Nov. 6, 2025 - Bannon's War Room
48:49
Participants
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| In January 2023, Congress voted to terminate one of the biggest AIBA emergencies ever, the COVID emergency, and the president went along with that. | ||
| So what the statute reflects is there's going to be the ability for a sort of political consensus against a declared emergency. | ||
| What happens when the president simply vetoes legislation to try to take these powers back? | ||
| Well, he has the authority to veto legislation to terminate a national emergency, for example. | ||
| I mean, he retains the powers in the background because ABA is still on the books. | ||
| But if he declares an emergency and Congress doesn't like it and passes a joint resolution, yes, he can absolutely veto that. | ||
| So Congress, as a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president. | ||
| It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives. | ||
| I disagree with that. | ||
| And the recent historical counterexample of Congress's termination of the COVID emergency demonstrates that political, the political oversight with the president's assent. | ||
| With the president's assent, in fact, you know. | ||
| Once he lost it by a veto-proof majority in the Senate, I think the position didn't make you realize. | ||
| And that's the political process working. | ||
| There was a lot of people who were a proof majority to get it back. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Okay. | ||
| Supreme Court is considering that, and they might even be drawing a line here. | ||
| The conservative majority has already done quite a bit to expand the authorities of the executive branch under President Trump. | ||
| You know this. | ||
| Applying near blanket immunity for what they call official acts, allowing mass layoffs of federal workers, allowing the firing of heads of independent agencies, limiting injunctions that would block President Trump's agenda or any president's agenda for that matter, allowing the president to cancel billions in funding allocated by Congress. | ||
| But today, the justices seem skeptical over an emergency power that President Trump has made the central feature of his second term in office. | ||
| The ability for a president to levy massive tariffs unilaterally when Congress has the power of the purse. | ||
| They were asking for authority, essentially, to levy taxes, as Justice Kavanaugh said today. | ||
| The Supreme Court needs to figure out what it means to regulate imports. | ||
| According to the president and his legal team, that would mean including, or that would include, I should say, Katie, the imposition of tariffs. | ||
| According to the challengers, that authority, essentially, to tax is reserved exclusively to the Congress. | ||
| So they did sound skeptical in places, certainly. | ||
| I wonder what your expectation is for when they might rule on this, because usually we get these rulings in June, but this is something that Americans are dealing with every single day. | ||
| So I'd like to say this is an educated guess, but I'm not all that educated, so it's just a guess. | ||
| But the Supreme Court, at the government's request, did fast-track this argument, Katie. | ||
| And so it makes sense to me that they would probably try and fast-track an opinion. | ||
| Normally, when they hear cases in October and November and December, we can expect a decision next June. | ||
| I imagine it would be quicker than that. | ||
| I want to explain to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn't be concerned because this is foreign affairs and the president has inherent authority, and so delegation off the books, more or less. | ||
| And if that's true, what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war, to the president? | ||
| We don't contend that he could do that if it did. | ||
| Why not? | ||
| What's the reason to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the power to declare war to the president? | ||
| But we don't contend that. | ||
| Again, that would be. | ||
| Well, you do. | ||
| You say it's unreviewable. | ||
| There's no manageable standard, nothing to be done. | ||
| And now you're, I think you, tell me if I'm wrong. | ||
| You backed off that position. | ||
| Maybe that's fair to say. | ||
| Okay, all right. | ||
| That would be, I think, an abdication. | ||
| That would really be an abdication, not a delegation. | ||
| I'm delighted to hear that. | ||
| So I've covered the Federalist Society, which is kind of the lawyer's wing of the Republican Party for more than a decade now. | ||
| And beginning in the Obama administration, they were very concerned about President Obama and later President Biden making aggressive assertions of executive power. | ||
| And they started to, the Federalist Society started to come up with new theories for how you could reign in presidential power. | ||
| The one that they eventually settled on is this thing called the major questions doctrine, which is the idea that when a president does something that's too ambitious, it has too much of an impact on our economy or too much political impact. | ||
| That's not allowed. | ||
| It doesn't matter if there's an existing statute that allows them to do it. | ||
| They got to go back and they got to get a new law. | ||
| And one question going into this normal argument was now that we have a Republican president, would the justices actually follow this major questions doctrine that they came up with to stop presidents like Biden and Obama, or would they give Trump an exemption to it? | ||
| And Gorsuch, at least, seems to feel that the major questions doctrine does apply to Donald Trump. | ||
| Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, also asked some questions suggesting that he believed that it also applies to Republican presidents. | ||
| Not all of the Republican justices were there. | ||
| I think that Thomas and Kavanaugh and Alito are probably going to vote with Trump in this case. | ||
| But it looks like, at least amongst the Republican justices, they seem to be evenly split on whether or not this doctrine should apply to presidents of both parties. | ||
| Larry, I came away very, very optimistic. | ||
| The Solicitor General presented a strong case for the president's use of the IEPA, the emergency tariff powers that President Trump has used to balance trade, to negotiate with the Chinese on fentanyl to secure rare earth magnets to get the Indians to stop buying Russian oil. | ||
| And that the Solicitor General made a fantastic case that the purpose of the tariffs is to rebalance global trade. | ||
| We were in an economic emergency. | ||
| We were near a tipping point. | ||
| And you and I know exactly what that looks like. | ||
| And President Trump has brought the U.S. back. | ||
| On the other side, I thought that the plaintiffs almost embarrassed themselves. | ||
| They clearly didn't understand foundational economics. | ||
| They didn't understand the trade policy they were talking about. | ||
| And I'm very optimistic after listening to the questions at SCOTUS that the IEPA ruling is going to come President Trump in this administration's way. | ||
| This is the primal scream of a dying regime. | ||
| Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. | ||
| Here's not got a free shot at all these networks lying about the people. | ||
| The people have had a belly full of it. | ||
| I know you don't like hearing that. | ||
| I know you're trying 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 line? | ||
| Mega 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. Bannon. | ||
| It's Wednesday, 5 November in the year of our Lord, 2025. | ||
| About this time one year ago, we were starting to get the exit polls, the exit polls were coming out that talked about how the evening was going to progress to it got to about, I don't know, 10 o'clock, 10.30, when we knew that President Trump was going to win reelection. | ||
| I'll have more about that later in this hour on this sacred anniversary of the greatest political comeback in American history. | ||
| But today also Let's get to the work of today. | ||
| Today was another, it was absolutely historic. | ||
| Okay, the theory of the case, remember in the years in the wilderness, Project 2025, Russ Vogt, CRA, Stephen Miller, America First Parties, also the team over at CPI, of which I'll be addressing tonight later at one of their conferences. | ||
| Everybody working on all of these aspects of the second term, right, which we were very confident we were going to have the political ground game and to get the low-propensity voters to turn people out. | ||
| You had to have policies, unlike the first term, which kind of surprised us when we won, that we needed a depth of public policy, you know, public intellectuals, networks of people, subject matter experts, all of it. | ||
| We worked for years and years and years, and that's kind of the catchphrase for that is Project 2025. | ||
| The central beating heart of this was, as we've called, the unitary theory of the executive or Article II, the vesting clause of Article II, the maximization. | ||
| He's chief executive officer. | ||
| He's commander-in-chief. | ||
| He's the chief magistrate and chief law enforcement officer. | ||
| So he can hire and fire anybody. | ||
| You know, the appropriations bill is a ceiling, not a floor. | ||
| As commander-in-chief, he has the inherent powers of the Constitution, particularly in emergencies, give him extraordinary powers to keep the nation safe. | ||
| And then as chief law enforcement officer, extraordinary powers, particularly in emergency powers, to act in defense of the citizenry and the country. | ||
| This gets down to the centrality of President Trump's Make America Great, America First, of changing the commercial relationships that have essentially ripped off the country and ripped off working people for decade and decade and decade. | ||
| Both political parties, no political parties particularly at fault here. | ||
| All of them neoliberal globalists. | ||
| Today, for over three hours, historic, and we played about an hour live on the show, and I realized the audience was mesmerized. | ||
| It went for three hours. | ||
| We will play this again, if not tonight, then tomorrow after the show is over and maybe have some commentary. | ||
| Absolutely extraordinary hearing today. | ||
| And I can tell you on Capitol Hill, and this is how much, you know, about bringing jobs back and bringing manufacturing jobs back. | ||
| I have never seen, quite frankly, this was like Dodd's level, Dobbs-level protest outside. | ||
| Working class people, younger people, some of the credentialed class, but clearly the messaging on tariffs, the messaging on trying to bring jobs back, has been twisted, right? | ||
| Because people think very, very differently than the folks in the show. | ||
| I've asked David J. Lynch, author of an extraordinary book, The World's Worst Bet, how the Globalization Gamble Went Wrong. | ||
| He's chief global economics correspondent for The Washington Post. | ||
| David, you were actually in the gallery on this historic day. | ||
| We've got a couple of minutes here still left in the segment. | ||
| I'd like you just to put us in the room first because I was absolutely mesmerized by the arguments of both parties, particularly, it just went on and on and on. | ||
| The questioning could not be tougher. | ||
| What was it like in the room? | ||
| Well, Steve, if you were sitting alongside me, you would have been in what we call obstructed view seating. | ||
| It was more of an auditory experience than much of a great viewing experience. | ||
| But that said, it was historic. | ||
| There was a real atmosphere in the room. | ||
| The questioning was quite serious and probing from all the justices, I think, and for all the attorneys. | ||
| And it was like watching the legal equivalent of an Ali Frazier fight. | ||
| Both sides, I think, stumbled in places and both sides made their cases to the best of their ability. | ||
| I do think coming out of it, though, the justices did appear, or a majority, I should say, did ask some pretty skeptical questions of the Solicitor General, which makes me think the president's emergency tariff plans, anyway, might be in some trouble. | ||
| Yeah, this is, you know, I pride myself as one of the things I did when I was in the White House. | ||
| There was a small five man committed to kind of vet the first and second Supreme Court justice appointment. | ||
| And Gorsuch was the, we screened it down and presented the president with a number of alternatives, but Gorsuch was the one that we thought would be a great first pick. | ||
| And Mike Davis, the viceroy we have on all the time, would clerk for him. | ||
| So we're very fond of Justice Gorsuch. | ||
| And one of the reasons that he was so highly recommended is his intellectual capacity and capabilities. | ||
| He might have been the sharpest questioner. | ||
| That's why we took a couple of clips at the beginning. | ||
| We got about a minute. | ||
| Let's focus on Gorsuch for just that minute. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He was pretty skeptical, would you say? | |
| Absolutely. | ||
| And he asked a pretty probing question asking if in the event of a Democratic is that music coming on your end, Steve, or is it on mine? | ||
| Yeah, no, no, that's our exit. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's our exit music for the segment. | |
| You're good. | ||
| We give it some music in the background when we end the segment to give some drama to it. | ||
| How's that? | ||
| I see. | ||
| But no, I do think Gorsuch asked a key question because if you accept the government's argument here that President Trump has this sweeping authority to levy all sorts of emergency tariffs, you've got to ask yourself in 2029 or 2033 or whenever, what about a Democratic president? | ||
| What about President Gavin Newsom declaring a national emergency about climate change? | ||
| And this is what Justice Gorsuch asked specifically about. | ||
| Wouldn't this reading of the Emergency Economic Powers Act allow a Democratic president to impose a 50% tax on imported cars and imported auto parts? | ||
| And the Solicitor General reluctantly concluded that it was very likely that would be the case. | ||
| David J. Lynch, the author of the book, The World's Worst Bet, is with us. | ||
| We're going to take a short commercial break. | ||
| We're going to return in the war room. | ||
| Just a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I got American fame. | |
| On Getter yet? | ||
|
unidentified
|
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 Cook, Jack the Soviets, and so many more. | |
| Download the Getter app now. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sign up for free and be part of the new country. | |
| Could the president impose a 50% tariff on gas-powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change? | ||
| It's very likely that that can be done. | ||
| That'd be very likely that. | ||
| I think that has to be the logic of your view. | ||
| Yeah, in other words, obviously this administration would say that's a hoax. | ||
|
unidentified
|
It's not a real crisis, but I'm sure you would. | |
| Yes, but that would be a question for Congress under our interpretation, not for the courts. | ||
|
unidentified
|
All right. | |
| Okay, David J. Lynch joins us right now. | ||
| David, that was another dramatic moment in over a three hour. | ||
| And folks should understand, they allocate sometimes an hour and a half for these things, but to go three hours of intense, intense back and forth, and it was incredible. | ||
| If you wanted to learn something about American history, global economics, the law, the Constitution, it was absolutely one of those, you know, like an NFL playoff game. | ||
| It was just extraordinary. | ||
| Both lawyers, and I realize Scott Besson, our former contributor here and close friend, colleague, said about how the other side, I thought they did pretty good. | ||
| I did. | ||
| I thought they did pretty good. | ||
| I thought that the Solicitor General, you have to buy kind of the theory of the case, I guess. | ||
| David J. Lynch, you've done this book, talk about the rise and fall of globalization. | ||
| And you say in the book, it turned out to be, particularly politically, maybe one of the worst bets ever on a global basis. | ||
| Why is it so controversial what President Trump is trying to do in reverse that and reverse it quickly, sir? | ||
| Well, I think it's controversial because you get, as you say, competing theories of the case. | ||
| The president's view is that just about everything that went wrong in U.S. manufacturing communities is the fault of free trade agreements that we started in the 1990s and pursued for some time thereafter. | ||
| Mainstream economists, of course, will say, look, much of the manufacturing job loss was due to automation. | ||
| That would have happened anyway, just like the automation we've seen over the decades in farming. | ||
| We can produce a lot more food today than we could 100 years ago with a lot fewer people on the farms. | ||
| Same's true in manufacturing. | ||
| But of course, trade did have an impact. | ||
| And where particularly the opening to China or China's integration into the global trading system really had an impact was on specific manufacturing communities and specific cohorts of people, specific groups of people. | ||
| Those with the least education and the fewest skills, they really took it in the chops. | ||
| Political leaders, starting back with Bill Clinton and subsequently, said, don't worry, we're going to take care of those people. | ||
| And where the gamble went wrong, where I argue in the book, the bargain was not upheld, was that part never happened. | ||
| The domestic policy response that there should have been to make sure that everybody could benefit from this global integration, which to some degree is unstoppable. | ||
| It's just the way things are going. | ||
| But we left people unprotected, and they suffered as a consequence. | ||
| And there was a political blowback from that, which leads you to Donald Trump. | ||
| And so, and what Trump is saying, it's so controversial, is he's calling upon emergency powers. | ||
| In fact, they're knitting together, like they're trading with the, I mean, we saw the Solicitor General walk through kind of the process of how he got there. | ||
| You're knitting together trading with the enemies, with other underlying documents. | ||
| Why is it so controversial that he's called this an emergency and said, hey, look at how I'm solving this, and I'm solving this by knitting together a number of different laws or regulations that exist out there but haven't really been knitted together to make this argument that this is our solution to this emergency, which has stripped America of its industrial might. | ||
| Yeah, I think the controversy is that he's the first president to use this almost 50-year-old law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEPA, is the acronym. | ||
| He's the first president to see in that law a power to impose tariffs. | ||
| It's the standard law that presidents of both parties have used to impose financial sanctions and economic sanctions, like those we put on Russia, those we put on some Chinese actors, the Iranians, et cetera, over the years. | ||
| So that's part of the controversy. | ||
| The other part of the controversy is the president's identification of the trade deficit as an emergency. | ||
| We've, as you know, Steve, run an annual trade deficit every year since 1975 when I was in high school. | ||
| And so there are a lot of people who have pushed back on that and said that's not really the definition of an emergency. | ||
| The administration's counter, as Scott Besson said in the clip, was that 50 years of this have brought the U.S. economy to a quote-unquote tipping point. | ||
| I don't think the administration has really elaborated on exactly how imminent that tipping point is or how it would manifest itself. | ||
| But the advantage of using IEPA is it does convey broad and immediate powers on the president. | ||
| So he could act without a lot of bureaucracy, without a lot of time wasting, and just come out on a given day and say, bang, tariff of X on goods from country Y, and we're done and dusted. | ||
| The alternatives, which is what the administration might be forced to fall back on, are other sections of U.S. trade law that are more cumbersome, but can ultimately get you to the same place. | ||
| When you say cumbersome, so clearly today, Gorsuch asked a lot of pointed questions, and he seemed a little skeptical, but you can never, you know, oral arguments are oral arguments. | ||
| They often cut very differently than what people said in the hearing. | ||
| But the timing of it got to be a big deal, right? | ||
| The thinking of the timing of it, particularly for the analysts and observers. | ||
| Also, what happens if they come back and just say you can't use this? | ||
| I mean, how do you unwind basically this whole commercial activity that President Trump's had for the last since Liberation Day, which I think was 2 April of this year? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| And also about the timing. | ||
| I think they made a good point that this is one they normally hold to a June, normally hold these results till June. | ||
| But on this one and the one on the redistricting, because you've got primaries, you may have to come up with answers to this in January, February. | ||
| That seems to be the thinking. | ||
| I mean, the court agreed to take it up on an expedited basis. | ||
| So the implication is the ruling will come on an expedited basis. | ||
| What will happen, you know, they, the government, have collected something like $90 billion via these emergency tariffs. | ||
| If the court were to invalidate all of them and order a refund to all of the importers who've paid them, and that's not certain, the government would then be in a position of having to set up some administrative procedure to make that happen. | ||
| There's one sort of past example of a case like this. | ||
| It was something called the Harbor Maintenance Fund years and years ago. | ||
| I won't bore you with many of the details. | ||
| But in that case, there was an administrative process set up and companies got their refunds, but it took a while. | ||
| In this case, the five businesses that are direct participants in these lawsuits that have been consolidated before the court, they would definitely get a refund right away. | ||
| Everybody else might have to apply through this bureaucratic channel. | ||
| That could take some time and be unpopular. | ||
| But the other thing that would happen is the administration, they're already working on this, would have a fallback strategy. | ||
| If the court were to invalidate all of them, I'm sure the president would very quickly come back and say, okay, in light of that, I'm now going to take the following actions under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act or Section 338 of the Trade Law of 1930. | ||
| And he would, I would assume, cobble together an alternative framework that would get him, if not entirely what he has today in terms of a tariff structure, most of the way there. | ||
| As you see it today, how do you think this thing plays out? | ||
| Well, you know, my time in the Supreme Court is limited, so I'm reluctant to venture much of a guess. | ||
| I would say my thinking on this has changed over the months. | ||
| When the lawsuits were first filed, I felt that the administration's argument was kind of a stretch, and I thought it was, frankly, sort of a slam dunk for the petitioners. | ||
| Then I actually read the administration's brief, and as is almost always the case, a good lawyer can make a good argument. | ||
| And I came away from that thinking, huh? | ||
| Well, the administration does have an argument here. | ||
| I'm not sure it's ironclad, but it's well presented. | ||
| And then I talked to some more trade attorneys, and they, you know, these are specialists far more than I am. | ||
| And they saw the ambiguity in the law and the potential for it to go both ways. | ||
| So I came in today feeling a little bit 50-50. | ||
| The skepticism of some of the questioning has left me at the end of the day inclined to think that the court, you know, may be prepared to rule against the president, at least to some degree. | ||
| But as you say, trying to read too much into oral arguments can be a mistake. | ||
| David, can you just hang on for a second? | ||
| We'll take another short commercial break. | ||
| I want to talk to you about the book and quite frankly, how globalization underlies so much. | ||
| You can go from the election last night in Manhattan to much of what's happening around the country. | ||
| People talk about the economy, jobs, all of it. | ||
| It still gets down to the basics of the global economy and what's happening. | ||
| And you said just a few minutes ago, hey, the power of this idea of what's happening may be too powerful to kind of stop or reverse. | ||
| David J. Lynch, the global economic correspondent for the Washington Post, is with us. | ||
| He was in the court today for historic, I think, over three hours of oral arguments, quite mesmerizing. | ||
| And of course, President Trump, it's central to his economic plan. | ||
| That's why Scott Vessant's been out working the TV channels. | ||
| Birchgold.com, go check out right now, birchgold.com promo code banned the end of the dollar empire. | ||
| Four years we've been putting this out, seven free installments. | ||
| The Birch Gold folks in the war, we're not here to say you fish. | ||
| We're here to teach you how to fish, how to think through and think about gold as a hedge against times of financial turbulence. | ||
| It's been a hedge for 5,000 years of man's recorded history. | ||
| Find out why. | ||
| And talk to Philip Patrick and the team at Birch Gold, why central banks are buying gold at record rates. | ||
| Find out why. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
|
unidentified
|
David J. Lynch of the Washington Post, next. | |
| Here's your host, Stephen K. Mass. | ||
| So so much of like last night and the politics of our time are predicated upon the economic realities of globalization. | ||
| So David, how has the book been received, particularly by the business meeting? | ||
| I know our audience members that purchased the book when the first time you're here, I got tremendous feedback from people. | ||
| Like I said, it's a very accessible way to begin to understand a quite complex topic, right? | ||
| And a topic that underpins so much of what's going on, not just in the world's economy, in people's personal lives, but also in the politics of the United States and, quite frankly, the great powers. | ||
| So how's the book been received? | ||
| Well, the reception has been good. | ||
| There was the Financial Times gave me a nice review a week or two ago, and the Irish Times, the Irish Finance Minister, in fact, reviewed the book for the Irish Times and had very complimentary things to say, which I appreciated as an Irish American. | ||
| And I'll be talking to Bloomberg next week. | ||
| So it's moving forward and selling well, which I'm gratified by. | ||
| Could always have more attention. | ||
| Of course, any authors out there in the marketplace peddling his book, he can never have enough attention. | ||
| Do you think that particularly we see NICE last night or what happened a year ago, and so much is tied to when people talk about globalization, the jobs and manufacturing jobs moved away. | ||
| And you saw today, particularly with the commentariat, both on the left and the right, talking about this incredibly intense arguments to the Supreme Court. | ||
| And you see these justices, who are obviously nine of the smartest people in the legal profession in our country, wrestle with it. | ||
| Do you think we've done a good job of actually helping people to understand what this great force that's out there called globalization and the internal industrial logic of it and why, quite frankly, there have been winners and losers. | ||
| And if you don't, as you know, we're hardcore populists and economic nationalists. | ||
| We believe in President Trump's tariff program. | ||
| In fact, we even have ideas that may be even more extreme than that. | ||
| Do you think, though, the people have done a good job in explaining this so basic average citizens can have a meaningful conversation about it? | ||
| The short answer is no. | ||
| And that's one of the reasons I wanted to write the book. | ||
| And I did want to make it. | ||
| I'm glad you described it as accessible because I didn't set out to write a book for economists or trade specialists. | ||
| I tried to write a book for the average curious and informed person who wants to try and understand what the hell's happened over the last 30 years or so. | ||
| Because I think we have all these kind of unresolved conflicts and questions from the period that's described as the hyper-globalization era. | ||
| And I don't think we're going to be able to move forward and prosper for the next 30 years if we don't understand what we got wrong about the past 30 years. | ||
| And like so many debates in Washington, you know, you've got folks in sort of two camps. | ||
| There's the people I think of as the traditional pro-trade liberalization folks who, you know, and this is maybe only slightly a caricature, but think everything was done fine, nothing was done wrong. | ||
| Anybody who disagrees is just a troglodyte, a protectionist who doesn't get it. | ||
| And then the folks on the other side think everything about trade and globalization is a conspiracy by the elites to screw the common man. | ||
| And, you know, I personally don't think either one of those views captures some of the nuance that's necessary to figure out where we went wrong. | ||
| And to my mind, where we went wrong goes all the way back to the stuff Bill Clinton used to say in the 90s, which was that, you know, and he saw it coming. | ||
| And I think I describe him in the book as kind of the godfather of American globalization, that there were going to be winners and losers. | ||
| And that was inevitable. | ||
| You're never going to have an economy that makes 100% of the people happy 100% of the time. | ||
| But recognizing that it's your responsibility as governing policymakers to develop programs and strategies and remedies that will enable as many people as possible to weather the storm and to come out doing okay on the other side. | ||
| And I think it became too easy for folks in Washington. | ||
| And I include myself in this. | ||
| I was not at all clairvoyant about these issues 25 years ago. | ||
| But it's easy when you've never lost your job, never been out of work involuntarily, when the only time you have when you're jobless is a sabbatical from your university job or you're in between assignments at a central bank or a think tank. | ||
| It's easy to sort of not really come to grips with the human toll of joblessness. | ||
| And having gone through it briefly myself a few years ago and just tasted it for a brief moment in time, you know, it's something that people need to need to understand and need to empathize with other folks in the economy about. | ||
| And so again, you know, we've got, we can't go back in time and undo what's happened. | ||
| But the so-called China shock that hit us around the turn of the century and into the first decade of this century, that's not going to be the last time the American worker is challenged by a time of tumult and upheaval. | ||
| And artificial intelligence may well be the next punch that's thrown. | ||
| We got to figure these issues out. | ||
| The AI jobs apocalypse, which you talk about here a lot in the war. | ||
| David, appreciate you for writing the book and taking the time, making it accessible to people, coming on the war room. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We are proudly part of the troglodytes. | |
| We're part of the troglodytes here. | ||
| So we're trying to reverse a process that people say is irreversible, but we'll keep fighting. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| So what's your social media? | ||
| Where do people go get the book and where are they following you on social media? | ||
| I'm everywhere. | ||
| I'm on X and Blue Sky at David J. Lynch. | ||
| I'm not much on Instagram. | ||
| I'm on TikTok. | ||
| I probably spend too much time on TikTok, my wife would say. | ||
| Sir, thank you so much. | ||
| Appreciate you. | ||
| Thanks a lot, Steve. | ||
| Appreciate it. | ||
| So President Trump, this gets back to, look, I'm probably going to run out of time today, and so I have to carry some of this over tomorrow. | ||
| I think we've won 20 cases at the Supreme Court or 21. | ||
| I mean, it's been pretty overwhelming. | ||
| Mike Davis on here talked about Pam's kind of winning streak there. | ||
| It is all of this, audience, remember, let's go back and frame this. | ||
| All of this is playing into that, the Article II powers. | ||
| And essentially, the court has been saying, the Roberts Court has been saying, we're not the Warren Court. | ||
| We're not going to intercede or interject our things into processes we think can be answered or remedied by a thing called politics. | ||
| We're not going to get involved in politics. | ||
| We're not a political institution. | ||
| We're a legal institution. | ||
| So to date, President Trump has really had support. | ||
| And let's go back even for the immunity, 9-0 immunity. | ||
| And remember, Colorado, of which Luddig wrote, oh, the Colorado judges thing is magnificent. | ||
| It was 9-0 supporting President Trump. | ||
| This may be the most important of all of all the others. | ||
| There have been some monumentally important ones. | ||
| This may be because it's so absolutely central to President Trump's economic program. | ||
| I mean, he is trying to reverse. | ||
| And I'll say this in David Lynch. | ||
| David Lynch, obviously, and he says at the beginning of the book, hey, he was kind of a globalist. | ||
| People didn't even think about it this way when they first started covering this topic. | ||
| It was all going to be, and I can tell you, going to Harvard Business School, the same way, there was never any question that this was going to add to the net value of the country, and everybody's going to prosper, and all this is going to be great, is going to be more efficient, more economic, and those benefits would spread to everybody. | ||
| That turned out to be exactly the opposite. | ||
| In fact, the financial crisis of 2008 and the trade deficits and the trade deals that basically sucked out America's manufacturing superpower and dispersed it to the world, particularly to China and other parts of Asia, because of, quite frankly, labor compare, you know, comparative advantage they had in labor and environment and all sorts of things. | ||
| That it didn't turn out. | ||
| President Trump is trying to reverse this. | ||
| I think this is what folks should understand. | ||
| He is trying to reverse it, and he's trying to do it as a shock to the system, as he is a disruptor, because there are other ways to do this. | ||
| They just take forever. | ||
| President Trump's making the case, and we've talked about trade deficits forever, and Scott Besson's right. | ||
| If you talk to the Wall Street crowd, or like we had these big fights with Gary Cohen in the first term, a trade deficit doesn't mean it's an accounting function. | ||
| That's not true. | ||
| That's not true. | ||
| The trade deficit, it has to be paid for. | ||
| That's one of the reasons that we don't produce anything and we have such enormous debt and people have such incredible personal debt. | ||
| The trade deficit is an emergency. | ||
| It has to be dealt with. | ||
| This is one of the key arguments President Trump. | ||
| He's trying to reverse this process of open borders and free trade. | ||
| Free trade and open borders have gone so far to destroy this country. | ||
| It sucked out the muscle of this country of our manufacturing superpower. | ||
| People actually make things in all the ecosystem that comes around it. | ||
| When you have manufacturing, there's all types of service industries around it. | ||
| There's all the social restaurants and coffee shops and tailors and all those things in a town that support the people that actually make these great wages manufacturing. | ||
| That was America at its peak. | ||
| And we gave that away. | ||
| And people made money off it. | ||
| The corporatists, the shareholders, and Wall Street. | ||
| And the American people took it on the chin brutally. | ||
| And President Trump is trying to reverse this. | ||
| And he's trying to do it quickly. | ||
| He said, this is an emergency. | ||
| We can't go on like this because people talk about it. | ||
| Trump is action, action, action. | ||
| This is action. | ||
| And it was dramatic. | ||
| And quite frankly, it's radical. | ||
| And you saw it today, and that's why the hearing took so long. | ||
| These things were briefed. | ||
| Substantially, read the briefing papers, and I'll get Grace and Moe that will give you a link to go if you're so interested. | ||
| And I know some people are, or if you're in college or high school, and this strikes your fancy, it's an incredible topic to drill down on because it's about the comparative economic nature of nations. | ||
| President Trump's is a dramatic move, and it was complicated. | ||
| And that was laid out today. | ||
| And you have guys like Gorsuch. | ||
| What I loved about this as a teaching moment and exercise is the complexity of the arguments, the great questions that are asked, and they bang, bang, bang off the top of the head. | ||
| And those lawyers, the solicitor general and counsel, I guess for the plaintiffs, you know, had to stand up there. | ||
| And you've got to cite the reference right there. | ||
| You can't tap dance around. | ||
| And they're calling you out. | ||
| And you saw a couple of times, particularly Gorsuch, kind of Gorsuch unrelenting logic. | ||
| A couple times, I think, got the Solicitor General that, you know, a little off guard. | ||
| I think they came back fine. | ||
| I'm not so sure how important the oral arguments are in the first place because I think so much of this is in writing. | ||
| That's one of the things that President Trump changed about selecting Supreme Court justice. | ||
| No longer did he want to go on biography like Sandra Day O'Connor because that can always disappoint. | ||
| No longer did he want to go to like state judge like Souter, which was a New Hampshire just kind of payoff to the Sununus, which turned out to be another disaster. | ||
| He wanted written opinions and written opinions over a period of time and showed the intellectual firepower. | ||
| And Gorsuch is one of the, you know, is one of the rising stars, obviously on the court, but it brings a tremendous amount of intellectual firepower. | ||
| It was quite engaged in this today and had some incredible questions. | ||
| Where do we stand? | ||
| I know it seemed a little skeptical in some of the questioning. | ||
| I do think they will come back since this went on a kind of an expedited hearing that I will think, I do think that we're going to hear back on this sometime shortly in the future because everything is predicated upon this. | ||
| All the tariffs, bringing the commitments to either pay the tariffs and or move manufacturing back over here, a lot of it is inextricably tied to this. | ||
| The ramifications on this and President Trump's economic plan is, I can't overstate how important it is. | ||
| That's why you had the whole Supreme Court area blocked off. | ||
| You had a huge kind of protest outside. | ||
| The police everywhere. | ||
| Three hours packed. | ||
| Historic. | ||
| President Trump and his agenda. | ||
| Short commercial break. | ||
| Back in the warm in a moment. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Here's your host, Stephen K. Vann. | |
| Okay, so we've got a big one today. | ||
| I think they're thinking over the way. | ||
| And I do think you're going to see a pivot. | ||
| I'm not so sure a pivot because they've been working on domestic, but he's been spending so much time on international trying to stop the Third World War. | ||
| Obviously, last night's going to have an impact. | ||
| And people are just kind of giving this pass of, well, you know, don't worry. | ||
| It's blue states. | ||
| The hour is late here, folks. | ||
| We are burning daylight. | ||
| We are burning daylight. | ||
| And they're not easy fixing. | ||
| Look, those were races that you're probably, in all hindsight, not going to win. | ||
| Although Trump came close in 24 and the gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey came close, came not, you know, pretty close, caught up on Murphy a couple of years ago. | ||
| It was the scale of the blowouts. | ||
| I mean, these are 10 or 15-point losses. | ||
| You got to get realistic here. | ||
| It's not about blue states. | ||
| It's about you lost areas where you won in Virginia, and this is why Yunkins finished. | ||
| And the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Republican Party is done for a generation. | ||
| The people stepping now are going to have to go back to basics and rebuild this thing. | ||
| And man, is it going to have implications? | ||
| Virginia is going to go 10-1. | ||
| And this is why I'm hugely advocating. | ||
| You've got to drop a real lawsuit out in California and start going to court and arguing that this thing was totally illegitimate and illegal. | ||
| Just like on Mam Donny, you need to do the pick and shovel work. | ||
| And hey, guess what? | ||
| I think there might be some pick and shovel work going on right now to find out if the Ugandan is also, for the last six years, an American. | ||
| I highly doubt it. | ||
| If you absolutely apply the rules here, I highly doubt it. | ||
| And in the situation like that, the guy gave the speech last night, he threw down, okay, I hear you, tough guy, you got it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I hear you. | |
| You're barking this and you're barking that and you're telling Trump, I got four words for you. | ||
| Turn the volume up. | ||
| Okay, brother, here you are. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Zorhound or Zoron. | |
| Zoron. | ||
| That look. | ||
| What planet was that from? | ||
| I would argue the couch at Animal House, but hey, that's just me. | ||
| But it's got to be combated. | ||
| It has to be combated. | ||
| You can't take this passive approach. | ||
| And Scott Preslo is a great guy. | ||
| We're doing a book with him. | ||
| We think the world of Scott Preslo has done an amazing job of going around. | ||
| And this guy, you know, with very little help and resources, but that's not the answer. | ||
| First off, that's just signing them up. | ||
| You got to get them out. | ||
| And low propensity voters, you got to get out. | ||
| And the way they get them out is have a guy named Donald J. Trump at the top of the ticket. | ||
| Full stop. | ||
| And when somebody shows me that they can solve for that part of the equation, I'm all ears and all eyes. | ||
| But I've seen it up close and personal now for, I don't know, a decade. | ||
| And I'm not buying. | ||
| I'm just not buying it right now. | ||
| We're in a revolution and we have to win. | ||
| If we don't win, the country's gone. | ||
| The stakes could not be higher. | ||
| It's very simple. | ||
| This is a binary function. | ||
| This is black and white. | ||
| We win and they lose. | ||
| This is just like going against the evil empire in the Soviet Union, but now it is here in the United States of America. | ||
| This is not a foreign threat. | ||
| This is an internal threat. | ||
| This is a clear and present danger of an enemy. | ||
| All enemies, foreign and domestic. | ||
| Well, we got a couple of three foreign, but man, we got more than a couple, three domestic, domestic enemies. | ||
| Full stop. | ||
| And on stage last night in New York City, that was an enemy. | ||
| That was an enemy. | ||
| Trevor Comstock, you're here part of the leg of our coalition, Make America Healthy Again. | ||
| I don't think that we emphasized that enough in this election the other night, but you do it every day at your company, this magnificent little company, Sacred Human Health. | ||
| What do you got for us this afternoon, sir? | ||
| Yeah, good to see you, Steve. | ||
| So I just wanted to elaborate a little bit further on our flagship product, which of course is our 100% grass-fed beef liver. | ||
| And for those who don't know, I just always like to make the simple analogy that beef liver is basically like nature's multivitamin. | ||
| So with it, you get a ton of vitamins and nutrients and a wide array of them, such as, you know, vitamin A, B12, CoQ10, folate, zinc. | ||
| The list goes on quite a bit. | ||
| And then also, as I mentioned, you also get a lot of those vitamins and minerals that most people are deficient in. | ||
| So common things like choline, K2, selenium, and copper. | ||
| So right there, it's a pretty powerful product in itself. | ||
| But of course, a nice value add that people tend to rave about is just the nice natural energy boost that they often get after taking it. | ||
| So, you know, basically instead of those quick energy highs that you sometimes get if you take, you know, too much caffeine or other general stimulants, the beef liver just adds a nice steady and natural lift and helps you feel a bit more vibrant. | ||
| So, and that's mainly just because you're getting the butt of the nutrients that your body actually needs to thrive on. | ||
| So like I said, it's a pretty powerful product. | ||
| And then on top of that, what's great about it is that aside from it being 100% grass-fed and natural, the body can actually absorb these nutrients and retain them as opposed to just flushing them out when you're oftentimes like maybe taking like a multivitamin that's synthetic or has a lot of synthetic ingredients within it or just any other synthetic vitamin in general for that matter. | ||
| So again, right off the bat, you're kind of getting a much better bang for your buck because your body can retain these nutrients and absorb them much more efficiently. | ||
| So it's an amazing product for overall health and vitality. | ||
| I can't say enough about it. | ||
| I know the War Room Posse loves it. | ||
| It's definitely their favorite and still our number one product. | ||
| So I definitely encourage people to check it out if they haven't already. | ||
| One last thing. | ||
| I know you got to bounce. | ||
| If you have never taken something like this before, because The lads or the younger, you know, folks in the audience, particularly young guys. | ||
| This got to be a thing a couple of years ago, you know, grass-fed beef liver. | ||
| But for those that have not, you know, or don't go to those podcasts, don't go to those websites. | ||
| If you're totally unfamiliar with any of this and you go to the website, what are the two or three most compelling arguments, if you're just a middle-aged person, of why this can immediately not just give you energy boost, but do so much more for you? | ||
| What is it, sir? | ||
| Yeah, I mean, there's a lot I could go on for that. | ||
| Again, I just got to break it down to the fact that your body can actually absorb the nutrients within the beef liver because it is a natural product. | ||
| Whereas, you know, oftentimes if you're taking these other like synthetic formulas or greens powders, they just have a ton of unnatural ingredients which your body can't recognize. | ||
| So that's why people retain the nutrients and then they get that energy boost to go with it, which, of course, people love. | ||
| But yeah, because it's a natural product, your body recognizes it and utilizes it like it's supposed to. | ||
| Trevor Comstock, sacred human health, part of the whole Make America Healthy Again movement. | ||
| Where do they go? | ||
| One more time. | ||
| Yeah, you can go to sacredhumanhealth.com and then you can use code Warroom for 10% off. | ||
|
unidentified
|
And yeah, we'll get you covered on all that. | |
| It's the one-year anniversary of the greatest comeback in American political history. | ||
|
unidentified
|
We're going to commemorate that all week here in the war room. | |
| I'm going to be giving some remarks later this evening for Senator DeMint and Mark Meadows and the folks over at CPI, another one of these great foundational element institutions of the MAGA movement. | ||
| That would be Make America Great. |
Export Selection