All Episodes
Previous Next
May 15, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:03:06
Supreme Court Could END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP, Hearing Ongoing
Participants
Main voices
t
thomas massie
21:28
t
tim pool
38:59
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
The Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments about birthright citizenship, but also the ability for lower courts to issue universal injunctions.
And I gotta say, this one's getting pretty spicy and interesting, but it's not looking particularly good for the Trump administration as it pertains to birthright citizenship.
Still, we don't know exactly what will happen, but the principal arguments, probably one of the more dominant arguments, from the pro-birthright citizenship side, Is that this question was already answered some 120 years ago.
And we have over 100 years of executive action and legislation built upon the understanding that if you are born in this country, by any means, you are a citizen.
Now, Donald Trump has called this stupid, saying no one intended for people on vacation to be able to just be American citizens or to have a child who is.
And I think that there is a strong argument in what was the purpose of birthright citizenship and how does technology apply to it?
Now, one of the arguments we often hear is that the founding fathers understood technology developed.
But I also think it's fair to say that they didn't understand the degree to which it was going to develop, just that it would.
And now what do we find?
Near universally, as it applies to the Second Amendment, Two-way YouTubers have argued to me people should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons or biological weapons.
Thus, there is something within people where they consider technological development does presuppose the Constitution has limits based on what technology would be developed.
It's an interesting argument, and I don't think it's a simple principle matter.
Some might say, no, we can't go that route because they'll take away our guns or our free speech or whatever.
No, I think it's an issue of asking the moral limitations that we decide as a people, as it's always been.
Michael Malice tells me this is anarchist thinking.
The idea that only those of the power to enforce will enforce.
Sure, he's right.
We as a moral country try to figure out what makes the most sense as it pertains to law and what is the intent of the law.
Not, it's plain text reading means we can't stop birth tourism.
And people trying to destroy our country?
Well, then our country ceases to exist.
These questions need to be answered.
And unfortunately, I believe that our Supreme Court will largely be spineless.
And I believe that on the matter of universal injunctions, they'll also be spineless.
But I don't know for sure.
Of course, we're going to hear from Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, and they're usually based.
They're going to come out and they're going to say what is logically true and correct that most of us agree with.
Right now, the arguments are currently wrapping up.
I can give you the basic breakdown of what is currently happening in that regard.
Before we do, of course, shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club.
You guys rock.
Thank you for joining us in this Rumble morning lineup.
Of course, I'm your host for the noon hour, Tim Poole.
You can follow me on X on Instagram, at TimCast.
And I want to just shout all of you guys out with your viewership.
You guys tuning in every morning.
This morning show is the, on average...
7th biggest live stream in the country.
Not always hitting that number, sometimes a little better, sometimes a little worse.
As it pertains to news in general, I think we're number 4. But for all streams, thanks to you guys, it's been a tremendous show.
So I really do appreciate it.
Now before we get started, we've got a great sponsor this morning.
It is Tax Network USA.
Go to TNUSA.com slash Tim.
My friend's tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning.
If you miss the April 15th deadline or still owe back taxes, the IRS is ramping up enforcement.
Every day you wait only makes things worse.
With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure at levels we haven't seen in years.
Increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast.
The good news, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help.
Self-employed or business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got it covered.
Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track fast.
Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control.
Your consultation is completely free and acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters and surprise levies before they escalate.
Call 1-800-958-7000.
Or visit TNUSA.com slash Tim.
You may have missed April 15th, but you haven't run out of options.
Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes the next move.
So shout out to Tax Network for sponsoring the show.
Also just want to add, we are going to be joined later on by Rep.
Thomas Massey as we discuss a little bit of these issues, but largely the spending bill.
Right now the question about what Donald Trump is trying to get done hinges on whether or not Congress will pass.
This spending bill.
Now, of course, Thomas Massey's largely been against these this spending.
But I do have questions.
The Supreme Court activists, lawsuits, injunctions, they're going to jam Trump up every which way.
Unfortunately for Trump, even with the Republicans in control of the House, not everybody is in agreement on how these things should go.
So Thomas Massey will be talking to him.
And we're big fans, by the way, despite our political agreement.
Sometimes he's a really good dude.
Let's get started here with this news from Donald Trump.
Trump calls U.S. stupid over birthright citizenship updates.
President Donald Trump said Thursday morning the country is stupid for allowing birthright citizenship in the United States, adding that it leads to dysfunction of America.
The president urged the Supreme Court to test the limits of the 14th Amendment, which reads, quote, And of the state wherein they reside.
His remarks came ahead of the Supreme Court's decision to hear oral arguments on several other emergency requests from the Trump administration.
Within this argument is another question.
Can lower courts issue universal injunctions?
Guys, okay, maybe this is where Tim Pool is now more right-wing on the issue, I guess, because I tend to be pretty liberal on a lot of things.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment for literally anybody who studies history was to say, if you are a slave, okay, but you were born here, enough.
You're a citizen.
Moving on.
The purpose of the 14th Amendment was never, was not to allow a Chinese couple to fly to the U.S. on a temporary tourist visa, give birth.
And then have their child be an American citizen, fly that child back to China where they grow up for 20 years.
That Chinese national moves to the United States.
15 years later, they're running for president or they're in Congress.
If that's what the founding fathers actually thought, well, then they were setting us up for failure.
But I don't think, well, to be fair, the Founding Fathers largely didn't answer this question.
This came after the Civil War.
The 13th and 14th Amendments were largely made to address the issue of slavery.
Now, there was actually a really great quote.
Let me see if I can find it, actually.
This one matters.
The senator who wrote the 14th Amendment, senator who wrote 14th Amendment statement on foreign nationals.
Let me see if I can find that quote for you as we carry on.
With this news and information.
They say, what is it?
House bill would track advanced chips.
There's nothing related to, so this is, the rest of that is unrelated to Trump and the birthright citizenship.
So I do have the quote for you.
Let me read this.
The senator who authored the 14th Amendment was Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan.
When introducing the Citizenship Clause in 1866, he clarified its meaning regarding foreign nationals.
Quote, this will not, of course.
Include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
Now let me ask, I want to get this full quote here.
We'll get the full quote.
But in the meantime, let me pull up this from the Constitution.
And it says, let me see if I actually have the full source here.
Constitutional Accountability Center.
I want to make sure I have the full quote.
unidentified
Because...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Right.
unidentified
Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
All right.
I think I have the full...
Let's pull this in.
Let's pull this in.
This is the constitution.org.
Truths and untruths about the constitution origins of birthright citizenship.
This is from 2011, mind you.
It reads, So I'm not sure if their position on this one is going to be pro or against, But I just wanted to make sure the full quote.
Quote, every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States.
They're going to say the reason why it's important is because anti-citizenship advocates seize upon the phrase subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment.
Guarantee that all persons born are naturalized in the United States.
Okay, you get it.
The incomplete portion of the quote used by Rep Smith in his LA Times letter appears to support the view the citizenship clause was drafted to exclude children of foreigners who are not subject to the U.S. jurisdiction.
But the full sentence shows otherwise.
This is their argument.
The argument presented by the left on the issue is that it's not saying foreigners, aliens, and those who belong to families of ambassadors.
It's saying Foreigners.
Who belong?
The aliens is just a qualifier.
Now, I don't rightly care what your interpretation of that sentence is.
What matters to me is every person born in the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the U.S. This is where the mistake is being brought up and the interpretation is incorrect.
I want to show you in the actual 14th Amendment.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process.
Okay.
Now let's take a look at the 13th Amendment.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
These two amendments were specifically about resolving the issue of slavery after the Civil War.
This sentence, which opens the amendment, is clear.
The problem is, we are dealing with the children of children of children of children of children of children after these things had happened.
Now, if you want to make the argument...
That they did intend literally after this point, literally anybody born here was a citizen by all means.
My argument following this is that is untenable for a nation and it will lead to its demise.
Thus, considering the advent of transportation technologies, airplanes, we may need to reassess how we prioritize citizenship.
But I don't think we even need to go there.
I think anybody who's read about basic Civil War history can understand the goal here.
You had a bunch of people who were slaves.
You had questions as to whether This is pre-Civil War.
The three-fifths compromise.
Now, incorrectly, many people on the left believe that the North was trying to say slaves should be allowed to vote.
And the South was like, but they're not people.
Wrong.
The South, the Confederates, well, pre-Confederacy, but the Southerners.
The slave states were arguing that slaves counted as people who could vote.
The North said, no way.
You can't own a person and then have them vote.
They'll just vote for how you tell them to vote.
So they came up with a compromise.
Okay.
Each slave will count as three-fifths of a vote.
The South wanted them to be able to vote.
Not that they were granting them any decency or dignity or human rights.
So that's not to say that they were good people.
The point is, after the war ended, when they put these amendments in place, ending slavery, what was the question as to if you were a slave?
Look, if you were born here, or naturalized, of course, and you're subject to our jurisdiction, you're a citizen.
Let's break it down.
If you were not born here, and you were not subject to our jurisdiction, they were not granting you citizenship.
This excluded Native Americans.
That was that was part of it.
They were they were not saying from this point forward, literally anybody born here will be a citizen.
They were saying the people who are already born here, it was descriptive, not prescriptive.
Yet here we are.
Let me show you an example of why this is stupid.
Birth tourism organizer jailed over scheme to bring pregnant Chinese women to U.S. Is this what you think?
The leaders of this nation wanted to happen?
Now, I'll make another argument.
By all means, there's an interpretation, as I showed you this quote, where he says, this is Jacob Howard.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, accredited to the government, or foreign ministers, accredited to the government of the United States.
There's an or.
There's an oar.
Okay, throw that one out the window.
By all means, because I'm going to keep the argument going.
I believe they were saying foreigners are not going to be citizens because that's completely illogical.
Do you think if you went back after the Civil War and said, we believe, if you went to these senators, if you went to the politicians, members of Congress and the president, after the Civil War and said, let's just be clear.
We want families from China and from Tripoli to be able to come to the United States, give birth, leave, come back later, and their child will be a citizen who can run for president.
They'd be like, what?
No.
Absolutely not.
Even after the Civil War with all these amendments, they were still extremely racist.
People think the North weren't racist.
It's like, yo, it's weird how people view history, to be completely honest.
Y 'all do realize.
These people were like, the Northerners are trying to end slavery because they opposed the racist policies.
No, they didn't.
They maintained Jim Crow.
They maintained segregation.
The South was racist, but the North was very racist too.
Birth tourism.
Look at this story.
A California woman was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison in a long-running case over a business that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the U.S. to deliver babies who automatically became U.S. citizens.
U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner gave Phoebe Dong a 41-month sentence and ordered her immediately taken into custody from his federal court in L.A. Dong and her husband were convicted in September of conspiracy and money laundering through their company, USA Happy Baby.
Yikes.
The sentencing came as birthright citizenship has been thrust into the spotlight in the U.S. with the return of President Donald Trump to the White House.
Of course, this was in January.
Does anyone really believe that this is what the leaders of this country wanted to happen?
So let's pause.
Let's say they are correct on the merits in every capacity.
Then we need a change in the system right now.
And if it was expected to be that anybody born here for any reason was a citizen, time to change it.
You know what I really can't say?
I do a lot of debates with these liberals.
We have the culture war, of course.
Whenever you make the point, Where it says, we have argued this, we have asserted our positions.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's advance to the next point.
They go, aha, I won!
No, I'm saying you're wrong.
No sane person thinks that a random person from another country can just come here, give birth, and then leave, and that kid's a citizen.
That's what Trump is saying is stupid.
People on vacation give birth, and their kid's a citizen now?
It's birth tourism, and that is exploiting our goodwill.
A country cannot sustain this.
You're going to have a president who's Iranian.
Our adversaries can exploit this and then have someone run for president.
That's ridiculous.
Imagine after the war.
You went to them and said, the British crown is sending a pregnant woman here to give birth here in New York so that in 35 years they can just have him run for office and then regain control of the colonies.
They'd be like, to hell with that.
No way.
They might actually be like, we don't know or care as long as they're here and a citizen and these are the rules.
No, I think they might say, you can't have a kid born here just so you can do that.
Right.
I'll make the argument this way.
I think people should not have nuclear weapons.
I think people should not have biological weapons.
However, the Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It does not define arms because arms were understood.
The argument for the left on gun control is arms back then were muzzle-loading muskets.
And that's what they expected people to have.
Counterpoint.
People also had privateers, man-o'-wars, and grapeshot.
If you don't know, that's like when they spray a bunch of little balls.
They also had, what's the one, um, they had the, they had, uh...
It was chain rounds.
I don't know what they're called.
They would fire cannonballs chained to each other so they'd swing around like crazy stuff to maximize damage to vessels.
Private individuals had cannons.
They knew this.
Now, we recognize it's a problem if people start building nuclear weapons or radioactive devices.
So we said no.
And nobody fought against it.
Some people did.
Don't get me wrong.
But largely, even the two-way people are like, no, I'm not about that.
Okay, then you've recognized that there is a limitation based on technology for what you perceive to be a God-given right.
I don't.
I think that the Constitution needs to be amended.
That being said, I'm willing to entertain the argument that in order to maintain civilization post-technological advancement, which will keep happening, we may need to reassess not the previous standard, but the standard moving forward.
That is to say...
The founding fathers, let's just for the sake of argument, say, no, if someone's here and they give birth, they're a citizen.
Well, the problem with that is what about their parents?
That never made sense.
Let's say a Mexican family traveled a thousand miles to, you know, what is it going to be like?
Two thousand, three thousand miles from Mexico to New York.
Arrived in New York, gave birth.
And then they were like, this child is a citizen.
You're not.
Get out.
That doesn't make sense.
Why would they grant citizenship to the baby when the parents don't have any rights to be here?
And they just send them out anyway.
So that never made sense.
But let's just take an argument and say they were like, sure, okay, fine.
One thing that no one predicted, you'd be able to fly.
For real.
Even at the point when they were about to discover flight, people were claiming, scientists, that heavier than air flight was impossible.
The idea that you could travel from London to New York in a couple of hours.
A couple of hours, but, you know, five, six, seven hours.
Back then, planes were a lot slower, so I think it was like probably 10 or 12. But think about that.
They used to get on boats, and those boats took months.
And then I think after the Industrial Revolution, we had steamships.
We were able to make those trips in a matter of weeks.
But then they were like, let's put a plane.
And all of a sudden, somebody flew, and they were like, whoa.
Now what the problem is, you've got somebody.
Imagine this.
Imagine somebody.
This is how stupid the whole thing is.
Imagine somebody gets in a plane.
Let's call it a single-engine Cessna.
I don't know if it can make the trip, but let's say they modify a small plane just with two people on it.
A pregnant lady literally on the verge.
Let's just say she's literally going into labor.
The plane flies.
enters U.S. airspace, and they say, hey, you get that plane out of here.
You can't land that plane here.
You're in violation of U.S. airspace.
And they say, we're just two people.
We're doing an emergency landing.
And so the military gets involved, Air Force gets involved.
They force a landing down, approaching the vessel at gunpoint, and then opens the door.
They look inside, and literally, a minute after the plane touched down, the woman gives birth, the baby comes out, and they go, drat!
They entered this country illegally by plane, but she gave birth right in the moment, so that child is an American citizen.
Seriously?
Like, that makes sense.
It does not make sense.
There is a civic, logical purpose to why we do these things.
Now, I don't want to harp on too much, because we do have a lot to talk about.
I also want to make sure we get into the issue of universal injunctions, which did come up in this debate.
In the arguments to SCOTUS, the question of universal injunctions came up.
And I gotta say, I am flabbergasted by the political activism, political activism of the courts.
Ketanji Brown Jackson and just the liberal justice in general.
The U.S. government was arguing, you cannot enjoin the government from taking a universal action nationally.
You can't issue an injunction because one person filed a suit.
The response from, I think it was Ketanji Brown Jackson.
She was saying, so if you have someone claiming the government is doing a thing that's unlawful, and they get an injunction, how do you stop that unlawful activity from happening?
I'm sitting here like, oh my god.
She adds.
She says, I think it was, it could have been somebody else, but one of the liberal judges says, you're saying that Every single person will have to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order to get relief.
And it's like, yes, that's always been the case.
The argument the government is making is, if you're a single individual and you file a lawsuit, relief can only be granted to you.
Agreed.
They then said, so you're saying, Amy Coney Bear was even asking about this.
It's not looking good for Trump's administration.
She was saying, So what if a class is formed and, you know, here's how it's supposed to work.
Universal injunctions, I believe, are unconstitutional.
The idea that a lower court judge can block the president, literally, there's 677 district judges.
That means anything Trump does, he's going to get stopped.
Here was a great argument from the U.S. They said, we issued an order, I think it was on the military, and we got sued.
The lower court issued a universal injunction, so we appealed.
The appellate court stayed the injunction, ruling in our favor to continue pending litigation.
At that moment, another injunction was issued by a different judge stopping us.
So this is insanity.
They're correct.
Think about how stupid that is.
You say, hey, we're not going to take people in the military who are suffering from this mental disorder under the DSM-5.
Someone sues you.
Court says, you gotta let everybody in.
They go, okay, we're gonna appeal that.
Appellate court says, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Until we figure out how to handle this constitutionally, you can keep up this policy just on this individual.
Okay, thank you, courts.
They then sue in another one of the 677 jurisdictions, and they go, nope, we're gonna stop Trump now.
That means the executive branch is immobile and can do nothing.
That was, so the argument, Being made by the left is that any one of these judges can just stop the president from engaging in his own duties, which is insane.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out, my friends.
We will see.
So for now, the arguments have wrapped.
I don't know if we'll get an immediate ruling.
This is an emergency hearing, which is unusual.
It was an emergency hearing.
We're going to see if we get a quick answer on this one, but it's hard to know for sure.
I will say this.
Based on listening to the arguments, it doesn't look good for the Trump administration.
However, this is just one more issue.
The next issue is going to be whether or not Trump can get the funding he needs for his agenda.
And it ain't looking good.
A two-seat majority in Congress ain't going to be enough.
Republicans are even opposing Trump.
So smash the like button.
Share the show with everyone you know.
Thank you all so much for hanging out.
And we'll wrap up this portion of the show, and we will see you all at 4 p.m.
Rumble.com slash TimCast or YouTube.com slash TimCast.
We've got the interview with Thomas Massey pertaining to this legislation.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
For everybody else, real quickly, we've got another sponsor.
Yo, it's Bearskin.
Check it out.
I've actually been wearing this hoodie the whole time.
It's pretty great.
You can go to B-A-E-R, BearskinTactical.com, or you can text 36912.
You can text them the word Tim.
They'll send you a link.
So you guys know that I had that Bearskin Heavy Rainstorm jacket.
I was wearing it before.
Talked about it for a while.
That thing's fantastic.
And we actually, we hit up Bearskin.
We told them, can you guys, I was like, send me one of these things.
I like them.
And they ended up sending us a bunch.
They're really great.
This thing, this hoodie that I'm wearing, it actually zips into the rain jacket, which is really cool.
And then you've basically got a three-in-one hoodie-rain jacket combo.
Put them together, and you've got a full waterproof system that can handle everything from cold mornings to sudden rain or whatever.
Also, this thing's got like an insane amount of pockets on it, which I really like.
And the material's fantastic.
If you guys check out, also, yeah, 10 pockets.
They say 10 pockets inside, outside, not bulky at all.
Text the word TIM to 36912.
You'll get 60% off.
A bearskin hoodie.
And I really do appreciate them sponsoring this show.
I really do think this thing is fantastic.
And I really appreciate it.
They sent us a bunch.
Even Phil got one.
So very, very cool stuff.
They say it's an original bearskin fleece.
It's not bulky.
It's got 10 pockets.
It's really, really nice.
So again, text 36912.
You can text them right now if you're driving in the car, if you're listening on the audio side, whatever it is you're doing.
And they'll send you that link.
You'll save 60%.
Super cool stuff.
Really do appreciate it, guys.
Let's get into the next story.
We got this one from NPR.
My friends, Donald Trump may be blocked by all these judges, by all these courts.
He is currently, his administration is dealing with a Supreme Court argument over universal injunctions and birthright citizenship.
But another key component as to whether or not he's going to be able to get the job done is going to be his big, beautiful bill, they call it.
We got the story from NPR.
The latest roadblock for House Republicans' big, beautiful bill, Senate Republicans.
Indeed.
As House Speaker Mike Johnson feverishly works to finalize the details of a massive package that includes major portions of Trump's agenda, many Senate Republicans are dismissing the legislation before it even finished the House.
Unfortunately, it's a sad joke, said Senator Ron Johnson.
Wimpy and anemic were the words used by Rand Paul.
The House package, which the Speaker says he wants to advance to the Chamber before Memorial Day recess, aims for $1.5 trillion spending cuts to offset the cost of making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent.
It also contains tax breaks that Trump campaigned on in 2024.
No taxes on tips and overtime, which I'm a big fan of.
But those provisions are temporary.
Some conservatives in the House are pushing for $2 trillion in cuts.
But that's not far enough for Johnson, who wants spending levels to revert back to what they were pre-pandemic.
Senator Johnson told reporters that he believes it was a mistake for leaders to try to pass so much of Trump's agenda in one single bill.
Instead of three separate pieces of legislation that could be considered individually.
Now I'm going to tell you.
I think Speaking with Rhett Massey is going to be enlightening, though he tends to be against many of these big universal packages.
The challenge I see.
Look, my friends, I hate to say it, but I don't like these universal bills.
I don't like these big spending packages.
We should be doing single item spending.
But for right now, we have an existential crisis.
Is there room for Trump to just get this one through?
So that he can enact his agenda and make sure we clear a runway so that we are able to win moving forward.
Now, I'm going to be joined by Rep.
Thomas Massey.
Of course, we're big fans.
I think he is the we call him the best member of Congress that we got despite our disagreements.
And let's see if we can get him.
Rep.
Massey, can you hear me?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
I can hear you, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
How's it going?
How you doing?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, you know, we had a four-day weekend, and now we've got a three-day work week.
They called off votes tomorrow.
Really?
First world congressional problems, I reckon.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, so you guys, I shouldn't say you guys, but Congress, there's a video of them sleeping.
Yeah, I saw that.
To be fair, that was like an overnight hearing, though, wasn't it?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, some of these hearings go really long.
The Democrats are being very dilatory and offering amendments just to drag it out.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So, you know, we've been talking about the Supreme Court hearing pertaining to birthright citizenship as well as universal injunctions.
The Trump administration has faced a ridiculous amount of these universal injunctions.
So it seems like while he's gotten a lot done as it pertains to Doge and some of these other efforts, he's still facing roadblocks every which way.
Now he wants this big, beautiful spending package.
Despite the fact that the MAGA base last year was saying no to these big spending packages, I suppose my view is largely we need to move as quickly as we can before the midterm so that we can enact some of those agenda items that we want to see done from the Trump administration.
But I'm curious your thoughts.
What's currently going on with this Big Beautiful Bill and where do you stand on it?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, I think that Big Beautiful Bill is in trouble a little bit.
That's why you see the Speaker letting us out.
Of Congress a day early this week.
It's got problems.
It's got warts.
What would I do?
Well, in an ideal world, I'd make it deficit neutral.
I wouldn't be adding to the deficit like this bill does.
And in a pragmatic world, if you want to get something done quickly, they probably need to skinny this thing down.
And it's just got too many things in it right now, too many things that are objectionable.
And there's a lot of sort of...
Shell game's going on.
A lot of the cuts are backloaded and won't happen until Trump leaves office.
And the problem with that is it looks real good on a 10-year window, but the reality is that the lobbyists will have their way.
They've got four years to make sure those cuts never actually happen.
And that's a problem.
So let me give you an example, Tim.
The Green New Deal, which was part of the Inflation Reduction Act, That should be a no-brainer.
We should just repeal every part of that root and branch, right?
Well, here's what they've done.
They've decided to cut residential solar subsidies.
Okay, I'm not for any subsidies, but they've decided if you're a homeowner, those subsidies, they're called tax credits, those tax credits go away.
But if you're a corporation, they keep going for at least four more years.
And so the interesting thing is that sets up a scenario where solar will still be subsidized, but instead of owning the panels on your house, that won't be financially practical.
They're pushing you into leasing them from a corporation or an installer.
The other thing that does is it gives the corporations and companies four years to lobby to keep their subsidies going because their subsidies won't end for four years.
Let me tell you another thing in this bill.
So no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime.
Well, I'm really interested in those.
Two of those three are bills that I introduced into Congress, no tax on tips and no tax on Social Security.
I've been introducing that bill for about a decade now, trying to get that passed.
But the reality is those tax cuts aren't exactly what they say, and those only last three years.
So as soon as Trump leaves office, those expire.
Those aren't permanent.
And the reason they did that is they cost a lot of money.
Now, I think the most controversial tax cut provision in here, by the way, I haven't seen a tax cut I don't like, right?
I love all the tax cuts.
Let's cut all the taxes, okay?
Let's slash them.
But we need to cut spending at the same time.
There is one tax cut in here that doesn't really make sense.
And that is to raise the SALT deduction, state and local tax deduction.
It's a big deal to Republicans from blue states.
And by the way, there's no Senate appetite for this tax provision because you don't have senators from blue states.
They run statewide.
I mean, you don't have Republican senators from blue states.
That would be California and New York and Illinois, for instance.
Well, but you have Republicans in the House from those states.
There are some districts, believe it or not, that do lean Republican.
Those guys have been given the biggest gift ever.
It's bad tax policy, and they're still not happy with it.
The state and local tax deduction in the big, beautiful bill, as it's written, would go from $10,000.
Let's say you've got a nice house and you pay $10,000 of taxes on it.
Well, that lets you out of $10,000 of federal tax.
We can argue about whether you should get out of any federal tax just because your local and state government is gouging you.
But the Speaker has agreed to raise that to $30,000.
You have to have a pretty nice house to have $30,000 of tax on it.
And the blue state Republicans are not happy with that.
They want more.
And even though it would reduce the tax income coming into the government, the federal government, which generally is not a bad thing, it means you've got to take that from somewhere else.
And so it's a gift to California and New York, and it shouldn't be in there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So one thing I want to clarify, too, for just—I understand most people know this, but for those that don't, the deficit is—what is this?
This perpetual overspending of our budget forever?
Basically, increasing the deficit—I've talked to a lot of people, and they confuse debt and deficit.
And the deficit just means that I'm pretty sure it's—actually, maybe you can tell me, how long has it been that the U.S. government consistently spends more than it brings in?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, you know, on April 15th— It depends on the time window you're looking at.
On April 15th, my debt counter actually went the other way because for a brief week, everybody pays their taxes.
I mean, it's encouraging and discouraging at the same time that my debt clock goes down for a week, but that's the week everybody pays their taxes.
But if you're looking for a one-year period...
You'd have to go back to the 90s when Republicans, who were actually conservative back then, I guess, imposed some restraints on Bill Clinton.
And they also put things like welfare reform and work requirements.
And guess what?
If you look at the big, beautiful bill, there are Medicaid work requirements for able-bodied individuals, but there are loopholes you could drive a truck through, and they don't kick in until Trump leaves office.
In other words, they'll probably never happen.
And the loophole says that you don't really have to work as long as you're undergoing a training program that your state approves of.
Well, the state will have some, you know, like California and New York, they'll have some kind of $10 online training program that qualifies you for Medicaid, even if you're an able-bodied single individual with no kids.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
You know, I'm assuming there's things in this that Trump wants, but is he just basically willing to accept these concessions knowing they expire by the time he leaves because he wants to get his agenda through?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
It could be.
I think a lot of this he doesn't know.
I think, for instance, the example I gave you about the solar subsidies, how we're cutting, there are no tax credits for homeowners, but the tax credits for corporations continue.
I doubt he is aware of those subtleties like that.
He's probably putting a lot of faith in Mike Johnson and John Thune and just saying, okay, guys, whatever you got to do to get this done, pay off the blue state New York Republicans and California Republicans.
Do what you got to do and just get this bill passed.
I think the problem is that Mike Johnson...
Isn't being completely forthright with the president.
Maybe they can roll the Freedom Caucus at the end.
I know there's a lot of grumbling from some conservative Republican senators and from some conservative Republicans here in the House who predominantly belong to the Freedom Caucus.
Maybe they just plan to roll them at the end because in addition to the tax cuts, this bill has spending increases, but it's the kind of spending that if you don't spend the money, you could get in trouble in a Republican primary.
The spending increases, for instance, are for the military, you know, another over $100 million for the military.
You've got HHS, border security.
There's going to be over $50 billion there.
And also for border security in the Judiciary Committee, you can have another $100 million of spending there.
And they'll say, if you're a Republican, they'll try to run an ad.
Oh, by the way, and the Golden Dome is in there.
They'll run ads of an intercontinental ballistic missile hitting St. Louis.
You know, he voted against protecting our country.
He voted against enforcing the border.
Those are the kind of ads they'll run against you if you vote against that, against a big, beautiful bill.
But you know what?
Frankly, I don't care.
I'm not going to stand here and lie to you.
You cannot have free cake and eat it, too.
It will catch up on us.
Our bond ratings, right now on a 10-year bond, we're paying like 4.5%.
That's going to go up.
So not only are we over time, this gets to your deficit question, not only are we increasing the deficit, which is the annual shortfall in spending, but we'll add to the debt another probably $25, $30 trillion over the next 10 years.
Right now, it's $32 trillion.
But one of the worst parts is we're paying a trillion dollars of interest on the debt we already owe, and that number is going to go up because our bond rating will go down when the foreign sovereign wealth funds take a look at our financials and see we're not serious.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, but I heard from AOC that we can just keep deficit spending to cover our costs.
I mean, why not?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, during COVID, they printed $5 trillion, and people thought the $1,200 checks were such a great deal.
The problem is, at the time, I said that's the cheese in the trap.
Your cost of living has gone way the hell up more than $1,200 or $600 or the $1,400 check.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
That's crazy.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Three checks added together don't equal the AOC math, which was Republican math at the time in 2020.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I shouldn't rag on her for some of the Republicans did too.
No, but she was talking about health care spending a while back.
And I think her quote was something like, we can have universal health care if we just deficit spend every year to cover the full cost of universal health care.
And I think it's trillions of dollars, which means like three years goes by and your $200 weekly groceries go up to $1,000 within a couple of years or some ridiculous number.
And then you've, yeah.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
You know, the thing I would hope AOC would agree with, Is that we shouldn't let these hospital oligarchs rake in $20 million salaries and call them nonprofits.
Like, I think Trump has rightfully identified some of these university endowments, but not everybody goes to Harvard, okay?
But almost everybody goes to a hospital at some point, either for themselves or a loved one.
And that's where, even if you wanted to give everybody free health care, actually, most of that money...
Is going to hospitals and is getting misappropriated.
We need a full audit and we need really to do something fundamentally different about reimbursements.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So what's in this big, beautiful bill that Trump so desperately wants?
You mentioned some things.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
So if we were just going to skinny it down to the things that Trump really cares about, it would probably be a renewal of what's called the Tax Cut and Jobs Act.
That was during his first term.
You know, they made the tax cuts for corporations permanent, but the tax cuts for individuals were not permanent.
So you could renew those and you could repeal the Green New Deal, root and branch, and you could probably get pretty close to something that I could vote for with a few other savings in there, work requirements for able-bodied.
Individuals without children on Medicaid, real work requirements, not ones with loopholes.
You could pay for a renewal of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of Trump's first administration with just a few simple things that all Republicans should agree with.
And let's throw in the rescissions of USAID and PBS.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So what's stopping this from happening?
I mean, Republicans control the House.
Why is there this?
I don't know, this breaking point.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
You know, the blue state Republicans are driving the bus because the Freedom Caucus Republicans won't say no.
And the blue state Republicans are willing to take this thing down if they don't get their SALT handout, state and local tax deduction handout, which would be a reversal of Trump's policy, by the way.
One of the great things about the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of Trump's first term is he got rid of this ridiculous notion that if you're from New York, you should pay less of a percent of your salary for national defense than somebody from Kentucky just because your property taxes are higher.
Getting rid of that and having some sanity, having actual conservative tax policy was part of Trump's original Tax Cut and Jobs Act.
And so they shouldn't water that down now.
But to your answer, why aren't we doing that?
Because the Freedom Caucus Republicans, a lot of them aren't willing to say no, although they might be this time around.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Man, I'm particularly worried about where we're going.
I had a conversation.
We did a debate show a couple weeks ago.
we aired it last week and with Trump trying to push through his agenda and using every interpretation of any law that he can say like the Alien Enemies Act, and then this wave of universal injunctions.
You've basically got an immovable object and an unstoppable force, and then Congress sitting in the bleachers eating popcorn, not doing anything.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, there's been a judicial coup, right?
There's 677 federal district judges, any one of which could issue a nationwide injunction.
So it's like a field of landmines with 677 landmines every time he tries to do something.
Eventually that fixes itself because it does go to the Supreme Court and Trump will win a lot of those, but they're robbing him as his most precious resource, which is time.
When you get a mandate in an election, every day that goes by, the mandate weakens.
And so they're robbing him of time in the courts.
But Speaker Johnson's robbing him of time here in the House as well.
We have not consummated any of the doge cuts.
We were supposed to have voted on this before, and they just mysteriously didn't schedule the vote.
And the Speaker's press secretary said, oh, no, we're going to do it.
When I called them on it, and that begs the question, when are you going to do it?
Because here we are this week.
Don't tell me we don't have time to do it.
They just called off votes tomorrow.
They're going to send us.
We just had a four-day weekend.
This was supposed to be a regular American two-day weekend coming up.
unidentified
Wow.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
But now they're going to give us a three-day weekend.
Do not tell me we don't have enough time.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, you're making it sound like it's a good job to have, being in Congress.
A four-day weekend?
Three-day weekend?
What am I doing?
I'm working double shifts.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
You're a fool, Tim.
But somebody's got to pay our salary.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I guess, right?
Man, I'm feeling disappointed.
Was this expected of Speaker Johnson, that he was going to run the ship this way?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, you know, he promised to support Trump's agenda.
Basically, his campaign for Speaker was that he would carry Trump's water.
And he put it in neutral.
And the problem with putting it in neutral is you actually have to fight for the conservative portions of Trump's agenda here in the House.
You can't just let the courts run over the president.
The problem is the courts in some cases have a point.
For instance, an appropriations bill is a law.
A lot of people don't realize this, but it passes the House and the Senate and it's assigned by the president.
So when you appropriate money for USAID...
Which they did in the continuing resolution and appropriate money for NPR and PBS.
The president has signed that into law.
It's not clear that he can then decide not to follow a law that he has signed.
And so that's where rescissions come in.
There is a pathway in Congress that requires only 51 votes in the Senate to consummate some of those cuts that Doge wants to do and that the president is trying to do that the courts are tying him up.
It gives us our Trump card.
And we're not playing it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
You know, I'm just thinking about how there are a lot of members of Congress.
We rarely hear the direct honesty or that, you know, it just feels like they're just agenda-driven.
And I'm just wondering, is there something in the water in your district or is there something missing from the water that your constituents have elected a guy who's being honest and consistently?
It's a joke, but why can't we get this from everybody else?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
It's not in the water.
It's in my bloodstream.
I have the Trump antibodies.
I was from a natural infection in 2020 when I opposed the CARES Act, and he attacked me.
And then I got 81% of the vote in a primary because my voters appreciated me being the only one up here who was willing to say, if you print $5 trillion and you do these $2 trillion stimulus packages, you're going to pay for it sooner or later.
My constituents appreciated that.
And Trump eventually came around and endorsed me in the next election, but now I'm on his bad side again.
So I guess I'm getting a booster of the antibodies.
Or it could be a fatal condition this time.
It doesn't matter to me.
Life's too short to come up here and tell people we can cut your taxes and increase spending and everything's going to turn out all right, because it's not.
You can pay for it through inflation and a lower standard of living.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It sounds to me like if every member of Congress, every sure, but at least the Republicans, were being honest and actually cared to get the job done.
They'd be largely agreeing with what you're saying.
They'd push through a bill that made sense.
Donald Trump would be very happy.
Instead, it sounds like Trump knows he's not going to get a fair shake through Congress.
So he wants whatever he can get.
And then he gets upset with you because you're demanding a fair shake from Congress.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
I mean, it's fair.
I can see his frustration.
I just wish he would see who's on his side.
I mean, like I said before, I'm the one who's carried the bill no tax on Social Security for over a decade and introduced the bill to not tax tips.
And I want the rescissions that voted on.
Like right now, I'm here calling out the speaker.
Have this vote.
Quit sending us home tomorrow.
And I think he's just frustrated, and rightfully so.
Congress is a bunch of do-nothing people who are disingenuous and not rigorous and are always worried about their next re-election.
Don't get me wrong.
I have a lot of allies here who think exactly like I am thinking right now.
It's just when it comes time to vote, they can't say no.
Until you can say no, there's no negotiation.
If you say, I don't like this, but I'll probably vote for it anyway, then you're not going to get anything.
You're not going to get the fixes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Why do you think Speaker Johnson has been doing what he's doing?
And I suppose to clarify, it seems like everything's kind of half-assed.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, I mean, it is half-assed.
If you're trying to get an argument out of me on that, you're not going to get one.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
But why?
The American way?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Frankly, he's a lost ball in tall weeds.
He fell into this job.
If you had somebody like Jim Jordan, who knows you have to fight every day instead of just putting it in neutral, then we wouldn't be in this situation.
But we didn't get a Jim Jordan because the swamp, back when Kevin McCarthy was ejected, the swamp fought tooth and nail to keep Jim Jordan from ascending to speaker when in fact it should have been him and we wouldn't have these problems.
I think, though, that Mike Johnson is going to be the speaker.
Your next question may be, well, why don't you have a motion to vacate or something like that?
Well, Marjorie and I tried that a year ago before the elections, because we saw that once the elections happened, if we got the majority, it was going to be kumbaya, and people would just be happy to rubber stamp another term for Mike Johnson.
But the reason we're not going to have...
A motion to vacate.
Speaker Johnson is the speaker until Trump gets frustrated with him.
And I don't know if and when that will happen, but I think at some point it should, because I just don't think Johnson's going to get this across the line, even the crappy bill, much less a good one.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It seemed like when McCarthy got ousted, the popular base for Trump was very much pro-Jim Jordan.
How does the swamp intervene to prevent something like that happening?
What can they do?
Or what did they do?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, there were 30 Republicans that were just ready to lose their next election.
Wow.
And they just kept voting against Jim Jordan every round.
And it's because they're the big spenders.
They knew, the swamp knew, that he was a change agent.
And so they just, sort of like an organism with white blood cells, they attacked him.
And they didn't care if it was going to cost them their next election.
And it did cost some of them their re-elections.
unidentified
Wow.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
And some of them were going to retire anyway, but there are a few here.
And I blame them.
They bear the responsibility for this country going in the wrong direction and for the elements of Trump's agenda that are conservative, not happening.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So this swamp, though, is this like the NRCC?
Is this like the behind-the-scenes donors, the lobbyists, basically telling these Republicans, you won't get a penny, you'll get no donations, we'll cut you off unless you do what we want?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Part of it's that.
I mean, they're good people at the NRCC, and their goal is to keep us in the majority.
So I don't want to completely trash the NRCC, but the speaker uses the NRCC as a tool, like you just mentioned.
And the lobbyists, they like a one-stop shopping place where all they got to do is lobby the speaker and get him to agree to something because he controls what goes on the floor.
And then he can control membership, although I think it's sort of the other way around.
I think these members in vulnerable districts are controlling the agenda.
Sometimes with a stronger speaker, you have the speaker controlling the members who are reliant.
On the NRCC and need another $20 million to get reelected in a marginal district.
But that doesn't seem to be happening this time.
It seems like they're driving the agenda because we have a weaker speaker now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
You know, my final question is we got a couple minutes left.
When Al Green was getting censured, you know, Speaker Johnson calls him to face censure.
Instead, Green starts singing and is joined by a bunch of Democrats who are obstructing the hall just singing.
So Speaker Johnson just adjourns.
And perhaps I'm a little aggressive in saying he should have the sergeant at arms come in and start arresting and removing people.
But why is it that Democrats seem so ready to make moves like that?
Republicans don't.
They just let Democrats run roughshod all over them.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Because there's a double standard.
Look, when we had a mask mandate in the House, I went to the well of the floor without a mask and brought 10 members with me and stood there on C-SPAN without a mask.
And they fined me.
They took it out of my salary.
Wow.
And I sued Nancy Pelosi over that, took it all the way to the Supreme Court.
But the Supreme Court wouldn't hear it, for better or worse.
They didn't want to intervene in congressional rules.
And that may actually, there's a silver lining to their decision that they don't get involved, because that would be a whole other can of worms.
But as somebody who has been...
Fined for behavior on the floor of the House and had my salary reduced, I can tell you there's a double standard.
And the Ethics Committee didn't overturn Pelosi's ruling against me.
But there's definitely a double standard.
I don't know.
Listen, Tim, I don't know why Speaker Johnson is putting Democrat bills on the floor every week.
Every freaking day.
There's one or two Democrat bills that come to the floor.
What is the deal?
That is being cut.
Yesterday, Debbie Washington Schultz, former chair of the DNC, got a bill to the floor.
Why is he bringing those bills to the floor and not bringing the rescissions to the floor?
What deal is the uniparty cutting?
I'd just like to know what the deal was.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, deep state deal saying we won't put you in prison after this is all over like we did to Trump's lawyers or whoever else, maybe.
I mean, it's crazy what we've seen over the past few years, but yep.
It certainly seems like we're not getting what we need through Congress, but Rep Massey, I do appreciate you joining me.
Is there anything else you wanted to add before we wrap up?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, I would just say there's a deep state, but there's also a deep Congress that I have encountered.
So I'm here fighting the deep Congress.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Oh, man.
Where can people find you?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Find me at RepThomasMassey on X. I do my own social media.
I'd fire my staff if they put half of what I put on there.
The first thing they tell you is don't argue with idiots, but you'll see me doing it every day on Twitter.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It's working out.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Now known as X. And look for the hashtag Sassy with Massey.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Right on, man.
I really do appreciate you joining me and breaking this down for us.
So thanks for joining us.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
All right.
Thanks, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Take care.
And that was Representative Thomas Massey.
Who is—he's the best.
He's the best member of Congress we got.
Love him or hate him.
Sometimes he does things that will aggravate us, but he's always honest about it.
And you know—you know, the thing about—you can predict how he's going to vote because you know who he is, and I'll be honest with you.
And there have been instances where, you know, my attitude is more so, yes, we're not getting the perfect— But it is fascinating when you listen to the guy and he breaks down for you that Speaker Johnson is putting Democrat bills on the floor so that the issue is never really Thomas Massey.
I think that, you know, when we're hoping for some kind of compromise to get Trump what he needs, it's usually Thomas Massey doing the right thing and us.
Accepting that we're going to be working with bad people who want bad things to try and just get a win through.
So I have tremendous respect for the guy.
And I wish every other member of Congress was like him, because then it'd be clean, we'd be done.
I wish he was Speaker.
But for now, we'll just keep getting Democrat bills, which is particularly disheartening.
My friends, thank you so much for hanging out for this live hour.
Smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.
Of course, we're going to be rating our good friend Russell Brand, who is gearing up to go live, I believe, right now.
You can follow me on X and Instagram, at TimCast.
We're back at 8pm.
I'm trying to type and talk at the same time.
We're back at 8pm.
Rumble.com slash TimCastIRL.
So don't miss it.
It's going to be a lot of fun.
And I really do appreciate everybody tuning in, hanging out.
Maybe I can squeeze in.
I did the raid.
Maybe there's a Rumble rant I can grab.
Guido says the Native American Act of 1924 gave Native American citizenship.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
And that clarifies things.
Some of the 14th did not include some of some things.
The 14th did not include everyone born here.
Indeed, fire hazard says Thomas Massey for speaker here here.
You know, they would never let that happen.
So shout out to Rep Massey.
Great dude.
Big fan.
And we'll wrap it up there, my friends.
Again, we're back at 8 p.m.
Rumble.com slash TimCastIRL.
It's going to be a lot of fun.
Let me see if I can look at our guests and see what we got.
Oh, very interesting.
We're going to have Rep Burleson and Tim Albarino, I think.
Maybe I'm getting that wrong.
My friends, once again, smash the like button.
▲
Export Selection