Episode 5082: Day 2 Of Davos; Minnesota Somalis Donate To ACT Blue
Stay ahead of the censors - Join us warroom.org/join
Aired On: 1/20/2026
Watch:
On X: @Bannons_WarRoom (https://x.com/Bannons_WarRoom)
On the Web: https://www.warroom.org
On Gettr: @WarRoom
On Podcast: Apple, iHeart Radio, Google
On TV: PlutoTV Channel 240, Dish Channel 219, Roku, Apple TV, FireTV or on https://AmericasVoice.news. #news #politics #realnews
Justice Department investigation, which initially focused on Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Fry is expanding.
The New York Times reports federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas to at least five Democratic officials in Minnesota beyond Waltz and Frey.
Two people familiar with the matter tell the New York Times that prosecutors are seeking documents from the Mayor of St. Paul, Khalee Hare, the state attorney general, Keith Ellison, and Mary Moriarty, the Hennepin County Attorney.
They're looking at whether these local officials have violated the statute that makes it a crime to conspire to obstruct federal officers in the course of their duty.
But what we're talking about here is First Amendment protected activity by public officials, elected officials in the state of Minnesota and by various cities, essentially advising their citizens on how to fulfill their civil rights and how to behave if they're confronted by ICE agents and denouncing what they see as an invasion of their community.
Before we got on the air, I was watching video of a news conference by a local Minnesota police chief who said that even members of his own department, people of color entirely, he said, are being pulled over by masked ICE agents who are demanding proof of citizenship.
And only when they present their police ID are they allowed to go.
These are men with guns drawn.
This is happening every day around the country, but particularly in Minnesota.
And these local officials are trying to put a stop to it.
So we have an incredible clash here between the federal government, the awesome power of the Justice Department and the federal government, and local elected officials in a way that we haven't seen ever in the history of this country.
For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we call the rules-based international order.
We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability.
And because of that, we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.
We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false.
That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient.
That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically.
And we knew that international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.
This fiction was useful.
And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods, open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.
So we placed the sign in the window.
We participated in the rituals.
And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.
This bargain no longer works.
Let me be direct.
We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.
Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.
But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons.
Tariffs as leverage.
Financial infrastructure as coercion.
Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.
You cannot live within the lie of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.
The multilateral institutions on which the middle powers have relied, the WTO, the UN, the COP, the architecture, the very architecture of collective problem solving are under threat.
And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions, that they must develop greater strategic autonomy in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains.
And this impulse is understandable.
A country that can't feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.
When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.
But let's be clear-eyed about where this leads.
A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.
And there's another truth.
If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate.
Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.
Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty.
They'll buy insurance, increase options, in order to rebuild sovereignty.
Sovereignty that was once grounded in rules but will increasingly be anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.
Now that Maduro is in U.S. custody and he was criminally charged, has any more information emerged that you could share with us regarding Venezuelan election software and Venezuelan ties to tampering with the 2020 election?
And would you consider speaking to Maduro personally in prison in New York to get some answers on Venezuela's involvement with the 2020 election?
But I think it is a sobering point to consider that the U.S. Treasury is not performing the normal safe haven role in this moment, just as it didn't in April last year when we had the Liberation Day tariff shop.
Now, to date, the moves right in this latest episode are much more muted.
And again, you'd expect that if you think that investors are putting a 70, 80% or more probability that this Greenland business gets wrapped up.
But if the Treasury is not acting as the safe haven asset, something else has to.
It's Tuesday, 20 January at Yervalord 2026, the one-year anniversary of President Trump.
By this time a year ago, remember, we were partying the J6 and our coverage was amazing when we came back to the five o'clock because President Trump had already done so much from our morning show that got right up to the time of the oath of office one year ago.
Today, what a year.
And man, what a day today in news.
I've got Philip Patrick, Noor Bin Laden, Natalie Winters joining me.
I want to start with Philip first.
And Philip, I understand with gold and silver where they are, it's very hard to pry you away from the desk and to get your focus.
But I had to bring this on.
Let's deal with Carney in a second because I don't think President Trump and Carney are going to be besties anymore.
But gold and silver as a safe haven asset, this thing started today with the Japanese bond market blowing up.
And then you had this whole situation with Greenland.
This rush to, I think gold went past $4,700.
Silver is closing in on $100.
That would be two barrels of oil, shockingly.
Walker said, when they say if treasuries can't be, then, because there's all kind of issues about the twos and the tens, the safe haven asset will be gold and physical gold and silver.
And from a financial perspective, it was risk management, which unfolded in real times.
Financial markets obviously closed today, but gold and silver prices exploding.
And I think this is what it looks like when governments, central banks, pension funds, and so-called middle-power nations, as Carney referred to Canada as today, start to ask one question: what happens if the dollar is no longer neutral?
And we know that markets don't make speeches.
What they do instead is reprice risk.
And I think precious metals will pick up a lot from that.
Listen, the post-World War II order was an order based on trust and cooperation, and the dollar and government debt thrived in that climate.
But I think what we're seeing internationally now, trust is breaking down, and gold is coming back to the fore as the currency for international trade because it doesn't require trust.
We had Ursula on today, and she almost gave it's like she cribbed the end of the dollar empire.
She talked about Nixon and the thing, but then she implied that their future independence, their future sovereignty as Europe, depended upon getting off the U.S. dollar as a prime reserve currency.
And this is coming after Carney in the room with the Chinese Communist Party said that their pledge, they're working together, this new relationship is going to have Canada supporting the Chinese currency and kind of implied so they get more strength in the world, or implied that it could be an alternative to the U.S. dollar.
Unfolding of the primary reserve currency along with risk management, looking for a safe haven asset.
Gold and silver on fire.
Remember, folks, it ain't the price, it's the process.
Go to Birch Gold right now.
Two alternatives.
One, you take the phone out, kind of simple.
Text Bannon, B-A-N-N-O-N-989898.
You get the ultimate guide.
There's no cost of this, there's no obligation, but you can get access to Philip Patrick and the team.
That is the ultimate guide for investing in gold and precious metals in the age of Trump.
And this has all the methodologies, the 401ks, IRAs.
But you can talk to Philip directly.
Also, the primer that gets you up to speed on all this so you can understand when Ursula talks or Carney talks, the end of the dollar empire, birchgold.com promo code Bannon, the end of the dollar empire.
With a qualifying purchase, you get a hard copy signed by yours truly.
From Ursula in the morning in her talk to Carney in the afternoon, these were not maybe eulogies for the post-war international rules-based order, as we've talked to this audience and share with them over the years that this is shattering.
This is the key to globalization in the extraction of value from American citizens and the crippling of this country.
It may not be the eulogy, but let's say it's the celebration of life.
It's birchgold.com forward slash bannon, or they can text Bannon to 989898, get access to free information, get access to end of the dollar empire reports.
We're putting out information all the time.
And I'm getting concerned.
We're writing it into reality because everything we've been talking about for the last few years is unfolding.
So birchgold.com forward slash bannon, just get the information and get reading, please.
I'd like to add actually to that speech that Mark Carney gave because it was incredibly, incredibly important.
And I really urge the posse to go listen to it in full.
I'll be watching it a second time myself because he said so many critical things, especially when he talks about this rupture in the world order and the end of a pleasant fiction and the beginning of a harsh reality when he describes this inflection point where we find ourselves.
And I found that his speech was actually incredibly strong in tone.
And unlike the other people that are presenting there, you know, we discussed Larry Fink, Macron with his sunglasses, because who knows what happened to him underneath them.
That speech, and Grace and Moe, if you can put it up, I agree.
Everybody in this audience, because this audience is the smartest audience out there, you got to listen to this because unlike Ursula, I was relatively unimpressed by her.
And to Mr. Patrick's point, you know, he was clearly given the green light to telegraph and to share this message with the audience and the world, essentially.
And when he says that the rules-based order is fading, it completely aligns with what Ursula von der Leyen was saying earlier today.
These people coordinate and they are very much in lockstep.
And we talked about the opening of China around the early 1970s, you know, with Kissinger, with Nixon, all the moves that were made at that time to transform China into the manufacturing superpower of the world and by that with the destruction of the U.S. manufacturing base.
And I would say if we look at the big picture, it is clear that we are moving towards a cashless society.
This is also what they've been telling us for a few years now.
Christine Lagarde, you know, as the head of the European Central Bank, preparing for the rollout of digital, the digital Euro in early 2027.
So 2026 is going to be a critical year.
And I feel that what's happening in Davos this week is the starting point of that transition, so to speak, or this rupture, to use the term of Mark Carney.
And coming back to him, absolutely, he's a very, very serious guy.
And we need to be looking at him.
You know, he's not some actor that was selected to be a president of one of those nations, like I believe, Macron was.
You know, you look at the pedigree of Mark Carney, as you mentioned, 13 years, Goldman Sachs, governor of the Bank of Canada, chairman of the Bank of International Settlements Committee on the Global Financial System, group of 30 of the World Economic Forum of leading financiers and academics, Bilderberg Group attendee several years.
Chairman of the FSB Financial Stability Board, and more importantly, most importantly, governor of the Bank of England, of course, which is what he's most known for.
And he was a major proponent, proponent of ESG, net zero, also in terms of his role with the United Nations and all of the climate scam that the audience is going to be very familiar.
And the reason he's an interesting figure, because of his background, and he is a hardcore globalist.
I mean, hardcore.
He thinks nationalism is a pestilence.
One thing I've noticed, I'm going to take you through the break.
Natalie's going to join us also.
She's been here since the beginning.
One thing I noticed, maybe it's just me and what I've caught in watching this, there's a much more serious tone to Davos this year.
In the past, they've had this kind of fluffy DEI, ESG, Davos man, people skipping around.
This is between the AI, the energy needs for AI, the post-war international rules-based order, what President Trump's doing, the rise in nationalism.
You had Carney spit that out a couple of times.
Not just populism, but now nationalism.
It seems to me, and I haven't seen all the breakout sessions, that there's a much more somber and a much more serious tone as the globalists understand this thing's coming apart, ma'am.
And Secretary Bassan made a very good point earlier as well on the show with you, Steve.
He said that the EU has no cloud, and you're seeing this happening.
There's a point where at a point right now where they're forced to choose to side with either the U.S. and their tech oligarchs or China.
And this is what Mark Carney clearly signaled a few days ago during this meeting and his visit with Chinese officials, that he was clearly choosing China over the United States of America, especially in light of all of this Greenland talk.
You can feel that there are lots of tensions.
And I'm very much looking forward, obviously, to President Trump's speech tomorrow to see how he's going to handle that.
But alongside with all the heaviness and the seriousness that you just mentioned, which I think you're absolutely spot on, the levity and joking nature of President Trump is much welcomed.
I really is much welcome.
I really enjoyed the memes that he posted last night.
So, Natalie, you've been with us and riding shotgun with me in these Davos things for what, five years?
I noticed that Zelensky's not front and center, but you're also the lead investigator, I think, in all of Washington, D.C. about the Chinese Communist Party.
And now you've had Carney, it's out in the open, right?
They're looking for alternatives away from President Trump, the United States, the globalist.
Your thoughts on the opening couple days of Davos, of the World Economic Forum with the new mayor of Davos, Larry Fink.
Well, I think it's a different tone than we're used to seeing.
And I think part of that shift is because before, I think what they wanted to do was sort of have us voluntarily comply, right, with what they were trying to roll out.
I think we saw that in these euphemistic, you know, HR department-approved terms like the great reset.
But now they've almost shifted from compelling and there almost seems like a more coercion, or it's sort of this like post hoc.
It's already happened analysis.
We're already in this new post-rules-based international order shifting to a new world order, which I was told we were conspiracy theorists for daring to even say that term for a very long time.
And I think that that is quite interesting because in a weird way, they're almost affirming the victories of MAGA, of President Trump, of you know, the audience that composes this show by using our sort of conception of sovereignty, as you've always talked about, right?
The Westphalian nation state, sort of using that as a pretext to then justify shifting away from that because they find that inherently problematic.
And I always say, whenever you hear people like that who have never used the word sovereignty before, it doesn't exist in their vernacular.
And then all of a sudden they start talking about it like Kamala Harris did on the campaign trail, that is an immediate red flag because it's sort of this weird distortion of what they are talking about sovereignty actually meaning.
And I think when they talk about right this euphemistic new world order, I think it sort of links back in a weird way.
It's sort of this horseshoe theory of agreement with I think President Trump's take on where we stand right now in America.
It's why they're taking all these desperate measures, right?
We're at an inflection point.
And I would argue it through the lens, you know, more so of the Chinese Communist Party, where we're really at the inflection point of this idea of a Thucydides trap, right?
You have a rising power versus a declining power, saying that the United States is the latter.
But it seems like the World Economic Forum is sort of the, you know, in kaleidoscope, in full color, really prediction and rollout of what a future global order looks like, not just where the Chinese Communist Party is in control, right?
That's part of Mark Carney's recent media tour.
But it's also just this complete, I mean, they're saying what we've said they've been admitting to, or at least clandestinely doing for years, which is usurping national sovereignty, trying to destroy populist movements in favor of a new world order.
So it's sort of this weird vindication that we've been right, but we don't want to be right on this stuff.
Talk to me about in your investigation, this guy's a former head of the Bank of England and now Prime Minister of Canada, one of our, I think, our largest trading partner.
He refers to the Chinese Communist Party consistently as a trusted partner.
Well, look, you can always tell a lot about how compromised people are by the Chinese Communist Party by the way that they describe them, right?
You got everything from competitor.
That's maybe the harshest to ally, to friend, but trusted partner going all in, even using an adjective and referring to them as a partner is something that even for me, I'm not typically used to hearing that descriptor.
Like I said, I think that part of this is an ideological compromise, right?
They hate the United States, or at least what the United States stands for now, which is secure borders, national sovereignty, the idea that tariffs actually mean something.
That only works if you believe borders mean something.
And I think that the Chinese Communist Party, the reason why people like Mark Carney are so drawn to the way that they rule, it's not just that they're all to their core Marxists, but I also think they actually just like real autocracy, right?
They like the repression of people who they disagree with, of dissidents, right?
Like we've always said, January 6th was like the American version, I think, of like the Hundred Flowers campaign, right?
They want to identify opposition only to crush them.
And that's why there's such a convergence there.
Obviously, you know, I could chapter and verse you on what's going on in Canada.
People know that, but Steve, like you've been so ahead of the curve and brilliant on it, has to do with their northern border, too.
This all has to go back to obviously the Chinese.
I think I would say having a sort of trying to counter the United States interest to shore up where our key vulnerabilities are, which is, of course, in rare earths and critical minerals.
And now that the United States has sort of launched a full-scale assault, kind of a whole, not just of government, but a whole of society, right?
You've seen that with the public-private mergers with things like the Mountain Pass Mine Deal to try to fix that problem.
It's like game on.
And in some ways, you know, the kinetic part of World War III hasn't started.
I'm sure we could have a debate if it actually has, if it started years ago, Ukraine, the Middle East, take your pick.
But this is sort of like a weird form of the kinetic aspect of World War III, where you're seeing it be about, you know, industrial policy, the ability to even build the missiles and the rockets that are going to be launched to advance, you know, whether it's AI or the tech space that they're also talking about a lot at the World Economic Forum, which we've seen obviously become a critical part of warfare too.
And the other is the movement to tell our top military commanders, to instruct our top military commanders to refocus their attention on what Donald Trump called internal enemies and a war from within.
And that is literally Pinochet stuff.
That's the kind of language that we heard in South America in the 1970s.
So these initial efforts, they're not yet terribly successful, but these initial efforts to politicize the military, if that continues, if they have any success in that, is a very, very dangerous thing.
Let me just add what might have been a fourth thing, but actually didn't really materialize, but what worried me a lot at the time was the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, when the government really ramped up the rhetoric about all of the Democratic Party and much of civil society being terrorist or being linked to terrorism, and which would have been or could have been a justification to crack down much more widely on opposition.
They didn't do that.
But there were a couple of weeks there where it looked like that could open up a new level of repression.
So that was sort of something that could have been much worse.
unidentified
I know you highlight these peaceful protests on your show regularly.
I mean, in political science terms, there's what's called the 3.5% rule, which is that if you look at authoritarian regimes of various kinds all over the world over the last like century,
once you have 3.5% of a population protesting nonviolently against a dictator or an authoritarian, that is essentially an unstoppable force that they can't oppose and that precludes them from consolidating dictatorial power.
Well, look, it's not a 100 days celebration if we can't have a little bit of a meltdown montage.
So I thought it was important to air that, which, by the way, happy 100 days.
It's awesome to be here.
But the two individuals speaking before are someone, Steve, that we've talked about well before these 100 days.
They're sort of the architects of a lot of this color revolution framework.
I would say the sort of academic counterpart to the norm Eisen's of the world.
One of them is a they them by the name of Erica Chenoweth, who essentially came up with that 3.5% figure.
And the other is Stephen Levitsky, who has used basically the, I would say, guise of studying other countries and how those regimes have been toppled, typically led by, you know, United States-backed color revolutions, but how they have deposed regimes.
And I think now we've certainly seen those tactics be used here against President Trump.
And why this is so important is because you can see the media, I think, already sort of creating the permission structure for violence, just outright violence to be used in these protests.
I mean, we've already seen it.
We've seen the pictures.
You know, there's a wild Axio story out today.
You sent it to me, Steve, but tracking the increase of Americans, specifically on the left, who think that political violence is okay.
And it's reaching new heights.
As of January 16th, 34% of those polled agree that Americans, quote, may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.
That's up from 11% in October and down from 40% at the June No Kings protest.
That, of course, being, you know, the indivisible, all these sort of left-wing groups coming together under this big consortium to basically depose Trump.
And I think there's a very telling quote in that article from the executive director of the Women's March.
And I'll read it.
It says, I don't think that there's an intervention that will have the MAGA regime see the error of its ways.
I do think there are interventions that demonstrate the political, electoral, and financial cost of authoritarianism.
And I think that what you can take from that, and you see it in their tactics, they're not looking to have a debate, right?
They're not looking to change our hearts and minds.
They are just trying to use violence.
And we saw that with Charlie Kirk.
The other reason that I played that clip is the way that, I mean, talk about callousness, but the way that that individual, Stephen Levitsky, talks about the Charlie Kirk assassination, they point to that as something that was unfortunate for their side because the Trump administration tried to crack down on the left-wing groups that I'm sure riled up the person who shot him.
And the irony in all of this is that those are the people who are lecturing us on violence.
And again, if you have to create a whole center called nonviolent protesting, that's up at Harvard.
That's what the Erica Chenoweth chick runs.
Maybe you should check the kind of work that you're involved in.
And it's quite interesting.
There's this new term where they're talking about tactical frivolity.
I've gone way too deep in how they describe these protests, but it is an intentional strategy where they're trying to make these protests look very joyful and fun and kind of crazy with the stuffed animals and just weird, childlike.
I'm sure there's other pathologies going on there that are animating that.
But some of the research that this Erika Chenoweth chick has done is to try to create these mass protests to be as inviting as they can from a psychological perspective.
So, more Americans will get involved.
And just about a week ago, she put out a very long report talking about how Gen Z in particular is linked to forming a lot of these protests, these demonstrations, and how these so-called nonviolent protests very quickly and accidentally suddenly seem to turn violent.
And that's where you sort of get this weird limited hangout idea of the 3.5%, which I think can maybe be best to understand how they took over the United States government.
But what they're talking about is that if you can just get 3.5% of the population in any country to basically turn on the ruling elites, that you'll have a revolution on your hands.
And that's the sort of the fire that they use to keep going, all of these protesters.
And another interesting thing, like I said, I watch way too much of this resistance content, so forgive me, but is that they, in their weird, perverted ways, are talking about how they're trying to reclaim the Constitution.
Quote, people were reclaiming core values and principles, those expressed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
And I think you see that weird sort of thought.
I mean, now you see people with guns and talking about how important the Second Amendment is in Minnesota.
And Scott Besson has told the president, Hey, I'm your, you know, I'm kind of overseeing the IRS.
I will get the money.
They've bid in the ass, the spread between what the IRS says you owe and what you say you owe.
That is what is most important.
Tax Network USA has given the warrant posse a special deal, tnusa.com or 800-958-1000.
They will give you the free assessment.
They'll take your records.
They'll give you a free assessment of how deep the hole is or not deep for you.
This is a one-time good deal.
800-958-1,000.
Just tell them the war room censure, you're part of the warrant posse, Bannon.
Just identify yourself.
They'll give you the free assessment.
Look, they've solved over a billion dollars of tax issues.
Nothing you can tell them.
Your tale of woe, they've heard dozens of times before, and they fixed it.
800-958-1,000.
Call today, say you're part of the warrant posse.
Get the free assessment.
Then you can decide how you handle it.
Tax Network USA, these guys are great.
Natalie Winters, you've done so much about this color revolution, what's upon us.
When you do the show, the people you bring on, the Mike Benz of the world, all of it is just amazing.
In Minnesota today, Pam Bondi went out there because they've sent subpoenas, I guess, from a grand jury to Fry, to the governor, to now five more Democrats about this insurrection.
Well, I don't really know if it's, you know, a conspiracy that Democrats have conspired and established Republicans have conspired in that state to actually destroy it and hollow it from the inside out by importing third world foreigners who steal more money than the GDP of the country that they came from while importing their horrific Islamic values.
But I think if you look at the scandal that at least has popped up recently, right, obviously, the government grant stuff, I think that's certainly part of it.
But I would certainly encourage the Trump administration to, I think, get to the heart of the matter with what is going on there, which is that a lot of these charities, these shady ones that have received government grants, and I've reported a lot of this on my sub stack, are also listed on the Act Blue registry.
And there's even one organization in particular that got $3 million recently to just like build a new building to empower Somali women to do what?
I don't know.
But very shortly after, she also happens to be the director of a political action committee that wants to rid America of racism and bring about equity by supporting candidates like you guessed it, Keith Ellison and a bunch of other Democrats.
The chick is a wild left-wing activist type hosting Keith Ellison for dinner after dinner.
So I would suggest that we really make this scandal what it is, right?
You can tell from the mass mobilization that you're seeing in the streets.
Do you ever see Democrats organized to the level that they're organizing now?
They've always been ticked off about mass deportations.
It's because I think if you really look at what this is about, it's about campaign finance and it's about how they've been importing blocks of third world people to help control and shape elections.
And I would encourage the Trump administration to get very serious about this because you can tell that the antibody resistance to this is quite strong.
To call it a disease is an understatement.
I think this is something that you can see replicated not just in Minnesota, but across every single state.
And it's not just charity or scamming for the sake of scamming's sake.
How do these Somalians even end up in Minnesota?
They don't know how to, and most of them don't even speak English, or a lot of them don't.