Trump Meets with El Salvador's Bukele: A Tyrant or a Model to Copy? Plus: Trump's Proposal to Deport Citizens There
Trump meets with El Salvador's Bukele as the Trump administration refuses to facilitate the return of a man who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Plus: Trump unveils a disturbing proposal to deport U.S. citizens.
---------------------------
Watch full episodes on Rumble, streamed LIVE 7pm ET.
Become part of our Locals community
Follow System Update:
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Facebook
LinkedIn
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On the road, we apologize for being very uncharacteristically late tonight.
We just had a few technical difficulties.
Due to the fact that I'm not in the studio, but hopefully everything is working well now and there is actually a lot to cover.
And I want to focus specifically on the meeting that President Trump had in the Oval Office with El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele because there was a great deal of things said that I think weren't a lot of analysis,
a lot of breakdown, a lot of understanding, very consequential claims that were made, claims that in some senses weren't true.
Other claims seemed to be quite radical.
It's always hard to know exactly when Trump says something, whether he really means it, whether he's doing it to be a little bit trolling, whether he's doing it to provoke some sort of response.
But it nonetheless is our responsibility if the president of the United States says he intends to do something.
He didn't just say it once.
He said it repeatedly throughout the week.
Obviously, then, it's important to...
Discuss what it is that he said in the case of a radical idea like deporting American citizens convicted of crimes to El Salvador to serve in an El Salvadoran dungeon that is notorious around the world for human rights abuses to send American citizens there.
Whether he intends to or not, whether he means it or not, again, he said it several times throughout the week, I think it's very important to take that at least seriously enough to talk about it if you object.
That's your right as a citizen, even you could say your duty, certainly a duty as a journalist.
And so we want to kind of go through the...
The conversation that he had in public and then afterward with President Bukele, as well as some of the reaction, there was a lot more said there about deportation of people who courts have ordered not be deported to El Salvador, that courts, including the Supreme Court, ordered by a 9-0 ruling.
The Trump administration do what they can to facilitate his return.
They basically said we're not going to do anything.
Both El Salvador and the United States said we're not doing anything to get him back, despite...
That 9-0 ruling by the court, including Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and the likes of me want to go through that as well, as well as the broader debate about due process and crime.
That all of this is raising, so there's certainly a lot to break down, and we will do our best to do that for you.
Before we get to that, a few programming notes.
First of all, 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, so many other devices.
And then once you do that, you can follow the programs you most like to watch here on the platform.
And if you activate notifications, which we hope you will, it means the minute any of those programs that you follow begin streaming live on the platform, Finally,
Another 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 the major podcasting platforms where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of the show.
As independent journalists, we do rely on the support of our viewers and our members.
If you want to support our program that enables us to do the independent journalism that we do every night, all you have to do is click the join button right below the video player
It takes you to the locals community where we have...
All sorts of features for you, including a lot of exclusive live content.
And most of all, it's the community on which we rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
Simply click the Join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
For now, welcome to a new episode of System Update, starting right after this word from our sponsor.
System Update.
System Update.
A lot of us think that college is only for young people.
It's somewhere you go when you're 18 or 19. Once you're done studying, you don't study anymore.
You go out and work.
You have a family.
You start taking care of responsibilities as an adult.
But there's no reason to think about the learning process as ending when you're 22 or 24 or 25. I was actually, for some reason, really thinking about this a couple of days ago that...
I think it was actually as I was traveling.
It was kind of on a plane.
It was a very clear day.
It was a vast world that you can look down on, see the mountains, see the oceans, see all sorts of things.
And you can really start to realize that no matter how much you study in this life, no matter how much you learn, no matter how scholarly you try to be, how many books you read, how many shows you try and watch, how many interviews you listen to or speeches.
There's only a fraction of knowledge about our world that you can end up acquiring, in part because there's not enough time, in part because the world is so complex that human beings haven't come close to ascertaining the truth about all of it.
But there's no reason to stop.
In fact, there's every reason to continue, which is that it's part of life to keep learning, to keep understanding.
It keeps your brain active and healthy.
It keeps your brain vibrant.
And there's nothing really in life to continue to understand, to learn, to expand.
One of the ways to do that with the long-term ours, which is Hillsdale.
Hillsdale is offering free, more than 40 online classes.
That's right, 40 online classes or more.
You can learn about the works of C.S. Lewis or the stories in the book of Genesis, the meaning of the U.S. Constitution, which I think a lot of people really need to know about.
The Rise and Follow the Roman Republic or the History of the Ancient Christian Church with Hillsdale's free online courses.
I am actually taking a course that I really like called The History of Classical Music, Pythagoras through Beethoven, which is taught by the celebrated pianist and Hillsdale College Distinguished Fellow, Hyperion Knight.
Those are the sorts of things you can learn about.
There's no reason not to know about that.
This free five lesson course explains how music has developed and what distinguishes the greatest musical achievements through Mozart and Beethoven.
If you join this course, whether you are a music novice or an affectionate of the classical style, Whatever you are interested in, you can really learn what makes music great.
For example, as you know, I'm very interested in the Enlightenment.
I talk about it all the time, and so I had a lot of fun seeing how it interacted with the late Baroque period, Art did.
The course is self-paced, so you can start and watch whenever you want.
You go right now to hillsdale.edu slash glenn to enroll.
There's no cost, and it's easy to get started.
That's hillsdale.edu slash glenn to enroll for free.
palesdale.edu slash Glenn.
Thank you.
All right, so probably a lot of you have seen this meeting between the American president and the El Salvadoran president.
Obviously, El Salvador is a small country.
The U.S. had been at war with it, had been involved in dirty wars there throughout the 1980s.
It is generally considered an underdeveloped country, and still is, but President Bukele has gained a lot of global attention, in part because the government under him just rounded up thousands and thousands of people.
Who were not convicted of crimes, but were quote-unquote suspects in gang violence.
No question, a lot of them have been swept up who are innocent, many of them guilty.
And they're put into not ordinary prisons, but prisons that are some of the cruelest, most dehumanizing and exploitative in the world.
They're purposely meant to dehumanize.
Bukele talks openly about how the fact that the prisons pay for themselves because they force the prisoners to basically engage in slave labor.
They love to take videos and photos and make all kinds of films showing the dehumanization process.
And rights have been run roughshod over in El Salvador.
There's no free speech.
You can't criticize Bukele.
If you're a journalist, you get attacked by the government.
If you do so, there's certainly no rights of due process.
People who go into this prison are meant to stay there for life.
There's violence in this prison, not from the prisoners, but from the guards.
Many of them actually have died.
And it's basically a place that you're intended never to leave.
And a lot of people in El Salvador, as often happens with authoritarianism, love their leader.
They love their authoritarian leader because it has had results.
It has significantly lowered crime in a place once plagued by a lot of violence.
It has now become significantly safer.
In general, though, we in the United States, our founding values, our constitution, the founding as based in the values of the Enlightenment, don't believe that we should sacrifice rights for safety.
The whole constitution, in fact, is intended to elevate the rights of people, even if it means impeding our ability to catch criminals.
The founders understood, because they were waging a war against the British Crown, that all the rights of the British Crown routinely invaded in the name of stopping crime, invading people's homes with no search warrant, just rushing them through a trial with no rights if they thought they were guilty.
Those were the things that had to be avoided if America was really going to be free and democratic.
And these are the things in the Constitution that you can go and read, none of which at this point is available in El Salvador.
So there is a little bit of an oddity that the person most responsible for this...
Authoritarianism. You can even call it tyranny in El Salvador, although with positive results that many of the people in El Salvador seem to like.
Again, it's not uncommon for people to love their authoritarian leader.
People crave security, crave protection if you promise them that in exchange for something they fear.
They'd be happy to give up rights.
We've seen that in American history.
That's what the war on terror was.
It's what all sorts of wars in the United States have entailed, including the Cold War.
And it's a very common formula that the American founders set out most to avoid.
So it's a little strange, to put that mildly, to see a political faction, what do you call it, MAGA movement or nationalists, whose primary objective or aspiration is to preserve American values,
venerating basically a tin-pot dictator at this point of a small Central American country.
As someone who is not just a close ally of the United States, who we pay to imprison people, even though they've never been convicted of crimes, we just send them there when their only crime is having entered the United States illegally, although some people have been sent there who haven't entered illegally,
who are in the United States legally seeking asylum, who came through a legal port on the border, port of entry, as people are told to do.
But in any event, it's not just that we're allied with him, but a lot of people seem to really admire Bukele, almost suggesting that we in the United States need to use him
So the question becomes, how much...
How many constitutional rights are we going to repudiate in the name of these other goals?
Whether, oh, we have to fight crime as though crime is rampant, more so than usual, or because of the problem of people in the country illegally.
Now, the laws of the United States make it very easy to deport someone who's in the United States illegally.
You don't even have to go to a real court.
You just issue a removal order.
You go to a special deportation court that's not even part of the Article III Judiciary.
It's just inside the Department of Justice.
I think it's Robert Stampin.
All they want to know is, is the person in the United States here legally?
And if the person can't show they are, and it's very easy.
It's just, here's my green card, here's my visa.
If they don't have that, it means they've entered the country illegally.
The court approves their deportation.
But deportation means sending them back to their country of origin.
And what has been so controversial is not that.
President Trump ran three times on a pledge of sending people in the country illegally to deport them back to their country of origin.
People voted for him in the last election based on that promise of mass deportations.
Polls show that's what people want.
That is not the issue.
There are people, I'm sure, so I don't want to say nobody, but most people involved in these debates have no problem.
With legal deportation of people in the country illegally.
That's what Trump pledged to do.
He had a democratic mandate for that.
Polls show that's what people want.
That's not the issue.
What's happening is much, much different.
And we covered this before, that people aren't being sent back to their country of origin.
They're being sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to.
They have nothing to do with.
They're not citizens of, never have been.
And they're not just being sent there.
They're being imprisoned in one of the worst prisons on the planet.
While the United States pays for their imprisonment, and they're being imprisoned for life based on allegations of criminal activity.
Oh, you're a member of Trandiagua or some other violent gang?
No due process at all for that allegation.
We're imprisoning people for life.
We're paying for their imprisonment in a foreign country based on accusations that are never proven.
And all of this, we've covered this before, but all of this became severely escalated this week when President Trump, both in his meeting with President Bukele, as well as to the White House press corps that then gathered, as well as in subsequent interviews, said that he doesn't just want to send people in the country illegally to El Salvador.
He also wants to send American citizens who have been convicted of violent crimes.
To El Salvador as well.
Take American citizens, deport them to El Salvador to disappear in this prison.
That's one of the worst human rights abusers of the world.
And that President Bukele himself says is designed to make sure nobody really ever gets out of.
And that is a radical theory when you're talking about deporting American citizens.
American citizens cannot be deported.
There's never been any kind of principle that suggests that that can happen, let alone sent to a foreign prison, not on American soil, meaning you don't have access to your family, you don't have access to your lawyers, you don't have access to American courts if your human rights are being violated.
These are all rights of American citizenship, guaranteed by the Constitution, all of which would be denied that President Trump's.
Now, as I said, President Trump often says things that he doesn't really mean.
And that's why...
I personally don't believe in becoming hysterical every time he opens his mouth and says something because a lot of it is intentionally provocative or designed to achieve some other goal.
But when you're talking about, in the context of a lot of already radical proposals, like sending people in the country to El Salvador to be imprisoned for life with no due process, even sending people there when there's a 9-0 Supreme Court order saying you have to get them back and refusing to do so,
meaning 9-0, all the...
The Trump administration itself admits...
They did it by accident.
It was a bureaucratic error.
But now they and Bukele are saying, nothing we can do.
We're not going to try and get him back to the U.S. Even though there was a deportation hold on him from a real court, followed by a 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court that they have to do everything they can to facilitate his return.
But let me start with this proposal about citizens, American citizens, being sent to El Salvador.
It's something Trump said repeatedly throughout this week.
And I don't think he was kidding.
Whether he's kidding or not, it still deserves comment.
Not hysteria, but commentary.
Here was the first time Trump said it when he was...
This was, I believe, Fox News covering the Oval Office meeting.
He's made it a very safe place.
People go and they feel very secure and safe.
He's also built one, but other also prisons, very big ones.
And we're using his system because we're getting rid of our criminals from out of the United States who were allowed to come in by Biden.
We're getting them out.
And the president is helping us with that, President Bucheli.
Could we use it for violent criminals, our own violent criminals?
I call them homegrown criminals.
The ones that grew up and something went wrong and they hit people over the head with a baseball bat and pushed people into subways.
Just before the train gets there, like you see happening sometimes.
We are looking into it and we want to do it.
I would love to do that.
So there's a type of homegrown citizens, people who were born in the United States, grew up in the United States, and if it wasn't clear, he made explicitly clear when asked other times that he means American citizens.
First of all, here is him being asked in the Oval Office whether...
American citizen can be deported to El Salvador.
You mentioned that you're open to deporting individuals that aren't foreign aliens, who are criminals, to El Salvador.
Does that include potentially U.S. citizens, fully naturalized Americans?
If they're criminals and if they hit people with baseball bats over their head that happen to be 90 years old, and if they rape 87-year-old women in Coney Island, Brooklyn.
Yeah, yeah, that includes, and what, do you think there's a special category of person?
They're as bad as anybody that comes in?
you. Thank you.
I mean, that should be a shocking comment.
Yes, American citizens are actually a special category in the United States.
The reality is, and the Supreme Court has ruled this over and over, including just two weeks ago by a 9-0 ruling.
That everybody in the United States, not just citizens, even people here legally in the U.S., have a right to due process before they're sent to prisons to have a court review whether the allegations against them are valid, are sustainable by evidence.
But American citizens, nobody disputes that American citizens have all the guarantees of the bill, right?
Even if you commit crimes, you don't lose.
Your protections of citizenship, stripping you of your citizenship or deporting you are not recognizable punishments under the law or the Constitution for committing a crime.
In fact, some of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights are explicitly meant to protect criminals.
People accused of vicious crimes still have the right to due process.
They still have the right to an attorney.
They have the right against self-incrimination.
They have a right to a speedy trial.
Even people who are convicted are protected against what the Constitution calls cruel and unusual punishments.
And the founders talked about all the time the need to protect the rights, not just of the innocent, of the guilty.
So when Trump says, why, American citizens, are they in a special category when it comes to shipping them to El Salvador?
Yes, yes, American citizens are in a special category with a lot of rights.
For example, if you're an American citizen, you cannot be refused entry in the United States.
If you come back to the United States, you can be arrested at the border, but you cannot be refused entry.
That's one of the rights of citizenship.
And even if you're convicted of crimes, you still have rights in prison.
You have the right to speak to your lawyer.
You have the right to bring what you claim are legal or constitutional violations to an American court.
You have the right, if there's new evidence discovered, to contest your conviction and to ask a court to overturn it, which happens quite frequently.
You can't be subject to abusive prison conditions or cruelty.
These are all foundational American rights for American citizens.
If you're comfortable with this idea that, no, there's nothing special about being an American citizen, they can be treated exactly the same way as people in the country illegally.
Even when it comes to deporting you if you're convicted of a crime?
I just want you to think about what would happen if the next Democratic president, I don't know, Gavin Newsom or whoever, Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttigieg, decides that people who committed violent crimes in connection with January 6th, or if there's another protest like it and it spills into violence,
yeah, they're Americans, but they're going right to a dungeon in El Salvador.
If you believe that American citizens can be deported to El Salvador, and not just to El Salvador, but to one of the world's worst prisons, you don't have any rights there.
You don't have a right to speak to a lawyer.
You don't have a right to file court hearings or appeals or motions or new lawsuits.
You have nothing.
No rights.
All your rights are stripped from you, including rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
If you believe Trump can do that, then why can't the next Democratic president do that?
And it's true for all the things Trump's doing.
Requiring colleges and universities not to hire certain professors who have certain ideologies, putting speech codes on college campuses as a condition for getting federal funding, as what happened with Harvard.
And we'll talk about that a little bit in a second.
But I just want to focus more on this because, again, I understand how Trump functions.
I've watched him for a long time.
I'm not somebody who goes insane and gets hysterical.
The minute Trump opens his mouth and just says something off the cuff, this is not off the cuff.
He said it multiple times.
Here's another part of his conversation that was kind of in private with Bukele, but not really because he knew there were cameras there.
He's very press-savvy.
He understands that this was being recorded.
And here's what he said with Buckele.
It's not big enough.
So this is a much different office than you're in.
All right, there's Trump saying to Bukele, look, I don't want to just send foreign nationals to El Salvador.
I don't want to just send people who enter the country illegally.
I want to send our own citizens, homegrown criminals.
So we need you to build five more prisons like the mega prison that you built.
But maybe there's a little bit of a facetiousness in there, but when it aligns with everything he's saying publicly, in the press briefing, in the Oval Office, when he's sitting with Bukele in interviews after, Sorry, that's just too radical of an idea not to object to now,
not wait until it starts to happen.
And here's one of the things that has been a concern, which is the idea that all these people being deported from American campuses for the crime of protesting or denouncing Israel is not people in the United States illegally.
They're all people here legally.
Some of them have student visas, but...
A couple of them now are green card holders, at least a couple, meaning they're intended to be permanent residents in the United States on the path to citizenship.
So the question then becomes, what's next?
We've got up the scale.
Illegal, people in the U.S. illegally, people who have work in student visas, people who have green cards.
And the concern is the next step is people who are naturalized Americans, people who weren't born in the United States, who didn't begin life as a citizen, but who became American citizens during their life.
People like Elon Musk, Melania Trump, Sebastian Gorka, David Sachs.
We never had this distinction before between Americans born on American soil who are real Americans and naturalized Americans who are something less.
There's no category or hierarchy of American citizenship.
All American citizens are the same.
But based on things Marco Rubio has said, you can easily envision the State Department saying, Oh, these people who participated, even citizens, in protests against Israel, they obtained their citizenship on false pretenses because they didn't tell us they were going to do that.
As if they were prescient enough to know that there was going to be this incomparably horrific war in Gaza when they came four years ago or three years ago or seven years ago or ten years ago or twenty years ago.
And then after that, if you can do that to naturalized citizens, you can do that to citizens.
And that's not a slippery slope hysterical argument.
That's the way you have to think as a citizen.
In which direction is this going?
Where does this end?
And so the fact that Trump is now talking about American citizens as not being special in any way when it comes to things like deportation, and even openly talking about sending them to El Salvador, that is a sign that that's something to be concerned about.
Not hysterical over, but...
Concern enough to report it, to analyze it, to object to it, to explain why it would be a radical departure from everything that America has ever stood for since its founding.
Now, I just want to emphasize again that there seems to be this growing sense.
I don't know what to do about it.
Probably you can't stop it.
It's something people want to believe.
But every time I've talked about any of these issues, due process or free speech...
When it comes to deportation in Colombia or sending people to prison in El Salvador with no due process, people always say, these rights in the Constitution, free speech, due process, these are for American citizens only.
Not for people who are on our soil who aren't citizens.
And as I've shown you many times, there's a 150-year history of Supreme Court jurisprudence saying exactly the opposite.
That the Bill of Rights is not a package of gifts bestowed upon a special group of people called American citizens.
It's an instrument for restraining government power and therefore
to what the government can do to anybody under American sovereignty and control and on American soil, regardless of who they are.
If they're just human beings, these are rights they have.
The Supreme Court ruled this in a major case in 2008 called Budimini v.
Donald Rumsfeld, where people in Guantanamo Who are wrongfully accused, who are imprisoned indefinitely with no trial, argued to the Supreme Court that they have the right of habeas corpus to go to a court and present evidence that they've been wrongfully accused.
The Supreme Court ruled in their favor and said they do have that due process right.
And all nine justices of the Supreme Court, Scalia, Thomas, agreed that noncitizens under American control have the right to constitutional protections, including due process, before they're punished and imprisoned.
The split there was whether Guantanamo should be considered American soil.
And the majority said because the U.S. exercises sovereign power over Guantanamo, it applies to the people there.
But everybody agreed.
All nine justice is not even in dispute.
But the Bill of Rights doesn't just apply to citizens, but to anybody under the control of the American government, which obviously includes people inside the United States on American soil.
And just to underscore how incontrovertible this is, how uncontroversial within the judiciary it is, not among left-wing judges, not among establishment judges, but even among the judges who are most beloved by the American right, just two weeks ago, just two weeks ago,
the Supreme Court, by a 9-0 ruling, said that you cannot deport Venezuelans or other people under the Alien Enemies Act.
Which gives the president a lot of power if he declares war to remove people.
Even with those extreme powers, said the nine justices unanimously on the Supreme Court, they have to be given notice and a hearing and judicial review of whether or not the accusations against them are in fact valid.
This is all nine justices on the Supreme Court.
Remember, these are people in the country illegally, and that is still with Clarence Thomas and Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch and everyone else on the court.
John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justiceists, all of them agreed on that.
Here is the court decision.
The case is titled Donald Trump versus JGG, which is one of the Venezuelan foreign nationals illegally in the United States that they were planning to not go through deportation but to send to El Salvador prison based
on the invocation of the American Enemies Act.
The court split on...
Where they can bring the case.
But the court agreed unanimously that they have the right to be heard before they're deported under the Elinities Act.
Again, not deported in the sense that if the government proves they're here illegally, they just go back to their home country.
If the government wants to remove them under the AEA and send them to a different country where they're going to be imprisoned, they have to have a hearing, said the Supreme Court in this case unanimously.
Here's what the...
Court agreed to.
Again, they did vacate the injunction issued by Judge Bosberg because they said it shouldn't have been brought in Washington.
majority said by a five-to-hour ruling it has to be brought in the place where the detainees physically are.
They have to bring it in Texas.
They have to bring it in Arizona, wherever they're being kept.
Not in Washington.
They said the injunction is not valid because it should never have been brought there.
But they just brought it the same case the next day but in a different venue where they were.
This is on the substance, what the court said by a 9-0 ruling.
Quote, the detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal.
Summary removal, meaning removal with no process.
The court went on, although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to quote judicial review.
As to both questions of interpretation and constitutionality of the act, meaning whether Trump has the right to invoke it even though we're not at war with a foreign country, as well as whether the person to be removed, quote, is in fact an alien enemy 14 years of age or older, meaning that's what the statute allows.
So they can contest either that Trump has no right to invoke the Alien Enemies Act because it's only for wartime, we're not really at war in the sense that the founders meant it.
And the framers of this law meant it.
Or they can argue that they're not an alien enemy because they're not part of a Venezuelan drug gang.
The court went on.
AEA detainees, meaning people in the United States illegally, quote, must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Alien Enemies 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.
Here is the Supreme Court saying, yes, they're here illegally.
They still have due process rights and the right of habeas corpus before they're punished by being sent to a foreign prison for life.
So, if you're so radical that you think Justice Thomas and Justice Alito and Justice Gorsuch and the rest are too permissive in their reading of the Constitution, too activist, I would suggest that the extremist is you.
Then, here is Justice Kavanaugh, who concurred in the opinion that you have to bring it in the place where you're detained, but nonetheless wrote separately to emphasize this.
Quote, I agree with the court's per curiam opinion.
Importantly, as the court stresses, the court's disagreement with the dissenters is not over whether the detainees receive judicial review of their transfers.
All my members of the court agree that judicial review is available.
The only question is where that judicial review should occur.
Just Kavanaugh writing separately to say, that we all agree, all nine of us.
That people in the country illegally to be removed by the AA have to have sufficient notice to challenge their removal in court by arguing either the act is improperly invoked because we're not at war or that they are not members of a violent gang.
And then here is the four judges who dissented on the question of where you have to bring the case.
And this is a decision by Soto Sonia Mayor that Elena Kagan and Justice...
Ketanji Brown Jackson, as well as Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, joined in parts.
And it also said, critically, even the majority today agrees, and the federal government now admits, that individuals subjected to removal under the Alien Enemies Act are entitled to adequate notice and judicial review before they can be removed.
Begin that upon which all nine members of the court agree.
The court's order today dictates in no uncertain terms that individuals subject to detention and removal under the act are entitled to, quote, judicial review.
That means, of course, that the government cannot usher any detainees, including plaintiff, onto planes in a shroud of secrecy, as it did on March 15, 2025, nor can the government, quote, immediately resume removing individuals without notice upon vacature of the TRO as a promise the district court it would do.
I mean, I don't understand how conservatives who say that the model of a Supreme Court judge is Clarence Thomas and Justice Sam Alito and Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, all of whom said that due process is entitled,
That people in the United States illegal are entitled to this due process and habeas rights can simultaneously say the Constitution doesn't apply to people in the United States unless you're a citizen.
Even if you want to disregard 150 years of jurisprudence, that all has said the same by Supreme Courts of every kind.
you.
What about this opinion two weeks ago that 9-0 ruled against Trump's administration and said no due process is required.
You can't just sweep people up and put them on a plane to El Salvador and say, oh, sorry, they're already there.
There's nothing we can do.
Because everybody under the control of U.S. government has constitutional rights.
That is how the Constitution has always been understood, interpreted, and applied.
Now, that was that case, about whether you can remove those five Venezuelans who sued to prevent their removal, that Judge Bosberg blocked them from being deported.
After this ruling, they did what the court said.
The detainees in Texas brought their case to a Trump-appointed judge in Texas.
They brought it in Texas.
A Trump-appointed judge got the case.
This is not a Trump-appointed judge in a blue state.
This is a Trump-appointed judge in Texas.
Meaning it's Greg Abbott and John Cornyn and Ted Cruz who are recommending them along with local GOP legal groups.
And this Trump-appointed judge also said the aid cannot be removed without a hearing based on the Supreme Court ruling.
Now, so that was one case.
Then there was the case of the El Salvadoran.
Who is in the United States, who entered the United States illegally, but then married an American citizen, is raising an American child, hasn't been arrested, hasn't been charged with crimes in many years, whom the Trump administration says is a member of MS-13,
but a deportation court said there's a hold on his deportation because we have to have judicial proceedings to see if he's removable.
The Trump administration swept him up, the ICE agents did, and sent him to El Salvador and admitted they did so, quote, mistakenly.
But they weren't supposed to deport him.
They weren't supposed to remove him because there was an order of the court preventing it.
A federal district judge, after learning about that, after hearing the Trump administration admit they shouldn't have removed him, that they did it mistakenly, said, you have to get him back.
And this idea that we can't get him back from El Salvador is a joke.
The United States pays El Salvador for every prisoner.
Bukele's national strategy is to be as subservient to Trump as possible.
If Trump said, I want that guy back, he'd be back in a minute.
But the district court judge ordered that they get it back.
And then the Trump administration appealed it to the Supreme Court.
And again, by a 9-0 ruling, the Supreme Court...
Weakened the injunction a little bit.
They said you can't mandate that the U.S. government get him back because maybe they can't.
But the Supreme Court, again, all nine justices said you have to do what you can to facilitate his return and prove to the court what you did to try.
We're not saying you have to get him back, but we're saying you have to do your best efforts to get him back, to facilitate his return.
Reporters raised this with Trump and said, what about the guy that you admit you sent to an El Salvadoran prison mistakenly that the Supreme Court said you have to get back?
He said to Stephen Miller, well, what happened there?
And this is what Stephen Miller said about the court ruling.
Here's how he described the court ruling to Trump in front of reporters.
I want you to listen to this, and I'm going to show you what the court ruling said, and you can decide for yourself if Stephen Miller was lying, because he is.
Listen to what he said.
Can you just also respond to that question?
Because, you know, it's asked by CNN and they always ask it with a slant because they're totally slanted because they don't know what's happening.
That's why nobody's watching them.
But would you answer that question also, please?
Yes, gladly.
So, as Pam mentioned, there's an illegal alien from El Salvador.
So, with respect to you, he's a citizen of El Salvador.
It's very arrogant, even, for American media to suggest that we would even tell El Salvador how to handle their own citizens as a starting point.
And two immigration courts found that he was a member of MS-13.
When President Trump declared MS-13 to be a foreign terrorist organization, that meant that he was no longer eligible under federal law, which I'm sure you know, you're very familiar with the INA, that he was no longer eligible for any form of immigration relief in the United States.
So he had a deportation order that was valid.
Which meant that under our law, he's not even allowed to be present in the United States and had to be returned because of the foreign terrorist designation.
This issue was then by a district court judge.
Completely inverted, and a district court judge tried to tell the administration that they had to kidnap a citizen of El Salvador and fly him back here.
That issue was raised to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components reversed 9-0 unanimously, stating clearly that neither Secretary of State, nor the President could be compelled by anybody to forcibly retrieve a citizen of El Salvador from El Salvador,
who, again, is a member of MS-13, which, as I'm sure you understand, rapes little girls, murders women, murders children, is engaged in the most barbaric activities in the world, and I can promise you, if he was your neighbor, you would move right away.
So you don't plan to ask for any help to get him back?
And what was the ruling in the Supreme Court, Steve?
Was it 9-0?
Yes, it was a 9-0.
In our favor.
In our favor, against the district court ruling, saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States.
As Pam said, the ruling solely stated that if this individual, at El Salvador's sole discretion, was sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time.
No version of this legally ends up with him ever living here because he is a citizen of El Salvador.
That is the president of El Salvador.
Your questions about it, per the court, can only be directed to him.
I mean, the dishonesty in that is so multifaceted.
Nobody was suggesting that the U.S. government go and kidnap somebody from El Salvador.
The district court said the United States government controls this whole process.
It pays to send these people to El Salvador.
It pays the El Salvadoran government to keep them in prison.
El Salvador is making a profit on it.
The United States is paying them to say nothing of the money they earn from the slave laborers.
Well, every prisoner that goes, they earn profit from that too.
The issue was, they had to tell Bukele, we want this person back.
And as I'm about to show you, Bukele, when he was asked about it, said, he didn't say, I'm not sending him back even if Trump says to, even if the Trump administration says I should.
He said, I'm powerless to send him back.
How could I send him back?
I'd have to smuggle him into the United States.
That's illegal.
But obviously, if the Trump administration followed the court order, the Supreme Court order, And did everything possible to facilitate his return, then Bukele wouldn't be kidnapping him or smuggling him back to the United States.
He would be doing what the Trump administration told him to do, which is give us that guy back.
We send him to you by accident.
So I want you to listen to this order, what it actually says.
Again, there's a 9-0 ruling by the Supreme Court.
And as I said, it is true that they weakened the language of the injunction.
The injunction in the lower court said the U.S. government must get him back.
The Supreme Court said, look, we can't force the government to get him back because maybe they can't.
Maybe there's things in diplomatic relations that we shouldn't be involved in that make it impossible.
But what they do have to do is facilitate, do everything to facilitate his return and then show the court what they've done.
Not take the position, we don't want him back.
The opposite.
And again, the Supreme Court order, not a district court order, a Supreme Court order, 9-0 with all the conservative justices.
Here's what they said.
Quote, on March 15, 2025, The United States removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement.
Second, the United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.
The United States represents that the removal to El Salvador was the result of, quote, an administrative error.
Remember, there's all nine deaths in the Supreme Court.
On Friday, April 4th, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the government to, quote, facilitate and effectuate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11.59pm on Monday, April 7th.
On the morning of April 7th, the United States filed this application to vacate the district court's order.
The order properly requires the government to, quote, facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not improperly been sent to El Salvador.
And for its part, the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
Does that sound remotely like what Stephen Miller said?
Oh, the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing in our favor.
That is...
Absolutely the opposite of what the Supreme Court said.
Again, they did say, we can't force you to get him back, but we can force you to do everything we can to facilitate his return.
And since Bukele's argument for why he can't send him back is, I can't smuggle illegally a terrorist into the United States, all the Trump administration has to say is, no, we authorize you to send him back, as the Supreme Court ordered.
And then that'd be the end of it.
And while, yes, he's a citizen of El Salvador, he was in the United States, subject to a court's ruling that he can't be deported.
And we're at the point where someone thinks, like, I don't even care if Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito sign onto an order.
It shouldn't even matter.
It should just be if the Supreme Court orders something.
That's the rule of law.
That's how it functions.
If judges overstep their boundaries, the solution is not to ignore their orders, their court orders, which, by the way, Trump at the very beginning of his administration said, I will never ignore a court order.
If the Supreme Court rules something, I will abide by it.
But this is all the conservative justice as well, saying you have to get it back, and then there's Stephen Miller saying, nine to zero, they ruled in our favor!
When I just read you what they said, that not only do they have to facilitate this person's return, you don't have to agree with it, but that's what the court ruled, and then be prepared to show the court what it did to do so.
Just to be clear, the United States government, the Trump administration, admitted that it should not have deported him and sent him back to El Salvador.
In the United States District Court, on March 31st, this is what the court said, quote, Now,
As I said at the start, nobody disputes the government's power to deport people in the United States illegally.
But you have to go through deportation courts, and if you want to throw them into prison, you have to, as the Supreme Court ruled 9-0, give them due process.
But your guy has to have the right to be able to say, I'm not a member of MS-13.
There's no evidence against me.
And the evidence is unbelievably dubious that he's a member of MS-13.
Unbelievably dubious.
The question is the rule of law.
Should the Trump administration, should Trump be free to just do what he wants, even when court orders rule that it's unconstitutional and illegal?
Just ignore it all.
Kind of be a king.
I mean, that's what a king is, right?
A king is somebody who exercises power.
With zero restraints on what he can do, not the bounds of the Constitution, not the bounds of law.
This is my main critique of Bush and Cheney and then Obama during the War on Terror was that they had embraced these theories of Article II executive power that basically said we're above the Congress or above the courts.
But they never really went so far as to disobey core orders.
When the Supreme Court ordered the Bush administration to give Guantanamo detainees habeas hearings, they gave it to them.
And when courts ordered those people released on the ground that there was no evidence that there were member of terrorist organizations, they obeyed that.
They released them.
That's why there are so few people walking Guantanamo.
You do actually have a constitutional crisis when the president asserts the right to ignore court orders.
We'll see.
This is going to go back to the Supreme Court.
We'll see what they say.
All right.
Now, I want to show you this part of the exchange where Caitlin Collins of CNN asked Trump and Bukele about this situation, and here's what they said.
Can President Bukele weigh in on this?
Do you plan to return him?
Well, I can't most of them suggested that a smuggle of terrorism to the United States, right?
How can I smuggle, how can I return him to the United States?
If I smuggle him into the United States, what do I do this first?
I'm not going to do it.
It's like, I mean, the question is preposterous.
How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?
I don't have the power to return him to the United States.
But you can release him inside of the United States.
Yeah, but I'm not releasing, I mean, we're not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country.
And you just turned the murder capital of the world to the safest country, the Western Hemisphere, and you want us to go back into releasing criminals so we can go back to being the murder capital of the world.
And that's not going to happen.
Well, they'd love to have a criminal reaction.
I mean, there's...
First of all, this word terrorist has been completely abused to the point where it's meaningless.
Just anyone you don't like is a terrorist.
Even if he's a drug gang member.
That's not terrorism.
Terrorism is the use of violence against the civilian population for political change or the threat of violence.
This is not about political change, MS-13.
They're a violent gang about profit, profiting off the drug trade.
But everyone's now a terrorist.
You criticize Israel on the campus, you're a terrorist.
You protest against Israel, you're a terrorist, even if you're not using violence.
Everything's a terrorist.
Everyone's a terrorist, just like in the War on Terror.
That's what happened in the War on Terror.
You would say, hey, why are you imprisoning these people for life with no trial?
Why are you kidnapping them off the streets of Europe and sending them to Egypt and Syria to be tortured?
Why are you having CIA black sites where they go to beyond the reach of any human rights organization?
Why are even American citizens being picked up and detained with no trial?
And they would say, Why are you defending terrorists?
He would say, no, no, the whole point is you don't know that they're terrorists unless the government proves that.
They're going to take the government's say-so.
That's contrary to everything the United States is about.
As the Supreme Court said two weeks ago, even people legally in the country who the government wants to remove as alien enemies are entitled to a hearing.
Even accused Nazis, Nazi sympathizers or Nazi operatives during World War II, proposed to be removed of the AA.
When it was invoked because there was a real war, even they got a hearing.
That's what this is all about.
It's just about the kind of country you want to be.
And I think what's very dangerous is President Trump is like oozing love and admiration and praise for President Bukele.
As though that's the model of a leader.
I mean, again, there are authoritarians in the world who are popular.
Putin is popular.
There are a lot of authoritarian leaders who are popular because people want strong men.
They want father figures.
They want results.
I understand that people who live in El Salvador were terrorized by crime for a long time.
It's terrifying to live in a place where there's huge amounts of crime.
Of course, people want that eliminated.
But in the United States, there are values about how you can do that and how you can't.
And one of the ways you can't do that is by just sweeping up.
Many, many thousands of people, knowing you're probably sweeping up a bunch of innocent people because you're not getting their trials and just saying, just lock them all up forever.
Some innocent people will be locked up forever, but at least the criminals are off the street.
That's not an American value.
It's an anti-American value.
The Constitution was written to prevent exactly that.
The founders often spoke about how horrified they were by that mindset.
But this game, like, Duque, who says, I can't smuggle them back in the United States, the Supreme Court has said the government has to make it happen.
Now, this is...
It's just so interesting, too, you know, there's this America First movement, which means, like, we prioritize our own country, not foreign countries, not foreign leaders, not foreigners.
And this is Bukele mocking American justice in the American judiciary, as he's done before.
Remember when the court originally imposed an injunction on Venezuelans, 238 of them, being sent to an El Salvadoran prison?
At least some of whom were clearlier.
Almost certainly innocent, even though we've had no evidence, no trial.
You can't say that for certain.
That's the problem with no evidence, no trial.
The government just says so.
And they basically ignored the court order.
The court order was issued orally.
They put him on the plane anyway.
That was when Judge Boesberg ordered the airplane to turn around because it violated his order.
And then Buckele went on Twitter on X and in response to an article saying they shipped...
Them to El Salvador anyway, despite a court order, he said, oopsie, too late.
With a laughing emoji, laughing at our judiciary.
And a lot of America First people, a lot of MAGA people cheered, oh, a foreign leader is mocking our court system, our constitutional order.
We're so happy about that.
This just doesn't seem very America First to me.
Quite the opposite.
Like, we're now trying to emulate a Central American tyranny.
That's how you make America great again, by making it more like El Salvador.
Here's the New York Post on March 17th that makes clear that for every prisoner the United States is sending to El Salvador, the United States is paying them $6 million to jail hundreds of Venezuelan gang suspects.
Works out to $25,000 per detainee, a 43% discount on average U.S. prison costs.
Does that sound acceptable to you?
We have American prisons.
We have a whole system of laws governing how our prisons operate for our citizens.
We have rights established by decades of courts and now we can just send them to an El Salvadoran prison where all these rights are disregarded explicitly and are considered jokes.
And obviously the fact that we're paying these people to be there means of course we can get back anybody we want.
El Salvador is one of the most It says they did decrease violence.
Everybody understands that.
But arbitrary arrests and mass pretrial hearings undermine new process and exacerbated historically difficult conditions in overcrowded prisons.
There were reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, largely stemmed from deaths of detainees, while in prison, either from medical neglect or physical abuse.
The Human Rights Non-Governmental Organization, Socorro Judiciario Humanitariano, which is basically...
Aiding humanitarian justice, recorded the deaths of 79 detainees as of August 16th and determined that 33 of the deaths were violent.
The human rights organization Christozal confirmed 71 deaths of detainees and determined that 13 of the deaths showed signs of violence, including beatings by a club or baton.
In March, the...
Newspaper El País interviewed several released detainees, one of whom Starr stated prison guards beat his cellmate to death.
Socorro Juridico Humanitariano reported that 21 detainees died from a lack of medical attention.
There were reports that security and law enforcement officials arrested prisoners and did not inform their family of their whereabouts, and on and on.
I mean, these prisons have been deemed human rights abuses all throughout the world.
In October of last year, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued a report on the crackdown on press freedoms and freedom of speech that journalists have been harassed and criminalized for criticizing the government.
All the things that I understood the American right was opposed to, at least, under Biden.
Censorship and criminalizing dissent and attacking the government.
I don't think these are things we want to emulate.
I don't think these are things we want to admire.
Amnesty International issued a report in December of last year that basically Bukele is ruling by a state of emergency that he claims gives him the right basically to eliminate all rights and liberties.
And then Human Rights Watch also issued a report on El Salvador in January of this year.
Saying under the state of emergency, police and soldiers have conducted hundreds of indiscriminate raids, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, arresting over 81,000 people and courting more than 3,000 children.
Authorities reported in August 2023 that 7,000 people have been released from prison since the start of the state of emergency.
Many detainees have no apparent connection to gang-related violence.
Arrests often appear to be based on the detainee's appearance and anonymous complaints rather than on evidence.
Security forces routinely fail to present warrants or provide reasons for arrest.
Many detentions appear to have been driven by a policy of quotas imposed by commanders of the National Civil Police.
The Bekele administration has undermined the rule of law, including by packing the courts and approving legislative changes that expand government control over the judiciary.
And then AP reported in January of 2023 that there was a massive leak from the El Salvadoran government and that data confirmed all of these abuses.
One of the things, I thought we had this, but apparently we don't, but I just want to make clear because so often we talk about, and especially the American right and nationalists talk about, we want to preserve American values.
They say America is not just a geographic location.
It's not just an economy.
It's not just a landmass connected to a shopping mall.
It's a nation of traditions, of ideals that define the people of the country.
And we have to preserve these American values from people who come from foreign countries who don't share those values.
Now, leaving aside the fact that Trump has created a program where he says that basically anyone in the world...
No matter where you live, no matter who you are, if you just pay me $5 million, pay the government $5 million, you get an instant citizenship.
I'm sure there's some betting there, but it seems like that's kind of contrary to this idea that American citizenship is sacred because it's based on a people and a set of ideas.
Oh yeah, we'll sell it to anyone in the world.
Just pay $5 million and you become an American citizen.
Gold citizenship, it's called.
Leaving that aside, you can go and read what the American founders thought.
Entire worldview came from the values of the Enlightenment.
And the Enlightenment happened because human beings had lived for two centuries under centralized tyrannical rule, where powerful institutions dictated to people even what truth and falsity was and punished anyone who challenged or questioned that.
Maybe emperors or monarchs or churches.
And the Enlightenment was a rebellion against this idea that we can't decide for ourselves through free and open discourse and debate what we ourselves believe without the government or some institution of power telling us, dictating to us what we can and can't think and what we can and can't say, what we can and can't decide as truth and falsity.
That's what made the Biden administration's coercing a big tech to remove dissent about COVID and Ukraine and so many other things and the whole disinformation industry that has emerged after 2016 so pernicious.
It's exactly what the Enlightenment was created to avoid, to battle, to liberate us from.
The idea that there are these people residing above us who dictate to us and hand down judgments about truth and falsity, but they were also extremely fixated on things like free speech and academic freedom, meaning the government can't come in and tell Harvard and Columbia, oh, you can't have these people who believe these things.
You have to have your curriculum subject to our review.
You have to impose much greater and broader hate speech codes to expand the definition of anti-Semitism to include a bunch of common criticisms of Israel, as the Trump administration is doing.
All these are war on unlightenment values.
Thank you.
But so is due process.
That was fundamental not just to the Enlightenment but to the American founding.
Blackstone, if you go to law school, you learn and study that Blackstone, the British legal scholar and thinker, philosopher, basically became the foundation of American law.
We have an Anglo-American legal system.
It comes from the Anglo tradition.
Blackstone is essentially the founding philosopher of American justice and the American founding, the American legal system.
He said, Blackstone did, That it's better to allow ten guilty people to go free than one innocent person to be unjustly punished or imprisoned.
You'd rather have ten guilty people go free, ten guilty people, people guilty of crimes go free, than one innocent person be imprisoned.
That the injustice of one innocent person being imprisoned or punished falsely, even though they're innocent, is much greater than allowing these ten criminals to go free.
Benjamin Franklin pretty instrumental pretty vital to the American founding you can argue that other than Jefferson and Madison nobody even comes close to the influence that Benjamin Franklin had on the founding of American ideals
said he took that back
It's better to allow 100 people, 100 guilty people to go free than to have one innocent person unjustly imprisoned.
The foundation of our Bill of Rights is that we make judgments.
We have all sorts of protections that we know make it harder for the police to get criminals, that we know make it harder for us to convict criminals.
We want to have a lot of barriers to convicting criminals.
We don't want the government to just be able to call somebody a criminal and then punish them with life in prison because it's better to allow 10 guilty people to go free than one innocent person to be punished.
That's why it's so hard.
That's why there's all these rights in the Bill of Rights if you're charged with a crime.
The right to process, the right to a speedy trial, the right to be tried by a jury of your peers, the right against self-incrimination.
It goes on and on and on.
The right not to have the police be able to enter your home without a search warrant, even though it would make it so much easier for the police to catch criminals, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, if they could just enter everybody's home randomly looking for the person they want to find.
No, they can't do that.
And the founders knew that would make it harder to combat crime.
But the American set of values that defines America is that we would rather have these liberties than full safety.
We don't give up our liberties for safety.
Oh my god, we're so scared of crime, that means we have to give up due process.
It's not the American way of life.
It never has been.
Anyone who claims that we want to give up due process or allow the Trump administration to control universities in the name of combating some problem is fraudulent if at the same time they're claiming that they want to preserve
values. There are people on the right who candidly admit they no longer believe in liberal democracy.
They don't believe in the founding principles.
They don't believe in these rights.
They want to have a much more concentrated set of power in one leader and a monarch, philosopher, king, tax king, Curtis Yarvin, and a lot of other people who say that, which at least they're being honest.
People say, oh yeah, we want to preserve the American life, American values, the essence of America, and at the same time want to jettison or scoff at these principles, these founding principles, these defining rights, are being fraudulent.
Maybe not consciously so, maybe they don't understand the American values they're claiming they want to defend.
But you just study the Constitution, you just read it, you just read any of the founders, and you'll see that all of this is so anathema to everything that was supposed to be the American way of life.
And again, not just for citizens, for everyone in American soil, that's something that's been affirmed by the Supreme Court for 150 years, including just two weeks ago by a 9-0 ruling.
But certainly for American citizens, such that if you hear Donald Trump or any political leader saying, I think we can deport American citizens and put them in a completely human rights abusing...
imprisonment system imprisonment in a foreign country led by an authoritarian leader what Trump would ordinarily call a shithole country if not for the fact that Bekele was so subservient to him then
Anyone who believes in American value should be objecting to this scheme and to where it's leading and to where it has already gone.
right. Imagine winning a prize worth over $100,000 just for drinking coffee.
A brand new Cybertruck and $30,000 in cash could be yours, but this is your last week to enter.
It ends April 20th.
$17.75 coffee is fueling the giveaways and every dollar you spend equals an entry, no hoops, no selling your data to some Czech diet, just small batch, single origin coffee that's roasted weekly.
and proudly supports free speech, independent media, and your core liberties.
It's the official coffee for...
...is the coffee that keeps it all moving.
Go to 1775coffee.com and use the promo code Glenn to save 15% and enter before the giveaway.
way in.
So it's a $100,000 prize with someone walking away with it.
And with one week left, it could be you.
for this evening, as a reminder,
Sism 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 where if you rate, review, and follow our program, it really helps spread the visibility of our show.
Finally, as independent journalists, as independent media, we really do rely on the support of our readers and our members and our viewers.
If you want to help support the independent journalism that we do here every night, the way to do that is by joining our locals community.
It gives you access to a wide range of interactive features.
We oftentimes, if we don't have time to continue the segment on this show, we stream it exclusively for our locals members.
We put video content interviews that we don't have time to put here.
We put professionalized written transcripts of every show that we broadcast here.
We put them there.
Every Friday night, we do a question and answer on this show, the Q&A, where we take questions throughout the week from our local members, and those are the ones that we answer.
And most of all, it's the community on which we really do rely to support the independent journalism that we do here every night.
All you have to do is click the join button right below the video player on the Rumble page, and it will take you directly to that community.
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 Rebel.
