, Texas, is the epicenter of what they're trying to do for the Islamification of not just Texas, not just America, but the Western hemisphere. | ||
| They're planting the seeds here, and we've got to rip those seeds up and get them out of Texas. | ||
| Before I lose you, by the way, 100%, Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist organization today. | ||
| 100%. | ||
| Real quickly, there's going to be tons of pressure from Rhino senators for President Trump putting in his ear, oh, it's all about the shutdown, that Democrats still want to put a trillion dollars in to financing illegal alien health care. | ||
| The reason you lost New York City last night is 40 or 50 years of bad immigration policy, of visa scams, all of it. | ||
| Where do you stand on the shutdown right now, Chip? | ||
| Yeah, 100% stand the president has been doing the right thing. | ||
| We've got to hold the line, but we need to hold the line with a more forceful message. | ||
| Democrats are the ones that are causing this. | ||
| They want to take this into Thanksgiving, make them own it, but we've got to be on offense. | ||
| Don't just sit here quietly being on defense. | ||
| Let's go back to Washington. | ||
| Let's get up there. | ||
| Let's pass righteous bills. | ||
| Let's send them over to the Senate. | ||
| Let's demand that they take action on those righteous bills. | ||
| Let's pass HR2 from the last Congress securing the border. | ||
| Let's pass bills that limit Sharia law coming into our country. | ||
| Let's pass the SAVE Act again and tell them that we shouldn't have just citizens voting in American elections. | ||
| Let's pass legislation banning stock trading for members of Congress who are enriching themselves while they're on committees and self-trading. | ||
| Let's do those things and demonstrate we've got an agenda and let's get aggressive on health care. | ||
| Go after the corporate cronyism. | ||
| Go after the PVMs. | ||
| Demonstrate that we're with the hardworking Americans and not the ruling class. | ||
| If we do that, we win. | ||
| If we sit back on defense and if we side with the moderates and if we undermine President Trump, then it will be a bloodbath in the midterms and that will do nothing to advance the agenda for a free country. | ||
| So we've got to get on offense. | ||
| That's my view. | ||
| We got 20 seconds. | ||
| Social media and your website for your campaign. | ||
| Where do they go? | ||
| Yeah, Roy.com and Chiproy TX, ChiproyTX on X slash Twitter. | ||
| Thanks, Steve. | ||
| God bless you. | ||
| Let's keep at it. | ||
| Chip, the Commonwealth of Virginia has fallen. | ||
| Absolutely repulsive. | ||
| Next in the world. | ||
| The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans. | ||
| And that has always been the core power of Congress. | ||
| So to have the president's foreign affairs power trump that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least Neutralize between the two powers, the executive power and the legislative power. | ||
| Let me say two things in response to that. | ||
| First, the notion that the taxes are all borne by Americans that are not borne by foreign producers whose goods are imported is empirically, there's no basis for that in the record. | ||
| It's actually a mixed- Well, who pays the tariffs? | ||
| If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them? | ||
| Typically, there'd be a, regardless of who the importer of record is, there'd be a contract that would go along the sort of line of transfer that would allocate the tariff, and there'd be different. | ||
| Sometimes the foreign producer would pay them, sometimes the importer would bear the cost. | ||
| The importer could be an American, could be a foreign company. | ||
| A lot of times, it's a wholly owned American subsidiary of a foreign corporation. | ||
| So it gets allocated. | ||
| The empirical estimates range from like 30% to 80% of like how much is borne by the American. | ||
| It's been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for a significant reduction in our deficit. | ||
| I would say that's raising revenue domestically. | ||
| There certainly is an incidental and collateral effect of the tariffs, but they do raise revenue, but it's very important that they are regulatory tariffs, not revenue-raising tariffs. | ||
| And the way you can see this, I think, if you look at this policy, this policy is by far the most effective if nobody ever pays the tariffs. | ||
| I say two policies, right? | ||
| So if you look at the trade deficit emergency, if nobody ever pays the tariffs and instead Americans direct their consumption towards American producers and stimulate the rebuilding of our hollowed out manufacturing base, then the policy is by far the most effective. | ||
| So a tariff, a regulatory tariff that— So why not do what the statute permits? | ||
| Bar importation of products altogether. | ||
| That would be the most effective way to do it. | ||
| You can follow the statute. | ||
| The statute says the president can do that. | ||
| What it doesn't say is the president can raise revenue. | ||
| What it says he can regulate importation and go and hundreds of years the way you roll causing it, subjecting some countries and not others to importation bans. | ||
| There's a lot of verbs, but none of them include generating revenue. | ||
| As a side effect or directly? | ||
| Let me address that verb point, if I may, because think about the canonical example, a statute that refers to a list of swords, knives, daggers, dirks, and pikes. | ||
| There, you look at that list of things and you say, aha, those are all weapons, therefore a pike is a spear, not a fish, in that particular context. | ||
| Now look at this list of verbs, block, prohibit, capel, direct, and so forth. | ||
| You don't look at that naturally as an ordinary reader and say, oh, look, they're all not revenue raising. | ||
| What you say is they're all very broad, powerful, you know, the actions of these. | ||
| General, the verbs that are in the statute are actually doing something. | ||
| I mean, they're in the statute for a reason. | ||
| And as I understand it, Congress actually explained to us in its Senate report and House report when it enacted the 1941 amendments to TWIA what it was doing. | ||
| It said that what we are doing is authorizing the president in the Senate report, quote, to control or freeze property transactions where a foreign interest is involved. | ||
| There's similar language about controlling, freezing control in the House report. | ||
| So I appreciate that generally you can look at these words and you can imagine that they mean certain things, but here we have evidence that Congress was actually trying to do a particular thing with respect to the authority that it was presenting to the president, and that thing was not raising revenue. | ||
| I think that what the powers that Congress was conferring on the president are best understood through the plain text of the statutes, which includes regulating bills. | ||
| No, I know, but some of us care about the legislative history. | ||
| And so the plain text of the statute has certain verbs in it. | ||
| It also has regulate commerce, as you say. | ||
| And when I look at the legislative history, it appears as though Congress was trying to give the president the authority to, quote, control or freeze property transactions where a foreign interest is involved. | ||
| And in the Twiya context, that makes perfect sense because we're talking about a wartime dynamic. | ||
| And what is happening is the president needs the authority to prevent trading with the enemy in the midst of a war. | ||
| And that seems to be the focus of this statute. | ||
| So I guess I'm concerned about just sort of taking a particular word here and there and saying that the general view of it might include raising revenue when in fact it looks as though the aim of this was really to give the president a certain kind of authority to freeze the assets of the enemy. | ||
| And let me say two things in response to that. | ||
| First, as to the notion that this is a revenue-raising tactic or power, it is not. | ||
| We are asserting a regulatory power. | ||
| It's a delegation of power to regulate foreign commerce. | ||
| The way to control imports traditionally has been to tariff them. | ||
| They say, well, you can impose quotas. | ||
| Well, quotas are essentially economically, you know, economically equivalent to tariffs. | ||
| So the question is, why would you be able to quota under regulate, but not tariff under regulate, when the tariffs are themselves regulatory? | ||
| And let me turn back to the question I was given. | ||
| The response I was going to say is that the question is. | ||
| Could the answer be that in other places where Congress wants that particular form of regulation to be used, they say impose duties. | ||
| They say you can tax. | ||
| Mr. President, here they don't say that. | ||
| I'd say two things in response. | ||
| That's the very argument that this court rejected in Algonquin. | ||
| The fact that these other specific statutes, do you have another statute or another circumstance? | ||
| And again, not to say Algonquin again, but obviously we discussed the phrase adjust imports. | ||
| And they said, no, the natural way to do that is to tariff them. | ||
| And it specifically said it makes no sense at all to authorize quotas, which was conceded that that statute did authorize, but not tariffs, because those are equivalent. | ||
| But it's not adjust by any means necessary, which kind of beefs up the adjust. | ||
| And also, and this is actually, I just don't know the answer to this question, so maybe you can help and maybe the other side can help as well. | ||
| Algonquin was very careful to always call it a license and a licensing fee. | ||
| And in the oral argument that came up, too, the distinction between a tariff and a licensing fee. | ||
| And I can understand how in some contexts it would be very difficult. | ||
| You would press on it and you would say, well, if this license fee is raising revenue, then it actually functions as a tariff. | ||
| But what is the significance of that? | ||
| Because in IEPA, it also says, it refers particularly to licenses. | ||
| It says you can license. | ||
| And license would be a way of giving permission. | ||
| That's actually the language also used in the Civil War one. | ||
| And what is it? | ||
| It counts it against death. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Exactly. | |
| Yes, it does. | ||
| It was a license. | ||
| It was a license fee. | ||
| And that's a way to grant permission that you wouldn't otherwise have to trade and import and let it through. | ||
| So tell me what the distinction is between licenses and fees and if it matters. | ||
| It's hard for me to see one because what President Lincoln said is, okay, we're going to allow imports from hostile foreign powers, basically rebellious Confederate states, of cotton subject to a license. | ||
| But you've got to pay four cents a pound of cotton when you do it. | ||
| That's the condition. | ||
| That is so nearly equivalent to a tariff that says you can bring these goods to our country, but you've got to pay a ad valorum assessment on it. | ||
| And so of course, they have, in their briefs, conceded that quotas apply, that licensing may apply. | ||
| There is the language in the beginning of 1701 that talks about instruments or other methods, instruments, licenses. | ||
| But if that was true, why couldn't you just call this a license? | ||
| And it's also true that in the cotton example, the court said the exaction itself was not properly a tax, but a bonus required as a conditioned precedent for engaging in the trade. | ||
| So it seems like it was a little squirrely about how it was proceeding. | ||
| And if there really is no distinction, why couldn't you just call it a license here? | ||
| Very briefly, the other two cases, you know, the Polk case and then the President McKinley case talk about duties. | ||
| So I see an equivalence there, Mr. Chief Justice. | ||
| Thank you, Council. | ||
| Justice Thomas, anything further? | ||
|
unidentified
|
The other side is going to argue, make an argument on delegation, I believe. | |
| Would you anticipate that and give us your understanding of the delegation argument? | ||
| Yes, Justice Thomas, I'd say a couple things in response to that. | ||
| First of all, this court has stated that the non-delegation doctrine does not apply with anything like the same force as it does in the domestic context in the foreign context. | ||
| And that again, to cite Dames and Moore again, Dameson Moore cites Youngstown and Youngstown in footnote two of Justice Jackson's opinion. | ||
| He goes into detail about this. | ||
| He addresses Curtis Wright. | ||
| He says there's a lot of broad dicta in Curtis Wright, but the holding of Curtis Wright, the razio dissidendi, is that the domestic non-delegation doctrine does not apply with the same force in the foreign context. | ||
| And then he uses that phrase, does not apply. | ||
| He says the strict limitations on delegation that apply in the internal context do not apply in the external context. | ||
| And so we rely on that line of cases. | ||
| And for the reasons I talked about earlier, we were talking about a situation where the president has his own inherent authority to address foreign arising emergencies, and Congress is conferring tools on him that expand his ability, his capacity to do so. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We are in the area of Youngstown Zone 1. | |
| A few times you have alluded to the history as being important in interpreting the statute, and also that this language comes from the Trading with the Enemies Act, and that has its own pedigree. | ||
| Could you just sketch out this direct line that you were alluding to as a basis for interpreting the current emergency statute as you would like it interpreted? | ||
| Yes, Justice Thomas, and turning back to the response I was giving to Justice Barrett earlier, there is, I think it's very well set out in Professor Baum's Isamika's brief, there is this history of presidents using a tariffing power or a tariff equivalent power, very, very close to tariffing power, in wartime to tariff trading with enemies. | ||
| And that is when the Trading with the Enemy Act was enacted in 1917. | ||
| It was deliberately evoking that. | ||
| And when it brings in the power to regulate importation, it's essentially codifying for the inherent power the president's already recognized to have. | ||
| And then in 1933, when that power is expanded to an area where he wouldn't inherently have it, the peacetime context, that codification, the meaning of that remains the same. | ||
| The regulate importation language that's brought in from TWIA and then ultimately to AIPA in 1977 is carrying with it that connotation. | ||
| And that's reinforced by all the cases we've cited in our brief where there's been extremely broad delegations of the power to tariff specifically and the power to regulate foreign commerce more generally, going back to the time of the founding, which ties to your question about non-delegation. | ||
| Justice Alito. | ||
| The Court of the CCPA said several said things in Yoshida that are helpful to your position, but it also said some other things. | ||
| It said that future search charges, quote, must, of course, comply with Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. | ||
| And it said that the Trading with the Enemy Act did not authorize the President to, quote, fix rates of duty at will without regard to statutory rates prescribed by Congress. | ||
| So Do you think that Congress, to the extent Congress had that decision in mind and relied on it, do you think it also relied on those statements in the opinion? | ||
| Not in the same way, because those statements are read into other provisions of TWIA that Congress did not enact in ANEPA. | ||
| They may still be there in TWIA, but those are limitations that it wouldn't make sense to do. | ||
| And I think the significance of your sheet is at a higher level. | ||
| Keep in mind that their principal position is no tariffs at all. | ||
| Regulate importation just doesn't carry a connotation of the power to tariff. | ||
| And we say we've got historical sources going back to Gibbons against Ogden that say the opposite. | ||
| But more fundamentally, everyone knew that at the time IEPA was enacted, that regulate importation had just very visibly and very prominently been upheld to include a sweeping global tariff. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Mr. Somier? | ||
| I'd like to go back to Justice Barrett's question on the word license as used in AIPA. | ||
| It's not used as a verb, it's used as a noun. | ||
| The president may, under such regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise, then do what the verbs permit him to do. | ||
| By license, he can nullify, void, prevent, or prohibit any acquisition, etc. | ||
| So license is not being used as a verb that through licensing he can raise revenue. | ||
| He can only use licenses to accomplish the verbs. | ||
| So I don't understand how we can treat licensing as equivalent to revenue raising. | ||
| As used in IEPA, the license is only to accomplish what B permits. | ||
| In Hamilton against Dillon, licenses, once you had the license, then you had to pay the fees. | ||
| But that seems to be the point I'm making, which is that the only use of license here is a noun. | ||
| You can license to accomplish the powers that B gives the president. | ||
| Let me be clear: we rely on the phrase of regulate importation. | ||
| We're not saying that. | ||
| We're not relying on licenses for that reason. | ||
| No, I only cite that language, that introduction language about instruments, licenses, or otherwise. | ||
| We can't rely on that. | ||
| That has another layer of breadth in this particular. | ||
| Council, would you listen to my question? | ||
| You're not relying on license for the reason I just said, because it is a noun, not the verb. | ||
| You're relying on regulate, correct? | ||
| Yes, relying on regulate importation. | ||
| And despite the fact that no other president in the history of AIPA has ever used, has ever imported, used tariffs as a power under AIFA. | ||
| Well, President Nixon did so on. | ||
| Under our predecessor, and we have all the limitations of that. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Number two, whenever Congress intends to permit taxing and regulate, it uses the word tax and regulate in every other statute, correct? | ||
| I don't concede that. | ||
| I mean, two very visible examples, again, are TWIA and Section 124. | ||
| We're back to the question here. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Thank you, Council. | ||
| Justice Saul Mayor? | ||
| No, she's Justice Sotomayor. | ||
| She just finished. | ||
| Justice Kagan. | ||
| General. | ||
| And there, friends. | ||
| I want to take you back to Justice Thomas's question about non-delegation. | ||
| And if I understood your answer correctly, it was really similar to the answer that you started off with when you talked with Justice Thomas about the major questions doctrine, which is sort of everything's different because the President has independent constitutional powers in this area. | ||
| And so that, if one does not think that with respect to tariffs, if one thinks that a tariff is a taxing power, is a regulation of foreign commerce that is really delegated by the Constitution to Congress. | ||
| That argument does not sound so well. | ||
| And in fact, when you look at J.E.W. Hampton, which gives rise to the non-delegation test that we usually use, J.E.W. Hampton is a tariffs case. | ||
| And the court did not say, oh, we need some special new principle here, some stricter rule because we're dealing with tariffs in which presidents are directly concerned as a matter of foreign relations. | ||
| It enunciated the test we use for all non-delegations. | ||
| So how does that fit with your theory? | ||
| Eight years later, in Curtis Wright, the court held the non-delegation doctrine for domestic affairs does not apply with the same force as it does by the government. | ||
| But not with respect to tariffs, not with respect to quintessential taxing powers which are given by the Constitution to Congress. | ||
| I think justices of this court have recognized in their opinions that one of the reasons that the non-delegation doctrine, you know, that intelligible principle test hasn't packed as much punch as Justice Kavanaugh said in one of his opinions as it might otherwise have done is it did arise in the foreign affairs context because there the court has historically been very, very comfortable with very broad delegations. | ||
| Chicago and Southern Airlines, another case in the 1930s, shortly after J.W. Hampton talked about being very large delegations of the foreign commerce power being very effective. | ||
| And of course, this goes back to the very dawn of the Republic in 1790, for example. | ||
| Congress conferred on President Washington basically the entire Indian commerce power. | ||
| It said, go, you know, get licenses, right, to do commerce with the Indians, and they'll be subject to whatever rules and regulations President Washington can make. | ||
| So I do think there is a profound consistency between the announcement of the intelligible principal test in J.W. Hampton and then the subsequent recognition by this court in Curtis Wright that the non-delegation doctrine doesn't apply the same force in this context. | ||
| In consumers research, just last year, we had a tax before us, and the question was, was this a delegation issue? | ||
| It was, of course, a much smaller tax, which dealt with many fewer taxpayers. | ||
| Notwithstanding that, we said if there's no ceiling on this tax, we sort of assumed that if there were no ceiling on this tax, it would raise a delegation problem. | ||
| And most of the opinion was given over to showing that there in fact was a ceiling on the tax, not a quantitative one, but a qualitative one. | ||
| But how does your argument fit with the idea that a tax with no ceiling, a tax that can be anything that here the president wants, there an agency wants, would raise a pretty deep delegation problem? | ||
| First of all, I can't say enough. | ||
| It is a regulatory tariff, not a tax. | ||
| And that, I think, ties to my response to that, which is that this is a totally different context. | ||
| This is IEPA, a statute that Congress carefully crafted to grant the president admittedly broad powers to address foreign arising emergencies. | ||
| It's outward facing to foreign affairs, where there's the broadest level of deference to the political branches. | ||
| This court has recognized in many cases. | ||
| And it imposed not a floor or limit on the amount of a tariff that could be imposed very naturally because, for example, as this court said in loving, quoting Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. | ||
| 23, it's impossible to foresee either what exigencies may arise or what tools may be needed to address those edges, the means that may be required to address those exigencies. | ||
| Instead, Congress grant very broad powers, but they're confined to a particular domain. | ||
| This domain is any property in which any foreign government or any national thereof has any interest. | ||
| So the sort of discipline, if one were to apply, we say you shouldn't, but if you were to apply the non-delegation doctrine, the domestic-facing non-delegation doctrine in this context, there's a significant limitation there. | ||
| My last question really does have to do with that point, which is how or whether this is confined. | ||
| Because if you look at Title 19, which is loaded with tariffs and duties of various kinds, all of them have real constraints on them. | ||
| They are, you know, you can't go over X percent. | ||
| One of the, we'll make sure this all gets played, one of the most important arguments in the Supreme Court. | ||
| You see how tough it is? | ||
| That's the Solicitor General of the United States, John Sauer, that did so much great work for President Trump. | ||
| He's Solicitor General. | ||
| You've got to be ready. | ||
| Normally you walk in there, you've got your case, your brief, you're going to take your, I don't know, 10 or 15 minutes to present it. | ||
| Boom, right at the start. | ||
| They're up in your face with these questions. | ||
| And you see how complicated you are. | ||
| And you don't have time to look it up. | ||
| You've got to know it. | ||
| That's the amazing thing about these arguments right there. | ||
| And the Supreme Court so far has gone, has gone along, but they've been very adamant that they're not the war in court, that they're not an activist court. | ||
| They have come back on these, remember, the Article II powers of the president and the, quite frankly, the maximalist strategy of those Article II powers as chief executive officer, as commander-in-chief, and as chief magistrate and chief law enforcement officer here, it's about essentially President Trump's trade and tariff policies and the underlying laws that he used to stitch that together. | ||
| And right there, getting completely getting hammered, as he should. | ||
| This is a very, very important argument. | ||
| It's the basis for redoing the commercial relationships in the world and restoring America as a manufacturing superpower, a manufacturing superpower. | ||
| Okay, Senator Hawley is running a few minutes late. | ||
| He's going to come at the top of the hour. | ||
| We've got John Solomon, got big breaking news in the investigations, plus more of the politics. | ||
| Let me just go over. | ||
| There's an article in Politico now, an interview. | ||
| Grace and Mo, if you can make sure that's put out so people can read it, doesn't get it past the paywall. | ||
| At Politico, it's time to double and triple down. | ||
| President Trump is still the vehicle for get to low propensity voters. | ||
| Why? | ||
| They understand he's trying to do something with the country. | ||
| Now, look, he's been had a huge emphasis on the international side because we are in the beginning stages of the Third World War, and he's trying to put that to bed. | ||
| Also, hemispheric defense. | ||
| And like I said, I don't agree with all of this. | ||
| I particularly think the Middle East has been way overplayed. | ||
| And now it's time. | ||
| The Middle East is a sideshow, and Israel is a sideshow to a sideshow. | ||
| We've got to get focused, and particularly focused here, America first and American citizens first. | ||
| But when you've made a bet, like on the Big Beautiful bill, you've got to execute. | ||
| You've got to execute on it. | ||
| And right now, that's the key part. | ||
| If it's a supply-side tax cut, then we've got to make sure that all these investments that are supposedly going to be done are done. | ||
| You can't be any more wish list anymore. | ||
| Just get on it. | ||
| Designate somebody on the cabinet to do it. | ||
| President Trump's too busy. | ||
| He can't do everything. | ||
| He's flying down today for a day trip down to Florida to talk to a business council about what? | ||
| About investment in the United States of America. | ||
| That's what he should be doing. | ||
| The arrested guys in the cabinet, Besant, Luttnick, all these guys, you've got to execute on the Big Beautiful bill. | ||
| And I believe they're over there right now talking about the filibuster and he had breakfast at the Senate and a bunch of those guys want to crater right now. | ||
| And you cannot crater on giving illegal aliens health care. | ||
| That's what we have the problem you have last night in New York City, let's face it. | ||
| You can't do that. | ||
| You can't crater on this. | ||
| You've got another reconciliation. | ||
| How about this for the reconciliation? | ||
| Let's now raise the taxes on the wealthy, what we should have done the first time, to start to close this budget deficit and to make sure we have to borrow less money because the borrowing costs themselves, as we've said over and over again, add to the inflation. | ||
| It's hard to get the inflation under 3% when you're borrowing so much money. | ||
| Just a basic fact. | ||
| Where do you learn that? | ||
| Go to birchgold.com, promo code Bannon, the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| Find out all about the inextricably linked nature of the capital markets in the U.S. dollar and what that means for gold and the price of gold and gold as a hedge in times of financial turbulence. | ||
| Plus, you get to Philip Patrick and the team. | ||
| Most importantly, to Philip Patrick and the team. | ||
| They can talk to you about all the tax-deferred methodologies, how they can roll over 401ks, RAs, all of it. | ||
| Talk to them today. | ||
| Take a short commercial break, home Tadalock. | ||
| Now more than ever, man, if 80 or 90% of your home or your net worth is top of your home, and if you're an average American, it's at least that. | ||
| If you're lucky enough to own one, and if you're under 35 years old, you don't own one. | ||
| That's got to be worked out, right? | ||
| Don't let that dream turn into the worst nightmare you ever had. | ||
| Let somebody get into your title, take a second mortgage out of it when you got a hard money lender, you got to pay it back, your life changes. | ||
| Hometitleoc.com, promo code Steve. | ||
| You're talking pennies a day for this. | ||
| Check it out. | ||
| Natalie Dominguez and the team. | ||
| Short break. |
Export Selection