All Episodes
Previous Next
April 9, 2025 - System Update - Glenn Greenwald
01:44:28
As Tariffs Dominate News, Trump and Netanyahu Make Increasingly Militaristic Threats; Plus: Mixed Supreme Court Ruling on Deportation Powers
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Good evening, it's Tuesday, April 8th.
Welcome to a new episode of System Update, our live nightly show that airs every single Monday through Friday with no exception at 7 p.m. Eastern, exclusively here on Rumble, the free speech alternative to YouTube.
Tonight... Much of the nation's attention is focused on the terror policies, the new terror policies imposed by President Trump, and that's understandable.
The stock market and other various assets have declined significantly over the past five days, though nowhere near the most pessimistic and panic-driven alarmist claimed would happen.
And there's clearly division not just within the Trump movement, but also at the highest levels of his administration and among his biggest donors about whether this policy is worth maintaining.
But while so much attention is focused there, and again I understand why there's a lot of attention there, there are a lot of potentially consequential events taking place inside the Trump White House as well.
Yesterday, President Trump once again hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House the second time in two months.
Hopefully this will be a monthly occurrence where Netanyahu just comes to Washington.
And visits his workers every month or so.
The visit was originally billed as an attempt by Israel to convince Trump to lift the 17% tariff imposed on that country.
But as the visit unfolded, it was clear they were talking at least as much about war in the Middle East, specifically the prospect of bombing Iran, war against Iran, American war against Iran, long the North Star, the ultimate dream of Israel and its many, many supporters in the United States.
Many statements were made by the two leaders of great significance, to put it mildly, and we will report and break those all down for you.
Then, courts have been very busy adjudicating some of the quite radical theories invoked by President Trump, including theories to deport people without any due process.
These theories are radical, whether you support them or not, as they rely on the invocation of war powers, a declaration of war, to justify removing people to the United States without any hearing, without any due process, without any evidence presented.
Not just returning them to their countries of origin, which is deportation, but even to send them to life in prison in an El Salvadoran dungeon without having to substantiate the allegation that they're in prison because they're members of violent gangs.
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a partial victory, and despite the headlines, it was only a partial victory, as they lifted by a 5-4 vote.
The nationwide injunction on these deportations imposed by Federal District Court Judge Boasberg.
And the court then required any judicial challenges to deportation to be brought not as a class action, but only where the detainee is one by one.
While they lifted that injunction and sent the cases to The states where the detainees are, rather than having them concentrated under Judge Boesberg in Washington, which is definitely a victory for Trump.
All nine justices of the Supreme Court, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, every one of them, unanimously ruled that no deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, which is the wartime law Trump has invoked, none can be effectuated without first giving the detainee ample notice of their intent to remove them.
as well as sufficient time to argue in a court that the accusations against them, such as gang membership, are false.
It is a partial win for Trump, but it is also a major win for due process rights and the Constitution, affirmed by unanimous 9-0 supporters.
All the arguments I've been hearing about how non-citizens have no constitutional rights, people enter the country illegally have no due process rights, now that a unanimous court.
Six conservative judges, three appointed by Donald Trump, people like Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito all joined together to reject that view and say that people who are going to be deported have a due process right, especially if they're being deported under the Alien Enemies Act.
We'll tell you all about this and other key judicial events as well before we get to that.
A few quick programming notes.
We are encouraging our viewers to download the Rumble app.
If you do so, it works on your smart TV, on your telephone, on your Xbox, and an endless list of other devices.
Once you do that, you can follow the programs you most like to watch on this platform.
Then, if you activate notifications, which we really hope you will, it means the minute any of those programs begin broadcasting live on Rumble, you'll be notified by text or email, however you want.
You just click on the link immediately.
Begin watching the show only once it begins broadcasting live.
That really helps the live viewing numbers of all Rumble programs and therefore the free speech cause of Rumble as well.
As another reminder, System Update is also available
Finally, as independent journalists and independent media, we really do rely on the support of our viewers and our supporters and members to become one.
You can simply click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page.
It takes you to our locals community where you have access to a wide range of benefits, including lots of exclusive original video interviews and segments we don't have time to put here.
We often, if we go on this show, we screen exclusively on Rumble for our members.
It's a place where we take questions and every Friday night do a Q&A based on questions from members.
We interact with you throughout the week, and we put original professionalized transcripts of every show we do here.
We publish those transcripts the next day there.
But most of all, it is really the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
You can simply join the locals community and help support our show.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update right after this message from our sponsor.
System Update System Update System Update
Here's a news story.
Mexico extradites 29 drug traffickers to the U.S. to avoid trade tariffs.
We all know how deceptive corporate media can be.
That's what explains the rise of independent journalists.
They push agendas, censor voices, and make sure you only see one side of the story.
That's exactly why I started this show, because I believe in free speech, real conversations.
And the pursuit of truth, which Rumble guarantees.
And I partnered with an app and website that believes in that too.
Ground News prioritizes free speech over controlling the narrative.
For every story, you can find all the articles reporting on it worldwide with context, such as if a news source has any political bias, how credible they are, and if any major corporation is influencing their reporting.
All I have to do is swipe through coverage with tags indicating if it's coming from liberal or conservative sources or from corporate or independent voices.
And from there, I can decide for myself.
If Mexico's unprecedented extradition of 29 cartel members to the US is proof that Trump's terror tactics work, As some conservative sources report, or if it's just a routine legal process and one of the cartel members pled not guilty as the center and the left claim.
Different sources are saying different things.
If I had just read one, I'd have a completely skewed view of reality.
But with Ground News, I can put them side by side and decide for myself who's actually telling the truth.
Ground News even created a dedicated feed called Blindspot that exposes stories that either side of the political spectrum isn't reporting on, making it possible to spot stories that people in charge don't want you to see.
Ground News is bringing back transparency in the news and civil discourse right from your phone or computer.
Best of all, they're independent and subscriber-supported, and they're offering my viewers 40% off the same Vantage plan that I used to get unlimited access to all of their features this month.
So if you scan the QR code right there on the screen, I'll put that in the notes as well with the link to it, you can check them out or go to ground.news.gg for 40% off.
If you like this platform, I invite you to join us.
If you like the show, I'm very confident that you'll love that platform.
There are many important world leaders of major countries with whom Donald Trump has not yet met, which is to be expected.
He's only been in office not even 90 days.
But there's a world leader with whom he has now met twice, hosting that leader at the White House two times in two months.
And you'll be shocked to learn that that leader who has now visited the White House most is none other than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu went to the White House yesterday.
He had a tour of the White House, including the part of the White House where Trump has
They were both admiring and looking at that.
Trump seemed very proud of how many times he met Netanyahu.
He talked fondly of Netanyahu in front of the media including how often he has met with him, how well he knows him, praised him essentially for everything.
And one of the things that was so odd about this meeting and especially the love fest that manifested again between the two leaders was that The day before, Israel shot and killed a 14-year-old American boy in the West Bank.
A foreign government shot and killed an American citizen.
14 years old in the West Bank, shot dead by Israeli soldiers.
And rather than the U.S. government saying, hey, why did you kill our citizen?
Or we were kind of upset that you shot an American boy.
It was...
Not mentioned in any part of their public communications.
Here from CNN yesterday, Palestinian American teen shot dead by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank, officials say.
Ramallah Governor Lali Ghanem said the 14-year-old Palestinian American boy was shot dead by Israeli troops in a West Bank village.
two other Palestinian-American boys, two other American teenagers, ages 14 and 15, were injured in the incident.
According to the mayor, Lafayette Shalabi, the Israeli military said its soldiers opened fire during a counterterrorism operation when they saw three, quote, terrorists who hurled rocks toward the highway, thus endangering civilians driving.
killing of a Palestinian-American teenager came just hours before Israeli Prime Minister Ben-Jubin Netanyahu landed in the United States to meet President Trump
Now, we have seen so many times When the IDF or the Israeli government makes a claim to justify their killing of innocent people about what these people were doing to warrant their murder.
And so often when there's video that emerges, it turns out the IDF is lying.
It happened in 2023 with an American journalist who worked for Al Jazeera who was shot in the West Bank.
And Israel originally said that they didn't kill her.
It was...
Palestinians who shot and accidentally killed her.
And then there was an investigation.
There were videos.
There was an autopsy that proved that the bullets came right from an IDF weapon.
They ultimately admitted it.
There you see CNN, Israel military, admits Shireen Abu Akili likely killed by Israeli fire but won't charge soldiers.
And they eventually even ended up apologizing, but that was only because a video was released proving it.
As happened last week as well with the killing of medics, as we'll show you.
So it so often happens, of course, if the Israelis kill even a 14-year-old American boy, they'll say, oh, those are terrorists.
Now, I just want to remind you of one thing, because so often this gets lost.
This happened in the West Bank.
The West Bank is not part of Israel.
Israel has internationally recognized borders when Israel was created.
And then, even when Israel took more territory in 1967, there's internationally recognized borders.
Israel does not own the West Bank.
The West Bank does not belong to Israel.
The Israeli military is brutally, violently occupying the West Bank and has been for decades ruling the lives of the Palestinians who live there in horrific ways that a lot of South African leaders say is even worse than South African apartheid.
There are roads in the West Bank available only for Jews, but not for Arabs or Palestinians.
They constantly have to wait in line hours and go through humiliating checkpoints where they're constantly beaten and forced to just engage in humiliating rituals.
I guess you should ask yourself, and by the way, there's also a huge number of settlements, just buildings.
That Israelis have built, Israeli citizens have built settlers because they want to take that land.
They expel Palestinians from their homes and say this is now our home.
They have built so much there that it makes a two-state solution impossible because there's so many settlers in the West Bank, even though it doesn't belong to Israel, Israeli settlers.
Some of them have fanatical religious views and believe God promised them that land.
Others just don't care and want Israel to expand and they're now backed by the IDF.
So they go and they pillage villages, they kill Palestinians in the West Bank, and the IDF often stands there, if not now aids them, given how the government has changed.
The entire world considers Israeli settlements and Israeli occupation of the West Bank illegal.
And so when you're hearing, oh, these boys were throwing rocks, they're throwing rocks at their military occupiers in tanks.
Tanks paid for by the United States, some of the most fortified tanks on the planet.
I just want to ask you, if you live in the United States, if you're an American and a foreign military invaded and occupied the United States, would you throw rocks at the military occupiers?
Would that be terrorism if you did?
There's actually a 1984 film about what would happen if the Russian army, then the Soviet army, it's called Red Dawn, invaded the United States.
Essentially, it glorifies all the American civilians who bravely stood up to their occupiers and killed them, used violence against them, threw rocks at them.
But of course, if a foreign military is occupying your land for decades and the whole world considers it illegal, it's not theirs.
Look at the map.
The West Bank is not part of Israel.
And yet their military is ruling the lives of those people, throwing rocks.
Who would not think that's justified, throwing rocks at the Israeli tanks?
What people being occupied wouldn't do that?
But in any event, even if they were throwing rocks at tanks, does that justify murdering 14-year-old...
American, Palestinian American boys who are in the West Bank.
The Israeli defense, the IDF thinks so.
They released a video of them killing this American, shooting two other Americans that they think justifies it.
It's about a five-second video where you can see a couple of rocks being thrown.
And then they came and just kind of shot them all, all three, two wounded, one dead.
We have about 14 and 15-year-old kids here.
But, you know, if any other country shot American teenagers, the U.S. government would be very angry.
But when Israel kills an American citizen, we're on the side of Israel.
That's America first.
America first means you side with a foreign country, a foreign government, even when they kill your own teenage citizens.
That's America first.
No, we applaud the foreign government.
We welcome its leader.
Literally, we roll out a red carpet.
When he lands in our country?
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Prime Minister Netanyahu, for murdering multiple American citizens, including 14-year-old boy just yesterday.
Welcome. Welcome.
We love you so much.
Come look at the photos we have of you hanging up in the White House.
The American journalist who was murdered, Shireen Abu Akleh, the same thing happened here.
The Israelis first denied that they were involved in any way in her shooting.
Then investigations were conducted, witnesses were interviewed, and a video emerged where you can essentially see what happened.
and you see the Israelis shooting at her.
is with her press jacket lying on the ground exactly where the israelis were shooting
So there's a whole video.
I don't want to subject you to it.
It's actually harrowing if you care about people's lives, if that is, or the lives of American citizens.
And so finally the Israelis said, yeah, you know what, we probably did shoot her.
And the autopsy says it was a very well-aimed bullet.
You're talking about Israeli snipers.
They don't accidentally kill people.
But no matter.
They're just American citizens.
No value at all when compared to Israel.
So yesterday Netanyahu arrived in D.C. for what the Times of Israel called hastily arranged talks with Trump about tariffs, hostages, and more.
And nominally the idea was The Trump tariff plan included 17% tariffs on Israel, even though the Israelis anticipating these tariffs said, oh, don't worry, we're not going to put up any more tariffs against your products.
Can you imagine the audacity of that?
We've been funding their military.
We automatically give them $4 billion every year under an agreement negotiated on the way out by Obama and Netanyahu.
And then on top of that, when they have new wars, we pass by a huge bipartisan margin, massive new funding that we send to them to pay for their wars, to pay for their military.
Some of that military aid, a good amount of it, the $4 million every year has to be used to buy American weapons, but not all of it.
They can spend it on what they want.
All Israelis have a higher standard of living than millions of Americans in terms of access to health care and college,
education, but the American worker nonetheless is forced to subsidize them.
And then at the same time that we're doing that,
They're putting tariffs against American products so that they keep American products out of our market.
SO THIS WAS AN ANTICIPATION OF WHAT THE MEETING WAS SUPPOSED TO BE. "THE MEETING WILL LARGELY FOCUS ON THE ONGOING WAR IN THE GAZA STRIP AND THE HOSTAGES, OF WHOM 59 ARE STILL IN CAPTIVITY, AS WELL AS TRUMP'S NEW TARRIF
POLICY, UNDER WHICH ISRAEL GOODS FACING 17% U.S. TARRIF." NETANYAHU'S OFFICE HAS ALSO SAID THAT, "THE ISRAELI-TURK
That's what the meeting was supposed to be.
And confronting the International Criminal Court will be on the agenda.
Trump told reporters on Sunday, quote, We're going to talk about trade.
We're going to talk about the obvious subject.
You know what the obvious subject is, right?
Obviously meaning Iran.
This was interpreted in Israel as likely referring either to the hostages held in Gaza or to Iran's nuclear program.
The premier departed, the Israeli premier from Washington from Budapest on Sunday, less than 24 hours after the trip was announced.
There's two interesting issues there too that I just want to point out.
One is that when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for war crimes, everyone in Europe stood up and cheered.
This is what the ICC is for.
And small countries that are signatories to the ICC felt obligated to honor it, even if they didn't agree with it.
For example, the South African government was hosting A BRICS summit in Johannesburg, a long planned.
BRICS, of course, is a counter alliance to, you could call it to the G7, maybe even to NATO eventually, that has as its founding countries Brazil, South Africa, India, China,
and Russia.
And the South Africans said we can't host Vladimir Putin.
On our soil, because we're signatories to the ICC, and even though we don't agree that he should have been indicted, he was, and therefore if he comes here, we'll have to turn him over to the Hague.
Same thing happened with, this year there's a G20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro, coming up shortly, and the president of Brazil was asked, would you allow Vladimir Putin, who's obviously an important part,
to come?
He's an important partner of Brazil's as well.
And at first Lula said, yeah, of course.
Of course he can come.
We don't agree with the ICC warrant.
And then a lot of pressure was put on Lula, and then eventually he sort of backtracked.
So the ICC is considered sacrosanct.
The U.S. government praised the ICC, too, when it indicted Putin.
The minute the ICC indicted Netanyahu and his former defense secretary, Yov Golant, Along with multiple Hamas leaders who they said were responsible for the planning of October 7th, suddenly the ICC became irrelevant.
Hungary said we're going to pull out of the ICC because they let Netanyahu come and visit despite the arrest warrant.
But also when Netanyahu had to fly from Hungary to Washington, three different signatories of the ICC in Europe, including France, Italy, and Spain, Gave him overflight rights,
even though they're ICC signatories.
They say the ICC is so important.
They all just make exceptions for Israel.
Now, it's possible that because Netanyahu's flight pattern to the U.S. was somewhat odd, it didn't go through northern Europe and around that circular route over Canada that normally would take place.
There was speculation that maybe some country said, you can't fly over our country.
But when Israel is indicted by the ICC, everything changes.
The U.S. government wants to punish the ICC.
Some countries are threatening to remove it.
France says, oh, we don't care about the ICC anymore now that it's Netanyahu.
When Netanyahu visited the White House the first time in February, there was a lot of commentary about the fact that when Netanyahu went to sit down, Trump pulled out his chair like some kind of overly accommodating waiter.
And stood there behind Netanyahu's chair and held his chair and then pushed it in for Netanyahu, which is a very odd thing for Trump to do.
Usually he's very devoted to showing who's the boss.
He grabs the arms and hands of foreign leaders and shakes them right next to him.
Whereas this was quite subservient.
There you see Trump waiting and then pushing in Netanyahu's chair as he sets down, kind of smiling.
That was the first time.
And then yesterday...
There you see Trump doing exactly the same thing.
It's just not even two months later, Trump playing the role of the waiter.
There's Netanyahu sitting down.
Trump holds his chair, pushes it in, kind of just walks away as Netanyahu smirks, starts writing things and signing things.
Now, there is one other time that Trump did this, which was for when the Indian Prime Minister Modi visited Washington.
Trump loves Modi.
But, you know, India is the largest, most populous country on earth, the most populous country on earth, the most populous democracy on earth.
What a massive country.
Israel is not, but this is just symbolic of the American-Israel relationship.
There you see the tariffs that were supposedly the cause of Netanyahu's visit, and you see there in the orange highlighted that Israel, the government claims that Israel has It's not really a 33% tariff.
It's more how the government calculates what they consider trade unfairness based on the trade deficit they have with Israel.
And then they kind of cut in half that number to determine the new tariffs imposed on Israel.
And so it was a 17% tariff imposed on Israel.
And even though Israel withdrew its tariffs, which again, I'm amazed that they add.
It's such audacity.
Knowing that Trump was going to impose this tariff scheme.
Trump's position, not just with Israel, but with everybody, we'll see if he holds it with Israel, is that simply eliminating tariffs is not sufficient.
It doesn't alleviate the past and the trade deficit that has been accumulated.
And he says the trade deficit is proof that these countries aren't treating us fairly, and so they need to not just get rid of their tariffs, they need to promise to invest in the U.S., to open factories in the U.S. That's what Trump is demanding of all these countries.
Here was a part of their...
They were going to have a formal press conference.
They didn't, but instead they had kind of a press meeting in the Oval Office.
And here's what Trump said when the issue of tariffs came up.
Do you plan to reduce the tariffs that the government put on Israeli goods?
On where?
On Israeli goods.
Well, we're talking about a whole new trend.
Maybe not.
Maybe not.
Don't forget.
We help Israel a lot.
You know, we give Israel four billion dollars a year.
That's a lot.
Congratulations, by the way.
But we give Israel billions of dollars a year.
Billions. So, you know, it is true.
And I guess Trump was sort of offended, as he should be, that Israel is imposing tariffs.
Now we'll see, given how many people are upset about the imposition of tariffs.
On Israel, specifically.
Here, for example, is Ben Shapiro responding to and commenting on Trump's tariff policy.
And you'll never guess what he was angry about.
You'll never guess.
I could give you a thousand guesses.
I could give you two months to try and figure it out.
You'll never figure out what Ben Shapiro was specifically angry about with these tariffs.
Yesterday, Israel announced zero tariffs on any American goods.
So, this is pretty crazy.
I have friends, for example, who import product to the United States and then sell them.
Why? Because they can't get the product in the United States.
So, for example, I have a friend.
You know, sometimes I actually get uncomfortable with how people like Ben Shapiro just seem to fulfill stereotypes so perfectly.
Ben Shapiro, I'm sure you'll be shocked to learn, has a friend who's in the jewelry business.
And he imports a lot from Israel.
A lot.
As he's going to explain.
Friend who's in the jewelry business.
And this friend in the jewelry business imports products that are not capable of being manufactured or found in the United States from abroad.
So it's not like there's import substitution you can just buy from an American.
That's not how it works.
By the way, this company is an American company.
The tariff that is now being applied to all of those imports is like 35-40%.
Those prices will get passed directly on to the consumers if consumption goes down, if investment goes down because investors are freaked out because they're getting whipsawed like nobody's business.
Again, I was talking with investors pretty much all
All day yesterday, given what was going on.
And the number one thing that I was hearing from major investors is, I don't know what the hell is going on.
That was the number one thing.
Before and after.
The amount of confusion, chaos in the markets, a feeling of complete...
So I have no doubt that Ben Shapiro...
He spoke all day the day before with investors.
I'm sure he spends a lot of his time speaking to those people.
I guess the issue is U.S. policy has been geared toward investors for so long that even if you don't love all of Trump's policy on tariffs, it's probably time to make U.S. policy antagonistic to those people's interests and focus instead on the working class and the downwardly mobile middle class.
But you saw what Ben Shapiro's anger was from.
Here, too, is another America First stalwart, part of the Trump movement, Bill Ackman.
As you might recall, Bill Ackman led a blacklist in late 2023 into 2024 wanting to get hedge fund managers and bankers and law firms together to promise not to hire any students who signed petitions against Israel.
Here's what Bill Ackman said on April 2nd, and obviously he's concerned about a lot of things with these tariffs.
He bought $1.8 billion or something like that.
Him and his hedge fund did in Nike, which has taken a massive battering in the market since these tariffs were released because Nike produces so much in China and other cheap factories overseas where their labor is paid poorly.
But here's one of the things that Bill Ackman was particularly angry about, wrote a tweet to Donald Trump, whose campaign he helped fund, that said the following, quote, real Donald Trump should reverse the tariffs on Israel because Israel eliminated their own tariffs prior to today's tariff announcement.
Trump should incentivize the behavior he wants, not punish it.
Now, it is amazing.
How much this tiny little country, how much it commands the attention of the American political class, how that's the leader that came twice to the White House in less than three months, how we give all this money to them, how we back their wars, how we are constantly talking about what we can do for Israel, punishing people who are critics of Israel and the United States.
And then here you have Ben Shapiro and Bill Ackman, two very, very prominent supporters of Israel, looking at Trump's paraphrase and saying, what about Israel?
Why are you tariffing Israel?
Here was Trump yesterday, also at the White House, sitting next to Netanyahu, when he was asked about Iran.
And Trump has said, look, I hope to get a deal with Iran.
Remember, there was a deal with Iran that Obama negotiated with the Iranians with the help of the Russians that provided for inspections of their nuclear facilities.
And Trump thought that was an inadequate deal.
So he...
He ran on a campaign promise in 2016 to pull out of it and then did.
So now there's no more deal with the Iranians.
There's no more inspectors.
That was the framework that we had that was nullified in the first term because the Israelis hated that deal.
So Trump is now saying, look, I'd like to get another deal with them, a better deal for them to dismantle their nuclear program to prove to us they've exploded it.
Things that Iran will never do.
It's essentially humiliation.
But he says we don't have much time and if they don't quickly enter into a deal with us, this is what's going to happen.
I think if the talks aren't successful with Iran, I think Iran is going to be in great danger.
And I hate to say it.
Great danger, because they can't have a nuclear weapon.
You know, it's not a complicated formula.
Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
That's all there is.
Right now, we have countries that have nuclear power that shouldn't have it.
But I'm sure we'll be able to negotiate out of that, too, as part of this later on down the line.
But Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.
And if the talks are successful...
I actually think it'll be a very bad day for Iran, if that's the case.
Yeah. So that's not really a veiled threat.
That's a very explicit threat.
Saying, look, you know, either Iran agrees to a deal or we're going to, you know, make Iran, it's going to be a very bad day for Iran.
It's going to be a very dangerous situation for Iran, obviously threatening to bomb them, which is what the Israelis have been trying to get the United States to do forever.
Remember, Trump's already.
Paying for the Israeli war in Gaza, he resumed and then escalated Biden's campaign of bombing the Houthis in Yemen.
You'll see that yesterday he talked about deploying American troops to Gaza to basically clear it out of all Palestinians, also an Israeli dream, putting actual American troops on the ground in the Middle East.
And now he's talking about...
...bombing Iran.
Hear from Reuters on March 30th.
He's been doing this for a while.
Trump threatens a bombing if Iran does not make a nuclear deal.
Quote, in Trump's first remark since Iran rejected direct negotiations with Washington last week, he told NBC News that the U.S. and Iranian officials were talking but did not elaborate.
Quote, if they don't make a deal, there will be bombing, Trump said in a telephone interview.
Quote, it will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before.
There's a chance that if they don't make a deal that I will do secondary tariffs on them like I did four years ago, he added.
Now, I understand very well that Trump threatens things in negotiations.
You read The Art of the Deal.
That's very basic to it.
It's not just Trump.
That's what people do.
I used to be a litigator.
People say either you settle or we're going to litigate against you until the end of time.
We're going to bankrupt you.
We're going to destroy you.
You have to put the other side in some kind of fear to incentivize and gain leverage in negotiations that I totally understand.
But the United States can't go around and promise to bomb the crap out of a country like Iran if they don't get a deal and then not do it if there's no deal.
And it's not that clear that there's going to be a deal.
HERE IS RENT-YAHOO BASICALLY GIVING MARCHING ORDERS TO THE U.S. WE'LL SEE WHETHER OR NOT TRUMP TAKES THEM THAT WAY ABOUT WHAT HE SAYS HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE A DEAL WITH IRAN CAN BE DONE.
I just finished my second visit to the U.S. in two months, a very warm visit with my friend President Donald Trump.
You could be impressed from the great...
Closeness and friendship between us, which was expressed in the issues we discussed.
First of all, Iran.
We agree that Iran will not have nuclear weapons.
This can be done by agreement, but only if this agreement is Libyan style.
They go in, blow up the installations, dismantle all of the equipment under American supervision and carried out by America.
This would be good.
The second possibility that will not be is that they drag out the talks and then there is the military option.
Everyone understands this.
We spoke about this at great length.
So Netanyahu came to the US, spoke to Trump about the military option against Iran, Israel's biggest enemy in the Middle East.
Now, Trump's argument that, look, we just can't allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.
India has nuclear weapons.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
North Korea has nuclear weapons.
Israel has nuclear weapons.
Just say nothing of France and the UK and China.
Why is it so uniquely threatening to the US, not to Israel, but to the US, for Iran to have a nuclear program as well to offset the Israeli one?
Professor Mearsheimer was asked about this this week.
He made the point that he thinks nothing would be more stabilizing to the Middle East than if Iran gets nuclear weapons.
One of the things the United States has shown the world is that if you don't have nuclear weapons, there's a good chance we're going to attack you and bomb you and invade you and blow everything up whenever we want, change your government.
The only protection against that is if you get nuclear weapons, then we won't mess with you.
We don't mess with Pakistan.
We don't mess with India.
We don't mess with North Korea.
We don't mess with China.
I mean, we do a little bit with all those countries, but we're very constrained.
Because they have nuclear weapons.
We've created a world in which a country would be crazy not to consider getting nuclear weapons.
But between Israel and Iran, Iran has shown more restraint than Israel.
We've talked about this many times before.
And in terms of their attacks on Israel, they were very rational.
They were very constrained.
They've never demonstrated that they're a, quote, suicidal or apocalyptic religious cult.
I would say Israel is closer to that now than Iran is.
I agree you don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, all of the things being equal, although Professor Mearsheimer argues convincingly that it would be good for the Middle East because then the Israelis and the Americans couldn't constantly be threatening to bomb everyone in the Middle East, bomb Iran in the Middle East,
because Iran would be on equal footing to Israel.
But either way, It's much more Israel's problem than the U.S., but Israel's problem, by definition, is the U.S.'s problem.
And Trump says, and Netanyahu says, this is going to have to be America that goes in, and America that does this.
And Trump's like, yes, absolutely.
Even though the whole Trump movement over the last 10 years supposedly has been about getting out of the Middle East, getting out of endless wars.
Trump already has two in the Middle East, the bombing of Yemen, the one in Gaza.
Now you're talking about a third.
With a much bigger and more powerful country and military.
The second issue is this idea of a Libyan model.
You know what Nick and I was talking about?
In 2003, Colonel Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, agreed to denuclearize, to demilitarize.
The West said, look, this is what you need to do to become more integrated into the international community.
And he did.
And then in the next presidency, which was Obama's, there's no more Gaddafi.
The U.S. went in with the French and the British, utterly obliterated Libya, got Gaddafi out onto the street where he was raped and murdered.
And ever since, Libya has been ridden with the return of the slave trade.
With anarchy, with ISIS, with immense instability that caused an immigration problem for Europe?
You think anyone's going to be convinced?
Oh yeah, do what Gaddafi did.
Look how well it worked out for him.
You should do that.
Just be militarized, then we won't bother you.
It's the Libyan model, says Netanyahu.
That's the only thing that will work.
There are some very well-connected figures in the MAGA movement, meaning well-connected To the White House, who, to their great credit, great credit, are sounding the alarm that this is very real,
that there's serious talk in the White House about bombing Iran.
This is not just a negotiating ploy.
And there are people in MAGA saying, this is completely contrary to what we thought we were supposed to be getting.
Here's Charlie Kirk on April 3rd, who went on to ask and said this, quote, it's going unnoticed because so much other news is happening.
Exactly. But, he says, the war drums are beating again in DC.
The warmongers worry this is their last chance to get the white whale they've been chasing for 30 years, an all-out regime change war against Iran.
A new Middle East war would be a catastrophic mistake.
Our military stockpiles are depleted from three years of backing Ukraine.
Our effort to reshore manufacturing has only just begun and will take years to bear fruit.
War would worsen our already immense deficit in national debt.
Iran is larger than Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan combined.
A WAR WOULD NOT BE EASY AND COULD EASILY BECOME A CALAMITY.
THANKS TO PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RESTRAINTS DURING HIS FIRST TERM, AMERICA HAS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO PULL AWAY FROM MIDDLE EAST CLAGMIERS FOR GOOD.
WE SHOULDN'T THROW THAT OPPORTUNITY AWAY SO THAT SOME D.C. HAS-BEANS CAN FEEL TOUGH BY SENDING YOUNG AMERICANS TO DIE YET AGAIN.
Couldn't have said that better myself.
In fact, one thing Professor Mearsheimer mentioned when he was on our show last week was that not only is the U.S. stockpile being depleted by feeding Ukraine, The weapons they're using to kill Russians.
And not only are our stockpiles being depleted because of all the weaponry we've been giving to Israel that they've used to destroy civilian life in Gaza, but the bombing campaign against Yemen, which is very intense but not very successful for a lot of reasons.
We've been bombing Yemen for 20 years and the Houthis have gotten stronger.
That's getting very expensive as well.
It's already up to about a billion dollars or will be very shortly.
And it too is, we're bombing so much that it too is depleting our stockpile.
So we're depleting our own stockpile for Ukraine, for Israel, to bomb Yemen.
And obviously that will thin out American military resources, but also it will thin out our resources in general.
And the only reason why Charlie Kirk would go and say something like that is because he's very well connected to the White House and hears what I know other people are hearing.
Which is that, at a very high level, there's very serious talk about bombing Iran, a war with Iran.
And remember, Netanyahu does not just want the nuclear installations blown up, just like limited bombing.
He wants regime change in Iran.
They want to reinstall the Shah of Iran monarchy, the son of the Shah of Iran.
Remember, the whole problem with Iran in the first place, with respect to the United States, came because we overthrew...
Their government in 1954, and we replaced him with the Shah of Iran, a U.S.-Israeli puppet who was a savage, brutal dictator.
Savage. And obviously everyone in Iran knows that.
And he lasted for 25 years until the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
And the reason why that revolution then turned to the U.S. embassy where they kidnapped...
Our diplomats at the U.S. Embassy, which had been there to deal with the Shahs, because they knew that their 25 years of dictatorship was backed by and caused by Americans.
That's why they disliked the United States.
Not because they hate us for our freedom because we allow women to walk on the beach with bathing suits, but because we interfered in their country.
We overthrew their government.
We imposed a tyranny on them for 25 years.
And now the Netanyahus of the world and all these other people, the supporters of Israel throughout the West, that guy, that son of the Shah of Iran, Goes everywhere.
And Israeli supporters treat him like he's the legitimate ruler of Iran.
They want to reinstall him.
They want to do regime change in Iran.
Not just bomb nuclear facilities.
And this benefits whom?
As J.D. Vance argued, even the bombing of Yemen has very little benefit for the U.S. interests.
We don't have much shipping there.
It's all for Europe.
Yemen's not attacking American ships.
The Houthis are not attacking American ships.
They're only attacking Israeli ships.
They stopped the attacks with the Gaza ceasefire.
They resumed them only against Israeli ships when Israel began blocking the humanitarian aid required by the ceasefire agreement into Gaza.
This is not our war.
These are not our interests.
And yet we're back to fighting and threatening new Mideast wars.
For the antithesis of what America First agenda was supposed to be, another person very, very well connected in the Trump White House is Tucker Carlson.
And four days after Charlie Kirk's tweet, he posted something very similar, even a little more dire.
He said, quote, whatever you think of tariffs, it's clear now it's the worst possible time for the United States to participate in a military strike on Iran.
We can't afford it.
Thousands of Americans would die.
We'd lose the war that follows.
Nothing would be more destructive to our country.
And yet we're closer than ever, thanks to unrelenting pressure from neocons.
This is suicidal.
Anyone advocating for conflict with Iran is not an ally of the United States, but an enemy.
Thank you.
Tucker wouldn't be sounding that alarm, nor would Charlie Kirk, unless there was a genuine plan.
And momentum in the White House to go and do exactly that.
People mocked him for saying thousands of Americans would die.
They were like, what, is Iran going to invade the United States?
No. These people don't seem to know that we have military bases all throughout the Middle East.
In Jordan, in Syria, in Iraq.
They've been attacked multiple times.
By Iran-controlled proxies, by Iraqis, and American troops have died.
Repeatedly. Why are we in Syria?
Why are we in Iraq?
Why are we in Jordan?
But obviously, if we attack Iran, those are all very vulnerable targets for Iran.
We have oil rigs and all kinds of bases throughout the Middle East.
You think Iran's just going to sit there and take it?
They're three times bigger than Iraq.
They have a major sophisticated military compared to what the Iraqis had.
And remember, we basically lost the war in Iraq.
We certainly lost the war in Afghanistan.
ON TOP OF ALL OF THAT, ARMING ISRAEL TO DESTROY GAZA, REBOMBING EMMAN, THREATENING WAR WITH IRAN, HERE IS WHAT TRUMP SAID HE WANTS TO DO WITH RESPECT TO GAZA.
THE IDF IS FUNNY TO GET INTO GAZA STRIP, I MUST BE CALLED UP IN A MONTH.
DO YOU THINK THAT IS THE WAY TO PRESSURE HOMAS TO GET TO A DEAL?
DO YOU THINK BLOCKING HUMANITARY HATE IS ALSO AN EFFECTIVE PRESSURE?
YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE GAZA STRIP.
An incredible piece of important real estate.
And I think it's something that we would be involved in.
But, you know, having a peace force like the United States there controlling and owning the Gaza Strip would be a good thing.
You already just said Gaza is a real estate.
It's valuable real estate.
But he said the United States will be involved there.
We're going to be on the ground there.
Maintaining the peace.
You'll see the rest of what he says, but he's saying, I want to put American troops in Gaza to basically keep it safe, clear it out.
Could you imagine what that sounds like in Israel?
Like, oh my God, Trump's saying he wants to not only give us the money to do it, he's saying he wants to deploy American troops to clean out Gaza of Palestinians and turn it into like a resort area and develop beautiful apartment buildings and homes that we will own or will own with the Trumps.
Talking about putting boots on the ground in Gaza.
Is that remotely consistent with what any Trump supporter expected the Trump administration was going to do?
Here's the rest.
Right now, all it is is for years and years, all I hear about is killing and Hamas and problems.
And if you take the people, the Palestinians, and move them around to different countries, then you have plenty of countries that will do that.
And you really have a freedom zone.
You call it the freedom zone.
A free zone.
A zone where people aren't going to be killed every day.
That's a hell of a place.
You know what I call it?
A great location that nobody wants to live in because they really don't.
And when they have good living, real living, where Hamas and all of the problems they have, the level of death on the Gaza Strip is just incredible.
And I've said it.
I don't understand why Israel ever gave it up.
Israel owned it.
It wasn't this man, so I can say it.
He wouldn't have given it up.
I know him very well.
There's no way.
They took oceanfront property and they gave it to people for peace.
How did that work out?
Not good.
I really have no idea what he means when he says Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians.
Like they just gave it as a present?
What is he talking about?
Israel didn't exist as a state until 1948.
And the British created this, essentially, wielded into power with their control over...
That land, even though the Israelis used terrorism against the British to try and drive them out, blew up hotels, killed British civilians and diplomats.
The Israelis used terrorism to take that part of the land, and when they took it, there was a defined Israel.
It didn't include Gaza or the West Bank.
That's what they drove the Palestinians into.
So I don't know what he's talking about, but in any event, why is this the job of the American military now?
To clean out Gaza?
To make it nice and good for the Israelis, as he said the last time, to put the Palestinians into other countries to get Arab leaders to take them.
That's always been the extreme of the Israeli political spectrum.
Oh, there's no such thing as Palestinians.
They're Jordanians.
Put them in Jordan.
Put them in Egypt.
Just put them wherever to get them out of here.
And that's what Trump's now saying.
Like, yeah, we're going to put American troops on the ground to keep that place nice.
So that we can develop the real estate there.
Trump made another announcement while sitting next to Netanyahu.
I know you're probably thinking, wait, that's enough.
That's a lot of announcements that are disturbing.
He actually made another one that might even be the most significant about how he intends to increase the Pentagon's budget by a very substantial amount.
Remember, the United States spends more on its military than the next 15 nations combined.
China's is a little hard to quantify, but by all estimates, they don't spend as much as the U.S. They spend a third.
And it's been going on forever.
We've been spending more and more and more in our military.
The military budget is currently $850 billion, close to a trillion dollars.
A trillion dollar a year budget.
They cannot pass an audit.
Raytheon and Lockheed and General Dynamics and Palantir get extremely rich.
They're feeding up the trough like pigs on this
Immense kickbacks and corruption inside the military industrial complex.
Obviously, you're talking about a trillion dollar a year budget.
What do you think is going to happen?
We have great things happening with our military.
We also essentially approved A budget, which is in the facility, you'll like to hear this, of a trillion dollars, one trillion dollars.
You notice how he says, hey, we approved a budget, he said in the facility, I think he meant in the vicinity of a trillion dollars, and he turned to anyone and said, you'll like this.
Why wouldn't anyone like it?
Obviously because the more Trump builds up the military, the better and more effective Trump can use that military to...
Fight against Israel's enemies.
Why would he turn to Netanyahu and say, you'll like this?
Who cares if Netanyahu likes it or not?
So Trump's saying we're going to put the budget at a trillion dollars.
Here's the rest.
A trillion dollars.
$1 trillion, and nobody's seen anything like it.
We have to build our military, and we're very cost-conscious, but the military is something that we have to build, and we have to be strong because you've got a lot of bad forces out there now.
So we're going to be approving a budget, and I'm proud to say, actually, the biggest one we've ever done for the military
That is so exciting.
That is so exciting.
What a major strike against the Washington establishment.
And the military industrial complex, we're going to spend more than anybody has ever spent on the union between arms dealers and military industrial corporations on the one hand and the Pentagon on the other.
It's going to be a trillion dollars the first ever.
Trump has been talking about cutting the military for a long, long time.
In fact, just on February 19th of this year, six weeks ago.
He announced how he's ordering the Pentagon to make massive cuts.
Here from the Washington Post, Trump administration orders the Pentagon to plan for sweeping budget cuts.
A senior Pentagon official said that money saved through the cuts could be, quote, realigned to other defense priorities that President Donald Trump has.
Quote, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered senior leaders at the Pentagon and throughout the U.S. military to develop plans for cutting 8 percent from the defense
budget in each of the next five years.
That's what they were saying just six weeks ago.
They want to cut 8% from the defense budget, not in one year, but in each of the next five.
According to a memo obtained by the Washington Post, an official is familiar with the matter.
A striking proposal, certain to face internal resistance and strident bipartisan opposition in Congress.
Of course, no one in Congress wants, almost nobody in Congress wants the military budget cut because they all are funded by and serve the same interests in the arms industry.
story.
That's why the arms industry funds the both parties, just like Israel does, to keep them bipartisan in support of their agenda.
So we went six weeks from...
Hey, good news, we're cutting the defense budget, which is incredibly bloated, by 8% every year for the next five years, too.
Good news, we're having the first ever trillion dollar budget.
Even if you believe every Doge claim about how much they've saved, and a lot of it has been subject to skepticism and questioning, but pick the amount that Doge claims it saved.
$200 billion, whatever.
Wow, that's so great.
$200 billion.
Yay, we saved.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE MILITARY BY AT LEAST THAT AMOUNT, OFFSETTING WHATEVER CUTS ARE.
STEVE MANN SAID FROM THE BEGINNING ABOUT DOGE, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS MEANINGFULLY CUTTING THE U.S. BUDGET UNLESS YOU CROSS THE BOTAMIC RIVER AND GO TO THE PENTAGON.
THAT WAS ALWAYS THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S A SERIOUS EFFORT TO CUT GOVERNMENT SPENDING, IS WHETHER YOU ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO GO TO THE PENTAGON.
TRUMP SUGGESTED HE WOULD, SAID HE WOULD.
We're going to have the first ever trillion dollar budget.
Here is Trump in the White House in mid-February of this year.
One of the first meetings I want to have is with President Xi of China, President Putin of Russia, and I want to say let's cut our military budget in half.
And we can do that.
And I think we'll be able to do it.
And then, so that was Trump just saying, let's cut the military budget by half.
And here's what he said on February 15th as well, about spending a trillion dollars on the military.
We have the greatest military equipment in the world.
We're building it.
At some point, when things settle down, I'm going to meet with China, and I'm going to meet with Russia in particular, those two, and I'm going to say, There's no reason for us to be spending almost a trillion dollars on military.
There's no reason for you to be spending $400 billion.
China's going to be at $400 billion.
We're at a trillion.
We're going to be at close to a trillion.
And I'm going to say, we can spend this on other things.
We don't have to spend this on military.
And I'm going to be meeting with China.
You know, we were trying to de-escalate nuclear.
I was in a position where Russia had agreed and China had agreed we were going to start, and then we had a rigged election, so that never took place, but this one was too big to rig.
We won by so much that it was too big to rig.
All right, so that's, you know, what he's been saying is, like, we should cut our military to get rid of waste, or we can even do a deal with China and Russia where everybody cuts military spending by half.
Now, like, six weeks later, when it comes, he's like, good news, trillion-dollar budget.
Here, just about Yemen, we talked about this some, but Trump posted this video.
He was very proud of it.
There are, as you can see on the screen, I think, yeah, you can see there on the screen, this is Yemen with about, I would estimate, 60, maybe 70 Yemenis sitting around, standing up in open,
out in the open.
None of them are carrying guns.
And even if they were, you're allowed to carry guns.
Doesn't make you a bad person.
I think we hear that all the time from the American right.
I agree with that.
You have a gun.
Doesn't make you a bad person.
Doesn't mean you're going to go kill somebody.
Doesn't make you a terrorist.
But they're just standing there in a circle.
It's a very common formation for many tribes.
This is how tribes meet.
Trump claimed that these were people plotting to go and He said, we're not going to let the Houthis blow up our ships again.
The Houthis never blew up an American ship.
They once claimed they attacked a ship.
The Defense Department said that was totally false.
Israel bombed an American ship.
The USS Liberty in 1967 killed a lot of people, a lot of Americans, all forgotten.
But here was Trump very proudly saying, these people were plotting a terrorist attack on an American ship.
Even though Houthi said before the bombing of Yemen began, we're only attacking Israeli ships.
Knowing that there's American drones all over the place, that the U.S. is bombing constantly all throughout the country, why would they meet just outdoors and stand in a perfect, visible formation if they were actually terrorists or whatever, plotting a military operation?
That's not what they would do.
But here's what the United States did, and Donald Trump was very proud of it.
Trump said, oh, look, they were plotting to attack a ship.
There, a big bomb.
They're all dead.
Woo! Look, there's no one left.
Totally destroyed every living person that was there, despite having no idea who they were.
And yet a lot of conservatives who just rejuvenated their act from the war on terror.
Like, hey, we don't want any more Middle East wars.
Oh, those are terrorists.
Yeah, blow up those terrorists.
Just bomb, keep killing the terrorists.
Hell yeah.
Like, getting that pulsating sensation of strength.
Meanwhile, just one last point about Israel.
They murdered 15 Palestinian medics, ambulance drivers, people who save the lives of others.
At first they said when these people went missing, they just disappeared from the face of the earth.
Nobody knew where they were.
They just didn't come home.
Their ambulances were nowhere to be found.
The Israelis said, I don't know, we don't have anything to do with it.
And then when...
It became apparent that they were killed.
The IDF said, no, actually, what happened was we did kill them.
And the reason we killed them is because they were ambulances, but they didn't have their emergency lights on or sirens on.
And they were approaching our vehicles in very suspicious ways.
That's always what the IDF says whenever they are caught killing people, including innocent people like these medics.
They say, oh, yeah, they were.
They didn't have their emergency lights on.
They were attacking our troops.
They were putting our troops in danger.
That's what they said.
And everybody printed it.
Oh, Israel says that it killed them because they were terrorists, whatever.
And that's usually the end of it.
And then the question was, like, when the Palestinians found them, they were buried in the dirt along with their ambulances.
So the Israelis didn't just murder these people.
Then they buried them.
And they said, well, if these were terrorists, why did you bury them?
Like, seemingly hide the evidence.
And the IDF said, We wanted to respect their bodies.
Because what happens is if you leave corpses out in Gaza, the animals come and eat them because animals have no food like the humans.
Because the Israelis are so, so concerned about the dignity of Palestinians.
They care so deeply about it.
But then, like, they also buried the ambulance.
Like, why would you bury the ambulance as well?
Would the animals eat the ambulance?
Unfortunately for Israel, there was one of the medics who ended up being...
Murdered. Who was videoing the scene prior to him being killed.
You can hear him saying kind of his last words.
So my apologies to his mother.
Saying his last prayers.
He knew he was going to die.
And it was on his cell phone and the Israelis just neglected to take it.
And so when they dug it up, they found the cell phone.
And you could see very clearly on the cell phone that everything the IDF said was an absolute lie.
These were ambulances with their lights on, their sirens on, the workers, the medics were wearing the orange neon identifiable vest as rescue workers, and they were rescuing a truck that the Israelis had just shot up and killed people in.
They didn't approach the IDF in any way.
Everything that Israel said was a lie, which happens all the time, except when there's a video that emerges and then Israel's like, oh, yeah, we lied.
And we're going to lock it back, like what happened with the American journalist.
And it never makes anyone wonder, like, hey, the next time the IDF kills a bunch of people and claims that it's because they're terrorists, like, maybe we should be skeptical of that, because every time there's a video that emerges, it shows that what they were saying was a lie.
Here from CBS News on April 6, Israel walks back its account of Gaza medic killings after video surfaces of the attack.
The Israeli military initially said it opened fire because the vehicles were, quote, advancing suspiciously.
An Israeli military official speaking late Sunday on condition of anonymity in line with regulations said that account was, whoops, mistaken.
Yeah, we shot all these people.
We said they were terrorists.
We lied that they didn't have their lights on, that they were approaching us.
Nope, we were mistaken.
Just everyone makes mistakes.
Everyone kills 15 aid workers all at once and buries them underground in the lies about what they did.
Eight Red Crescent personnel, six civil defense workers, and a UN staffer were killed in the shooting before dawn on March 23rd by Israeli troops conducting operations in Tal al-Sultan, a district of the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
Troops then bulldozed over the bodies with their mangled vehicles, burying them in a mass grave.
UN and rescue workers were only able to reach the site a week later to dig out the bodies.
To their great credit, it was the New York Times that obtained the video.
That was taken by one of the slaughtered medics.
And you can hear him saying his last words.
But you can also see very clearly the ambulances with their lights on, with their alarms on, their blinkers on.
And the rescue workers dressed exactly how they should be, not even remotely approaching Israeli troops.
And they just opened fire on them and killed them all.
And here you can see it.
This is the medic in the car who is filming.
And you can see the ambulance in front of him exactly with the lights on.
There's another one with the lights on.
That's a fire truck.
And then there's an ambulance.
He's in an ambulance as well filming.
And they're driving along exactly like rescue workers should.
There's another ambulance with its siren on.
Here are people going to rescue people, to help people when they're injured, to take them to the hospital, to administer life-saving treatment and aid to them.
These are some of the noblest work that you can do.
And here you see them stopping at this side of the road where that car is with the people who were shot and killed.
They were going to see if any of them were alive, to see if they needed medical assistance, if there were any survivors to be taken to the hospital, exactly what ambulances should do.
Hey, hey, Mermin!
Mermin! Mermin!
Mermin! Huge numbers of bullets.
Remember, the Israelis said, oh, they approached our vehicles.
None of this happened.
Trey Yinks is an excellent war correspondent for Fox News.
He reports from Israel.
He often reports on missile attacks on Israel.
But he has also spoken up in defense of Palestinian journalists, saying, why are we not defending Palestinian journalists being killed by Israel constantly when we, our journalists, were supposed to stand up for journalists?
And he's reported very honestly about a lot of the things that Israel is doing in Gaza in a way that almost no one else in corporate media is.
Listen to this report that he produced for Fox News.
Paramedics from the Palestine Red Crescent dig through the earth of southern Gaza.
They're recovering the bodies of their colleagues killed by Israeli forces.
On March 23rd, first responders were dispatched to this area of Rafah.
When they arrived, Israeli soldiers opened fire.
Health workers should never be a target, and yet we're here today digging up a mass grave of first responders and paramedics.
On March 31st, the IDF provided a statement to Fox News saying, quote, several vehicles were identified advancing suspiciously toward IDF troops without headlights or emergency signals.
Video released five days later by the Palestine Red Crescent directly contradicts that statement.
The IDF also claimed in the initial findings that nine out of the 15 medics were operatives in Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
Asked multiple times for evidence to support that claim, none was provided.
I mean, that is very straightforward.
The IDF told Fox News repeatedly that this happened.
This video that was obtained and filmed by one of the workers who was murdered.
And that he was buried underground with his cell phone that was then discovered contradicts everything Israel said.
They then switch to, oh, don't worry, nine of them out of the 15 were Hamas operatives and Fox News said, well, meaning Trey Inc.
said, well, show us the evidence, which is what a journalist does in the face of a claim by the government.
And the Israelis just refuse to provide any.
Every time there's evidence of what happens as opposed to an IDF claim, they get caught lying.
Here's the rest of this.
For evidence to support that claim, none was provided.
Funerals were held late last week for those killed by Israeli bullets.
Families mourning the dead, mothers trying to make sense of the senseless.
He went to save the martyrs and injured, and we've been waiting for him for a week.
We were told that he was either martyred or injured, but I realized that they had killed them from the very first moment.
They had killed them and buried them underground.
As bodies of these medics rest inside white plastic bags with a photo attached, the face of Rifat Radwan stands out, the man who recorded his final moments with a final message.
Forgive me, mother.
This is the path I chose to help people, he said.
Massive credit to Trey Inkst and whoever else produced that news report for Fox.
That takes a great amount of courage.
It takes courage to say that about Israel on any network.
To say it on Fox News takes even more for obvious reasons.
And out of all this horror and suffering, which, by the way, the U.S. paid for.
The U.S. paid for that murder and that massacre of aid workers.
The U.S. taxpayer pays it all.
All our weapons being sent there to use.
Out of all the horrors of what's going on, these multiple Mideast wars again, the ratcheting up of the defense budget by a president who repeatedly vowed to do none of this.
At least there's some nobility.
There's courage in a lot of the Palestinians, people working as aid workers and journalists, knowing that they're targets.
Israel just targeted a tent of Israeli journalists, and you have young journalists, including a couple who have been on our show, 19, 20, 24, who continue to report, knowing it puts them in danger.
You have aid workers continuing to do that, knowing it puts them in danger, and it's actually quite refreshing to see a reporter who worked for Fox News being willing to just report.
truthfully with no agenda without caring who's alienated by it.
That's what journalism is missing more than anything.
And we need so much more of that.
Thank you.
Free speech is under attack.
Anybody watching this program knows that, but Rumble refuses to back down.
We've always believed in empowering voices, no matter how unpopular or what their ideology is, and now Rumble is taking that fight to the next level.
Thank you.
conspired to pull their advertising dollars.
Even brands like Dunkin'Donuts refused to
Advertiser Rumble claiming that Rumble had a, quote, right-wing culture.
But actually, Rumble is not here to fit a mold.
We're here to defend free expression.
To strengthen this mission, we're excited to offer Rumble Premium, a completely ad-free experience with exclusive benefits for viewers and creators.
You'll find exclusive content from creators like Dr. Disrespect, Tim Kast, The Mug Club with Steven Crowder, Jimmy Dore, and many more.
It's more than a subscription.
It's a stand for free speech.
Your voice matters.
Join Rumble Premium for a very limited time.
You can get $20 off an annual plan using promo code RumbleLive.
Visit rumble.com slash premium and claim your special sale discount today.
Together we can turn the tide whether you join Rumble Premium or simply keep watching this show and other shows on Rumble.
Your support really helps keep free speech alive.
Donald Trump ran on a platform of securing the border, which he's done.
That is definitely a promise fulfilled.
There's almost no people enduring the southern border illegally anymore.
They've almost cut off entirely that problem that both parties said was a problem, but that Trump in particular has been running on for almost a decade.
But he also ran not just on shutting the border, but on mass deporting people who are in the country illegally.
Polls show people support that.
Obviously, he won the election, making that a central plank of his campaign.
He has every right to go and carry that out.
The problem is that he's not just deporting people who are in the United States illegally.
They've been spending a huge amount of attention and time and energy on deporting people in the United States illegally, including green card holders, if they commit the crime of criticizing or denouncing or protesting the foreign government of Israel.
And then they've also...
Instead of just deporting people through a normal process, and to deport someone, it's very easy to deport someone in the United States illegally.
There's a special deportation court.
It's not even a real court.
It's just like an agency of the Justice Department.
You just go in, you show that they're illegal, and if the person can't show papers proving they're illegal, they approve the removal, and they're sent back to their home country.
Very simple, very quick.
The Trump administration, though...
Went way further.
They enacted this extremely radical and rarely invoked law called the Alien Enemies Act, which is supposed to only be invoked when the country is at war.
And the only times it was invoked, three times in American history, the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, when obviously the United States was at war.
The theory of the Trump administration is that we are at war, that this is basically an invasion.
BUT IT'S NOT AN INVASION FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY, ALTHOUGH THEY CLAIM VENEZUELA IS PURPOSELY DOING THIS AS AN
The numbers are very doubtful.
Trundade Aragua is not exactly allied with the Maduro government, but that's the theory.
And the biggest problem of that invocation is that the Trump administration has said, even though the law itself negates it, that once you invoke that law, you can remove anybody you want from the United States without any due process.
You just accuse them of...
Being here illegally or being a member of a gang or having committed a crime, they have no chance to go into court.
And it's not just that we're sending people back to their home countries where you get deported back to your own country.
In many cases, we're sending them to a country they've never been to, have nothing to do with, El Salvador, and they're being put into one of the worst, most repressive prisons on the planet designed to dehumanize, humiliate, exploit a slave labor,
torture. Everything that you can possibly think of horrific happens in that abusive prison.
And the United States is paying El Salvador to lock up the people we send there.
And they're being sent there based on an accusation, namely that they're members of a violent gang, or others, without giving the people opportunity to say, no, you got it wrong.
I'm not who you think I am.
You misread my tattoo, or you have the wrong person.
Obviously, under the American Constitution, you cannot put people into a prison for life without at least giving them an opportunity to contest the accusation against them.
Guantanamo detainees got that because the Supreme Court ruled that they are required to get it.
Now, one of the problems has been that a federal district judge that has been depicted as left-wing, even though so many of his rulings have defied that description, Most federal judges who get confirmed by the Senate,
including ones from Obama and even Biden, are often prosecutors or they're far from left-wing.
Most of those left-wing ones can't pass a Senate vote.
That's part of the check on the judiciary is the president chooses them and then they have to get approved by the Senate.
And they have filibusters as well, so you have to get a lot of votes to be approved.
Now they've lifted them for certain judges, judgeships, but in general, that's who's on the judiciary.
But the Trump movement has really resented the fact that federal district court judges are blocking certain of Trump policies like the one I just described nationwide.
So they're just lower level judges representing a district court, yet they're issuing nationwide injunctions.
Now, we've shown you before that conservatives many times under Biden, Obama, Clinton, ran into a district court and got
injunctions against the president's policy.
That happened, for example, when Joe Biden was coercing and pressuring big tech to remove dissent on COVID, Ukraine, and other things.
Conservative lawyers went in.
Two Republican attorneys general were the plaintiffs in the suit, and they got a federal district court judge to rule that that...
There was not one conservative saying, how can a federal district court judge block a president's policy nationwide?
And how can judges who are just federal district court judges override a policy of the president?
Same thing happened when Biden tried to forgive student loans and conservatives ran in and got a nationwide.
So anyway, this has been going on for a while, but there are a lot more happening with Trump.
And so conservatives are frustrated that.
They elected Trump and yet you have all these unelected judges at the low level issuing an injunction.
From the Hill on March 15th, judge blocks Trump administration from deporting five Venezuelans amid plans to invoke the Alien Enemies Act.
Quote, the move from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg came just a few hours after the ACLU fired a motion against President Trump's reported plan to invoke the AEA to accelerate the removal of undocumented immigrants from the U.S. Hours after Boasberg's decision,
the Department of Justice appealed the ruling.
Now, There's a lot of cases.
I'm not saying hundreds.
There's about 300 people shipped to El Salvador, but there's a non-trivial number where there's serious questions about whether they are in fact members of a Venezuelan gang.
And there may be others where those accusations are dubious, but because the government doesn't have to present any evidence because they're taking the position that no one's entitled to a court ruling even before they get thrown into a prison for life in a country they have nothing to do with, we don't really know, but we know about some cases.
One of the most extreme from CBS News, Trump administration deports a gay makeup artist to prison in El Salvador.
Andrew Hernandez Romero, a gay makeup artist who came to the United States last year in search of asylum, is one of 238 Venezuelan immigrants who were flown from the U.S. to a maximum security prison in El Salvador three weeks ago.
Hernandez Romero left his home country last May because he was targeted for being gay and for his political views, his attorney says.
He made the long trek through the Darien Grap, a 60-mile roadless stretch of dense forest between Colombia and Panama, to Mexico, where he eventually got an appointment to seek asylum in the United States at a legal border crossing.
And if you look at pictures of him,
he looks like, I don't know, Jeffree Star or like James Charles or those like very, very, very gay.
Makeup influencers.
You know, like his pictures are like his face full of makeup, holding up makeup brushes.
And it seems like the reason they thought this very gay makeup artist was a member of Trend de Aragua.
Sure, Trend de Aragua welcomes with open arms gay makeup artists.
It's because he had two tattoos with a crown for his mother and father and they misinterpreted that to be a Trend de Aragua tattoo.
Since that's a major basis that they're using to throw people into prison for life.
Oh, we see one of your tattoos.
We think that's an insignia for a gang.
Mother Jones on April 4th reported, you're here because of your tattoos.
The Trump administration sent Venezuelans to El Salvador's most infamous prison.
Their families are looking for answers.
Quote, Before leaving for the United States in late 2023, Nery Alvarado Borges lived in Yaratagua, a small city in north-central Venezuela.
His father is a farmer, and his mother supports his 15-year-old brother, Nerylson, who has autism.
Alvarado's older sister, Maria, stressed in a call from Venezuela that her brother has no connection to Trendelagua.
She said her brother was deeply devoted to helping Nerelsson, explaining that one of his three tattoos is an autism awareness ribbon with his brother's
AND THAT HE IS USED TO TEACH SWIMMING CLASSES FOR CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE TATTOO, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. ALVARADO WAS DETAINED BY ICE OUTSIDE HIS APARTMENT IN EARLY FEBRUARY AND BROUGHT IN FOR QUESTIONING.
Juan Enrique Hernandez, the owner of two Venezuelan bakeries in the Dallas area and Alvarado's boss, told Mother Jones.
One day later, he went to see him in detention and asked him to explain what happened.
Alvarado told Hernandez that an ICE agent had asked him if he knew why he had been picked up.
Alvarado said that he did not.
Quote, well, you're here because of your tattoos, the ICE agent replied, according to Hernandez.
Quote, we're finding and questioning everyone who has tattoos.
Fernandez spoke to Alvarado shortly before he was sent to El Salvador.
Quote, there are 90 of us here.
We all have tattoos.
We were all detained for the same reason, he recalled Alvarado telling him.
Quote, from what they told me, we're going to be deported.
Both assumed that meant being sent back to Venezuela.
Yeah, because that's usually what deportation is.
Instead, he's on video, the gay hairdresser's on video, others almost certainly not members of the Trenadero gang.
All right, video, kneeling, having their head shaved, being completely humiliated and destroyed.
Because of accusations against them of criminality that they never had even a moment of opportunity in a court to require the government to show the evidence that this accusation is true and therefore to contest it.
Again, when the Supreme Court said Guantanamo detainees had the right to a habeas corpus hearing to convince a court they were wrongfully detained, after years of being told, oh, don't worry, we don't need a hearing.
These are the worst of the worst.
They're not just terrorists.
They're the worst of the worst.
Turned out the government was wrong in so many of those cases with Guantanamo detainees who had nothing to do with terrorist organizations, who were often victims of mistaken identity, who were picked up because of someone wanting money, and they could point to someone and say, oh, that's a terrorist.
Just did it vindictively.
The intelligence was bad.
Governments get things wrong all the time.
It's one thing to deport somebody back to their home country.
It's an entirely different matter to throw somebody into a...
El Salvador in prison for life.
And if you are of the position like, I don't care, I'm more than willing to see completely innocent people, not just innocent in the sense that, oh, they all think it was across the border illegally, which I don't think that merits life in prison in El Salvador,
but maybe you do.
But innocent people, people who entered the United States the right way, who sought legal asylum, In a legal port of entry?
Clearly fleeing persecution?
And you're going to say, I don't care if those innocent people spend life in prison in a dungeon in El Salvador.
I'm sorry, but that is a failure of humanity.
It's almost sociopathic not to care about that.
That's the question that was brought to the Supreme Court.
The government appealed the restraining order, the injunction issued by Judge Boasberg.
And the court issued its ruling yesterday.
There you see the caption, Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, versus JGG, which is one of the people who were going to be deported with no due process.
And the government applied to vacate the injunction issued by Boasberg.
So let me just explain something.
This has been reported as a huge victory for Donald Trump.
Conservatives were celebrating, oh, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump's deportations can go ahead, they're all legal.
That's not remotely what happened.
It was a 5-4 ruling.
In dissent were the three liberal judges, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Judge Jackson.
And they were joined by Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump...
Support a judge.
A Trump-appointed judge.
But here's the thing.
The majority said, we're vacating the injunction simply for procedural reasons.
The ACLU sued in Washington.
In Washington, D.C. That's where Judge Boasberg is.
On the ground, said that's where the United States is, so that's where you're suing because you're suing the United States.
And the five justices on the Supreme Court said, no, that's the wrong place to sue.
The only place you can bring a habeas corpus hearing, which is a judicial proceeding to say that you've been wrongfully imprisoned, is in the place where you're being detained.
You can't bring it in Washington, D.C. If you're detained in Texas, you have to bring it in Texas.
And so they basically said this was brought in the wrong court, so we're taking it away from Judge Boasberg, which obviously conservatives were happy about.
They demonized Judge Boasberg, even though...
I'm just telling you, he's a very ordinary judge.
There are left-wing judges in the federal judiciary.
Not many, but some.
I mean, real left-wing.
Like, if you think Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer are left-wing, then yes, Judge Bobrick's left-wing.
But, like, the actual left, people who, like, work for legal aid or, like, NGOs or left-wing activists, there are very few of those who get through the Senate.
They're mostly, like, corporate lawyers and prosecutors, even who the Democratic president select.
But in any event...
They took it away from Judge Bloomberg, and what they said was, every time there's a detainee who's about to be deported, they have the right to sue the U.S. government and ask for a habeas corpus hearing in a federal court to require the government to present evidence of their guilt and for them to disprove the accusations.
Now, note, this is not for every deportation.
Deportations can continue as they always have.
You just go to that DOJ court, that deportation court, all you have to prove is they're here illegally.
You don't have to prove they committed any crime, they're bad people, nothing.
Just that they entered illegally, they don't have legal authorization to stay in the U.S., the deportation court authorizes the deportation, and you send them back to their country of origin.
This only applies to the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, which grants Trump immense power.
And they believe, the government believes, that once that is invoked, Trump can send them anywhere, even to an El Salvador prison, and doesn't have to give them a hearing to contest the accusations against them.
Doesn't have to give this gay makeup artist an opportunity to go into court and say, I'm not a member of Trend de Aragua.
I'm a gay makeup artist.
They've misinterpreted my tattoos here.
You can see them.
I'll tell you exactly what they are.
And there probably are some judges who won't care.
They'll just say, Trump administration can do whatever they want.
But most human beings would not easily consign people.
To life imprisonment.
If they're innocent.
So it's at least an opportunity for them to prove it.
Let the public hear as well.
And all nine justices of the Supreme Court, all nine of them, not just Sotomayor and Kagan and Brown-Jackson or even Amy Coney Barrett, but Judge Alito, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh,
John Roberts.
All of them, together, all nine, unanimously said, we agree that the United States government cannot deport people under the Alienities Act unless you first give them an opportunity, notice, and an opportunity to go into court and contest the accusations against them.
It's a victory for due process.
It's not a victory for Donald Trump and his program at all.
Here's the text.
Quote, the application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to the Chief Justice and by him referred to the court as granted.
So there.
Dissolving the injunction.
The March 15th minute orders granting a temporary restraining order in March 28th, 2025 extension by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia are vacated.
So, that's the victory.
No more nationwide injunction.
But, This is what the majority said.
The five conservative justices joined by an agreement before dissenters as well.
Listen to this.
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal.
Although judicial review under the Alien Enemies Act is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to quote judicial review.
Both as to questions of interpretation and constitutionality of the act, as well as he or she is in fact an alien enemy 14 years of age or older.
So you can do two things here.
You can go into court and you can say it's unconstitutional to invoke the Alien Enemies Act.
It's legally invalid.
We're not at war.
That's not a statute that can be invoked.
But you can also say, I'm not an alien enemy.
I don't belong to a drug gang.
Yeah, I'm in the United States.
I saw an asylum here, or even maybe I entered the border illegally, but I'm not a member of a drug gang.
The only evidence they have, make them show the evidence.
Oh, the tattoos?
No, this is an autism tattoo.
All nine members of the Supreme Court said they had that due process right.
They go on, the majority.
AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal from the United States under the act.
The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner.
As will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.
The reason I'm emphasizing that all nine justices of the Supreme Court said that is because I can't tell you how many times I've heard since this all started, this whole controversy.
Like, what are you talking about?
I've heard so many times.
What are you talking about?
These are people in the United States.
These are not citizens.
These are people who are non-Americans.
People who might even be illegal.
They don't have the right of due process.
And I kept saying, For 150 years, the Supreme Court has held otherwise.
Due process is not a present given by the Bill of Rights to this special group called American citizens.
It's intended to be a restraint on the U.S. government with respect to anyone, citizen or not, under the control of the U.S. government.
And if that weren't the case, if non-citizens didn't have the rights, then Joe Biden could have sent Jordan Peterson to prison for life with no trial.
For saying, oh, he's jeopardizing national security by criticizing my policies.
Do you think conservatives would say, oh yeah, that's constitutional.
Jordan Peterson is not an American.
He's on U.S. soil, but he has no constitutional rights.
Biden can imprison him for life just for, of course not.
Courts would instantly say that Jordan Peterson's First Amendment rights were violated, which he has, even though he's a non-citizen.
And it's been true forever of people who aren't even in the country legally.
As all nine justices said, they all have due process rights.
Which have been violated, the people who were sent to El Salvador.
Here's Justice Kavanaugh, writing separately from the majority, who wrote to say this, quote, I agree with the court's per curiam opinion, which is when an opinion issued on behalf of the whole court that becomes binding.
He says, importantly, as the court stresses, Here's Justice Sotomayor writing for the dissenters,
including Kagan and Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett.
Join parts of this opinion.
And this is what she writes.
Critically, even the majority today agrees and the federal government now admits that individuals subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to adequate notice and judicial review before they can be removed.
Begin with that upon which all nine members of the court agree.
The court's order today dictates in no uncertain terms.
That quote, individuals subject to detention or removal under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to quote, judicial review as to questions of interpretation and constitutionality of the act, as well as whether he or she is in fact an alien enemy 14 years of age or older.
That means, of course, that the government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiffs, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy as it did on March 15th.
Nor can the government quote, immediately resume removing individuals without notice upon That is not a full victory for the Trump administration.
Not at all.
It's a victory for due process, for the Constitution, and it should forever bury this idea that non-citizens don't have constitutional rights in the United States.
Supreme Court has always ruled otherwise.
They just did again, unanimously, from Justice Thomas and Melito to Kagan and Sotomayor, everybody in between.
That's not the only thing a court did.
The United States Court of Appeals, which was an appeal from a ruling from a district court, That one of the people sent to El Salvador, in particular, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia,
was, even by the U.S. government's account, mistakenly sent there because there was a deportation hold on him.
He was not permitted by a prior court, a deportation court, to be removed.
He's lived in the United States for a long time.
He's never been charged with a crime.
He's married to an American citizen.
They have an American child together that they're raising.
The only evidence that he was a member of a gang was that some informant claimed it.
There's no evidence of it, so a court put a deportation hold on him.
The U.S. government ignored that order, sent him to El Salvador anyway, where he's now wasting away in that same prison.
And a district court judge said, you have to get him back.
You sent him there unjustly, illegally, and in violation of a court order, you have to get him back from El Salvador.
And the Trump administration's position was, what do you mean?
We can't control what El Salvador does, which of course is a joke.
President Bukele's whole strategy as a country is to make himself and his country as subservient as possible to the United States and Trump.
He does whatever Trump tells him to do.
That's his whole nationwide strategy.
Beyond that, the U.S. is paying El Salvador to keep him in that prison.
So you just say, we're not going to pay you.
We want him back.
We sent you him back.
Mistakenly, of course El Salvador is going to give him back.
So the U.S. government appealed that order from a district court judge and a federal appeals court, three judges, one of whom is an appointee by Ronald Reagan.
All three ruled that that was a just order that you cannot send people to El Salvador, an El Salvador prison, when there's a deportation hold on them.
And this is what two of the judges...
Concurring in the opinion wrote, quote, The panel unanimously agrees that the district court's order requiring the government, quote, to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmer Armando Abrigo Garcia to the United States by no later than 1159 p.m. on Monday, April 7th should not be stayed.
The government's motion to stay is therefore denied.
I write to explain my view.
The United States government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process.
The government's contention otherwise and its argument that federal courts are powerless to intervene are unconscionable.
I know there's this conservative idea among a lot of Trump supporters that federal courts have no role to play in saying when the president violates the Constitution.
What's the point of having a constitution if the president can just violate it whenever he wants and no other body can do anything about it, including courts?
Since when does the United States operate that way?
We have the Bill of Rights, but if the president just ignores it and violates it and puts people in prison because of their speech or sends people to prison with no due process...
Courts have no business interfering.
Who does then?
What happens if the president violates the Constitution?
Who do you go to if you've been unconstitutionally punished by the government?
Who do you go to to ask to rule on that?
It's always been the courts.
Again, conservatives ran into the courts all the time to ask courts to enjoin a rule against Democratic presidents.
It's been going on for decades.
Just today, I'll give you an example.
Because there's this claim that only left-wing judges are doing this, when in reality these injunctions have been across the board ideologically from Republican presidents, from Democratic presidents.
Just today, as you might recall, last month or six weeks ago, the Trump administration ordered media outlets to refer to what had been the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America.
It was a major priority for Donald Trump that we call this the Gulf of America.
Associated Press didn't comply.
They kept referring to it as the Gulf of Mexico.
And Trump was enraged, and he decided to punish AP by removing and stripping them from all access to cover the president, the White House, the president's plane.
And just earlier today, this afternoon, a Trump-appointed federal district judge, a Trump-appointed district judge, appointed by Donald Trump, ruled that if you punish a media outlet because of their refusal to adopt government,
THE RIGHT OF THE FREE PRESS, THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH.
THESE ARE TRUMP APPOINTED JUDGES.
AMY CONY BEAR IS A TRUMP APPOINTED JUDGE.
You have them saying these detainees have the right of due process before they can be removed.
So, I think this is critical to realize.
I understand completely that mass immigration is a problem that most people in the country agree needs to be addressed.
Trump ran on it.
He has every right to do that.
A lot of Democrats also say they support that.
It's obviously the Democratic will.
But, above All elected leaders is the Constitution.
It's the governing document of the United States.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights, in particular, is to limit what majorities can do, to limit what elected officials can do.
It puts limits on how they can exercise their power.
You can have a majority, 90% of Americans, who say they want to imprison anyone who practices this specific religion, or who doesn't have a religion at all, who are atheists.
90% say, imprison them, banish them.
Their religion is evil.
But you have a clause in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion.
Free exercise of religion.
And so even if 90% of the country wants it, even if everyone in Congress or the President wants it, you still can't do it.
That's the point of the Bill of Rights.
It limits majoritarian power.
It's an anti-majoritarian document.
Because the founders were actually afraid of majoritarian mobs.
These were very wealthy landowners.
They were afraid the majorities would get together and take their land, just seize it.
And that's why they put into the Constitution that you cannot deprive somebody of property without due process of law or life or liberty.
Because they feared majoritarian mobs.
They created a democracy, but not one without limits.
The Constitution imposes limits.
And no matter how much you want a government to succeed in a Goal.
You have to respect the limits.
You can want the government to combat crime, to do more to put criminals in prison.
As much as you might want that, the government still can't authorize the police to break into your house and go house to house into houses with no warrants, even if that would help their cause of catching criminals, because the Bill of Rights says they can't do that.
They can't go into anyone's house without a warrant.
It's a limit on police power, on government power.
Even though it may help criminals get away, it's a liberty that we...
Guaranteed with the Bill of Rights and that we should all support.
Same thing with privacy rights and not being searched or surveilled without a warrant as well in the Fourth Amendment.
These are foundational rights that define what the United States is.
Nationalists always say, oh, America is not just a landmass.
It's not just a country attached to a bank or a shopping mall.
It has certain values, certain traditions.
These are the traditions.
These are the founding of the United States.
It's identity.
And if you're willing to authorize any politician, including the president, to just run roughshod over the Bill of Rights, including as interpreted by the Supreme Court that includes three of his own appointees,
then you don't really believe in America at all.
You might say you do.
But if you don't care about the Bill of Rights, if you think the president has the right to ignore it or transgress it, I don't see how you can say you believe in American values at all.
And fortunately, there are judges, including ones who get appointed by a president but nonetheless stay faithful to the principles that they're supposed to uphold rather than the individual or the party who are increasingly affirming that as well.
And I think it's very important for the balance of power in our system.
All right, so that concludes our show for this evening.
As a reminder, System Update is also available in podcast form.
You can listen to every episode 12 hours after the first broadcast live here on Rumble, on Spotify, Apple, and all other major podcasting platforms.
And if you rate, review, and follow our program there, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
As a final reminder, being independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers and our members to enable the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is go...
Click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page.
It will take you to our Locals community.
You can join that, which is how we support the independent journalism that we do here.
It has a wide variety of other features as well.
And those of you who wish can join Locals and support the show that way.
For those of you who have been watching this show, we are, needless to say, very appreciative.
And we hope to see you back tomorrow night and every night at 7 p.m. Eastern Live, exclusively here on Rumble.
▲
Export Selection