Ron DeSantis and Tate Brown dissect Florida's redistricting strategy to gain four House seats, contrasting it with blue-state gerrymandering while speculating on DeSantis's potential Supreme Court nomination. The discussion covers the UAE's OPEC exit, a tied national election poll, and King Charles III's White House visit, where Trump's royal deference clashes with diplomatic friction over Iran and immigration. Analyzing leaked claims that Britain lacks a "special relationship" with the US, the hosts reject fatalistic narratives about Western decline, arguing instead for pragmatic political solutions amidst shifting global power dynamics. [Automatically generated summary]
Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, what is going on?
This is Tate Brown here holding it down, and I am back with you for another wonderful installation of the Timcast News Daily Noon Live Show.
We are back.
It is a beautiful Tuesday afternoon, obviously taking you from the morning to the afternoon on the Rumble Daily lineup.
And wow, it is rainy and cold out.
It's like we've just sort of wiped out all of our summer gains and we're plunged back into the frigid winter months.
I don't know what's going on.
Again, I speculate over and over again.
I am suspecting Israel may be involved potentially with the weather modification.
I'm not entirely sure what's going on, but it's very annoying.
It's kind of that time of the year where you bundle up in the morning.
I mean, not bundle up, but you wear a hoodie or a jacket or something in the morning, and then you're having to strip down like it's Bourbon Street by lunchtime.
It's really a sight to behold.
But with that, we have some massive stories in the news today.
A lot of people are saying it's a slow news day.
It's really not.
It's just there's not like a story with immense magnitude.
Two big stories I'm following.
Obviously, the first one broke yesterday, but we didn't really get a chance to get to it.
Florida has sort of fought back in the redistricting battle that's raging across the United States right now.
Virginia, obviously, in their referendum, approved a pretty draconian voting map, obviously wiping out the Republican Party in the state of Virginia, 10 to 1 voting map.
I mean, unbelievable.
All eyes turned to the state of Florida.
Everyone said, well, Florida hasn't conducted their squeeze yet.
And so this could potentially add a few seats to the chamber for the Republicans.
And we're seeing here it indeed.
Ron DeSantis has proposed a new voting map, and hey, there's something to be said about this map.
I mean, you know, some have speculated that this adds four seats because there's a lot of purple seats that are going to be up for grabs in this, but it looks fairly safe here.
I'm quite happy with it.
So I think we should just get right into it.
This is the headline, the article from NPR.
I'm going with NPR today.
What do we got here?
Florida's DeSantis unveils a voting map that could add to Trump's GOP.
Redistricting.
Governor Ron DeSantis has proposed a new Florida voting map that could help Republicans win four additional seats in the U.S. House this November.
DeSantis has called lawmakers to a special legislative session starting Tuesday.
The governor's office released a map Monday morning showing red and blue districts, indicating that if adopted, it would create 24 Republican leaning and four Democrat leaning districts.
Currently, the state is represented by 20 Republicans and seven Democrats, with one other seat being currently vacant following a Democratic lawmaker's resignation.
DeSantis told Fox News, Our new map for 2026 makes good on my promise to conduct mid-decade redistricting and said it more fairly represents the makeup of Florida today.
The governor's office confirmed the map to NPR.
So obviously they're just kind of using the same language that the state of Virginia did.
Yeah, I really have no problem with this.
I don't know who would.
You know, some people will do the, you know, we need to stop gerrymandering.
This is wrong.
But, you know, I think at this point, everyone kind of after the Virginia thing, that was not a shot across the bow.
That was like a can, you know, an art, a rocket, you know, shot across.
Across the bow.
I mean, that was really something to behold.
If you look at this new map, it's quite interesting.
It's nice, it's neat, it's clean, it's not really, there's no tentacles going around.
I guess you could say maybe here in the Miami area, there's this little district here, it gets a little funky where it dips down and scoops up some Democrats and then sinks the district throughout the rest of the state.
But again, I mean, to this poster's point here, I mean, look at the districts in the state of Illinois.
I mean, goodness gracious, spaghetti districts, as some people have called it.
Not much better in the Northeast, but again, the Northeast is a little bit more difficult because, I mean, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine.
I mean, Maine and New Hampshire, there's two districts up for grabs.
In Vermont, there's one district.
Not really sure how they could divide that up to even give Republicans a seat and make it 50 50 if they wanted to.
That's just a consequence of losing all your statewide elections.
Massachusetts, kind of the same situation where, okay, you know, if they really wanted to give one seat to the Republicans, I suppose they could try, but there's actually a tool online where you can draw your own districts.
And just the way that Maine works, sorry, Maine, the way that Massachusetts works, it's actually quite hard to get a Republican district out of the state.
I love the state of Massachusetts.
I think it's a terrific state.
And, you know, some people have made this point, and it's a really good point, which is Republicans that live in blue states, like deep blue states, are usually the most like grizzled right wingers that exist because they're confronted with the ultimate culmination of Democratic rule and that sort of radicalizes them.
And I think there's something to be said about that because every time you meet Republicans, you know, hardcore Republicans that are from states like Massachusetts, from states like Vermont, from states like New York, they're actually like some of the most grizzled right wingers you'll ever meet.
And yeah, there's something to be said about that.
So, that being said, with the state of Massachusetts, not much they could really do, even if they really intended on giving the Republicans a seat.
Rhode Island, kind of same deal.
Again, how do you divide that?
It's a pretty, like, blue.
There's not, the Republicans are going to spread around the state.
I mean, I know Massachusetts, we got Springfield out west kind of sinking a potential Republican district out west.
Connecticut, Connecticut is where they could easily make a red district if they wanted to.
They won't, but if they wanted to.
Because again, a lot of the Democrats are consolidated in the New York metro area and then the eastern part of the state and Hartford, but there's a lot of red, like this district right here, just some tweaks around the Hartford, New Haven area.
They probably could have given that to the Republicans.
But I guess my point is New England probably isn't the best example of outright gerrymandering because people will make the point, like, well, you know, like what 40% of Connecticut, 45% of Connecticut, I mean, not 45%, but 40% of Connecticut, for example, voted red.
Why don't they have a red district?
That's fair.
But the rest of the states, I mean, There's not much that can really be done there, but Illinois is egregious.
Most of my family hails from the great state of Illinois, but now it's just the state of Illinois, unfortunately.
And yeah, they're cornfield people, my family.
So, you know, they're from sort of this part of Illinois.
Very deep red.
I mean, the fact that you can't pull consistent red seats out of there just is egregious.
I mean, you can see here this tentacle that reaches all the way over.
I believe that would be Champaign, which is one of the most left wing places probably in America.
It's kind of like Madison, Wisconsin.
You know, this just like Portland level leftist hub.
Beachhead, even in a deep red area.
Illinois is just really depressing to think about.
He's really, you know, he kind of tanked his stock by running in 2020.
That was a really dumb decision.
Trump was the guy, he was still the guy.
Everyone loved him.
A large portion of the base, you know, felt like there was some shenanigans going on in the election.
So they wanted to run it back.
That was just really foolish for DeSantis to run for a variety of reasons.
I don't want to rehash it, but I was kind of worried because I like DeSantis.
I think he's probably one of the best governors in the country.
He's kind of an example of sort of an ideal bureaucrat.
I don't know if I really see him as a leader outright.
I just don't know if he has that in him on the nationwide level.
But as far as, again, as a bureaucrat goes, and I use that as a compliment, I don't mean that as like a deep state apparatchi.
That's something different.
Bureaucrat, someone that knows the law like the back of their hands, someone that knows, you know, how the political system works, someone that's, you know, someone that's locked in, for lack of a better word, and can get the job done.
I think he's the best, quite frankly, in the country at that, which is why, I mean, I think after his term ends, he's a natural fit in the admin.
Find a gig for him, something.
Extensive law background.
I mean, what's there not to love about him?
Well, this is what's interesting.
So DeSantis, obviously, with the redistricting, fantastic work from him, you know, when his name was called on, he knocked, you know, he was open in the corner and he knocked.
The shot down.
That's what you expect from Governor DeSantis.
A lot of people are saying, yeah, okay, Trump, it's time.
After he leaves office, it's time to find a gig for him in the White House because he's done such a fantastic job.
Something that was interesting this is an Axios report.
This is via Ryan Saavedra.
Axios reports that President Trump and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis have spoken in recent days about DeSantis' future.
DeSantis says his dream job would be a U.S. Supreme Court justice, that he is very close with Clarence Thomas.
DeSantis on the Supreme Court would be huge.
I. What's there not to like about this decision?
There's kind of a few reasons why this is a great decision.
One, because he would probably become, yeah, I mean, I think it's quite obvious.
He would be a conservative hardliner on the court.
Really no faffing about there.
Something else is he's already been through a very tough election.
Obviously, his first election to governor of Florida, he was in the House prior to that.
And then he had a second, not so contentious election.
But all this to say, they would have dumped all their October surprises by now.
So I don't think you're really going to deal with a You know, super mudslinging Supreme Court nomination process.
I could see the Senate pretty much rubber stamping this.
I don't really see why they wouldn't.
I think he, from what I understand, has maintained a pretty good relationship with everyone in Congress.
I mean, he was a congressman, so it does make some sense there.
And third, I mean, from Trump's perspective, look, Trump, you know, probably in the back of a set, because, you know, Trump operates primarily off of loyalty.
That's his, like, number one trait that he looks for in the people that he appoints for jobs.
And so he might.
You know, be a little hesitant still to sort of throw his, you know, weight behind a DeSantis run for president, which I don't think would happen.
But even if so, you know, I don't see why he would go all in.
I've made the point on the show, I think, you know, Trump probably won't even endorse anybody in 2028.
He'll just let them sort of compete amongst themselves to argue over who's the most Trump like, you know, and I think that's going to be the obvious direction that it goes.
So I don't even know if there'd be room for him in the primary anyway.
So, this seems like a very natural fit.
So, that's kind of the third sort of aspect of this nomination, why this would be a big deal, would be because it kind of removes him from the national scene.
And I think that everyone involved would like that.
I think DeSantis, you know, when he was running in 2020, you could just tell that his heart wasn't completely in it.
You know, I think he primarily ran because everyone around him was like, hey, you could win.
And yeah, it would be a shoe in.
That obviously wasn't the case.
But I think DeSantis would be fantastic on the Supreme Court.
I think he can pass a Senate.
I think he could pass the Senate, which is kind of your primary thing.
So people forget, you know, like everyone's like, okay, let's fire Kash Patel, fire what we did, fire Pambondi, et cetera, et cetera.
The problem is the people that you're going to get through the Senate, especially after a midterm cycle, aren't going to be as great as you might think because, again, you got to get them past the Senate nomination.
You know, I mean, look, Matt Gaetz, obviously, like, you know, people have some criticisms they're levying at him now, sort of his evolution since the beginning of the Trump term, but let's just.
Point out that at the beginning of the Trump term, you know, Matt Gaetz was like a fan favorite for Republicans or at least the Trump base.
And when he was nominated, everyone was very excited about it.
And then he got completely hamstringed when he tried to get through the Senate.
It's just the way it works, folks.
I mean, you got to play ball.
You got to operate.
You know, you got to be a shrewd operator.
And this is why when you're sort of selecting a Supreme Court justice, you do have to keep in mind, like, okay, well, who's going to sort of pass the Senate nomination process?
And I think DeSantis has a very good chance of doing so.
So, That is why I think that that totally makes sense.
I think that's a great call.
And I would like to see that because, again, you kind of look around the Trump admin.
I mean, where does he fit in?
I think Todd Blanch will probably just become the AG.
Right now, he's the sort of acting AG, but I think it's pretty clear that he'll just become the AG.
That would be the only gig I think that would really be there for DeSantis.
I mean, Rubio's not going anywhere.
What are you going to stick him in HUD or something?
I mean, give me a break.
I think that maybe the Department of Agriculture opens up soon, USDA.
I just don't really see how he fits in there.
So, you just kind of look around the Trump administration.
It's not very obvious where he would fit in.
So, I think this is why, you know, he's got to go somewhere.
He's either going to go national and try to run for president again.
There's no way he's still young.
There's no way he's going to like sit on his hands, twiddle his thumbs, and wait for like, I don't know, 2032 or something.
Some people have speculated that if Rubio decides to run in 28, that maybe he selects DeSantis as his vice president pick.
But again, if you just sort of, Appoint him Supreme Court Justice.
I think he's already said here.
I mean, yeah, he said this is his dream job.
Why would he not leap at the opportunity?
So, with that, very exciting that DeSantis has indeed decided to fight back on the redistricting process.
This is very promising.
He's one of the few Republicans that gets it.
You know, he's one of the few Republicans that understands that you have to reward your friends and punish your enemies.
And this voting map, very encouraging.
You know, there's, you look around at a lot more red states that could probably squeeze a few more red seats out, and you got to start asking some questions of what they are doing, quite literally.
But yes, very encouraging for on DeSantis, a small.
White pill and a sea of black pills.
There, second, this is another big story that was in the news today, and this is all over the news.
Um, this one's a little more in the weeds, but it's a very big deal and has huge, huge implications globally.
This is from the BBC United Arab Emirates to quit oil cartel OPEC.
Now, this is massive.
This news dropped, um, right before the show, actually, so I didn't have as much time to sort of collect my thoughts on what the implications are, but I think some of the implications are quite obvious.
And Saudi Arabia both have made statements over the last few years, especially since the war has started, expressing frustrations with OPEC.
Now, obviously, OPEC is this coalition of sort of non Western oil producing countries.
These are countries that, you know, they work with each other.
The whole point of OPEC is sort of they can collaborate to control oil prices globally, right?
They try to wrestle leverage away from the West and to them so that way they can sort of dictate terms a little bit more.
That's why they're called a cartel.
You know, and that is in the true sense of the term what they are, is they can sort of artificially, not one to one, but they can, you know, put their finger on the scale and impact global prices.
And how they do this, there's a lot of mechanisms they utilize, but the main one that they utilize is oil quotas.
So again, OPEC will raise production or lower production depending on what the market is doing.
And that is how they're able to sort of act as a block to apply leverage onto oil buying countries, you know, energy importers.
And so far for the OPEC countries, this has worked to some degree.
Now, granted, you're Basically, stitching together a myriad of third world countries.
There's a few developing countries in the mix.
None of these countries really have too much in common outside of the Gulf states.
So, it's tough to get them to collaborate on anything else beyond, again, oil prices.
Now, OPEC, people started to suspect that there could be some cracks because, again, so the Saudis and the Emiratis and a few other nations, but those two primarily come to mind, over the last few years have sort of expressed frustration with these quotas that OPEC has been sort of prescribing to the member block, the membership block, basically saying, hey, you're exporting too much oil, it's dropping the oil price, and the rest of us are hurting.
So, you have the UAE, you have Saudi Arabia, who.
They're fairly wealthy countries.
They're very wealthy countries.
The citizens, the actual citizens of the country, are doing quite well.
And they're kind of getting hamstringed a little bit by OPEC because, again, they're trying to keep the price higher so that way they can generate more revenue.
If you're like, for example, I don't know, if you're, for example, Venezuela, prior to the invasion, Venezuela benefits a lot more from the price being higher than the UAE, although they do benefit.
But again, I think they prefer to just export right now.
And then the war kicks off, the Iran war kicks off, and this puts the UAE in a tough spot.
Saudis, not so much because they can still export through the Red Sea, but it puts the Emiratis in a really tough spot because, again, they're dependent on the Strait of Hormuz to get their energy out of the country and export it to the global market.
The Emiratis, the Qataris, the Saudis, they've never seen eye to eye, especially the Qataris.
I mean, there was a few years ago the prince of Saudi Arabia wanted to dig a moat in between Qatar and the UAE, or sorry, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and effectively turn Qatar into an island.
I don't know if that's ever actually happened or not, but that would be quite funny if they did that.
But that just kind of shows that they don't necessarily see eye to eye.
I suspect the UAE has, again, been thinking about this for a while.
In the Iran war, it was kind of just the final blow, where, again, OPEC is saying keep production down a little bit.
And the UAE is like, we're trying to get out as much as we possibly can right now.
That's what we're trying to do.
So this whole OPEC thing, this whole OPEC situation is really throwing a wrench in everything.
The Venezuela operation has also upended the global oil market.
So, a lot of these countries are saying, let's just go independent.
Let's just go independent.
We'll figure this out on our own.
This is ridiculous.
So, this is from the BBC.
I'll read here.
The United Arab Emirates is quitting OPEC and the OPEC plus groups of major oil producing nations next month after nearly 60 years of membership.
Now, the UAE is one of the founding members of the bloc, which is quite interesting.
The UAE said its decision would help it meet its growing global energy demand in the long term.
After recent investments to boost its production capacity, it is seen as a major blow to the cartel, with one analyst describing the exit as the beginning of the end of OPEC.
And I second that.
I think, again, you've already seen the cracks.
And I think this is going to be a lot of other countries in OPEC are going to start looking around like, okay, well, if the Emiratis are out, then what's the point of us sticking around here, especially the Saudis?
The Gulf states energy minister said being a country with no obligation under the groups would give it more flexibility.
That is broadly true.
The short term, not so much because of the Iran war.
This doesn't really have any short term impact, but long term, this has major implications.
The UAE's departure represents a win for U.S. President Donald Trump, who has previously attacked OPEC for, quote, ripping off the rest of the world.
In January, he asked Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations to, quote, bring down the cost of oil and double down on his threat to use tariffs.
And Saul Kavanich, head of the energy research at MST Financial, Said it was, quote, the beginning of the end for the alliance.
With UAE leaving, OPEC loses about 15% of its capacity and one of its most compliant members.
Again, yeah, UAE is kind of a no drama country for the most part.
OPEC was formed in 1960 by five countries Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela to defend the interests of major oil exporters by coordinating production to ensure a steady revenue for its members.
And then obviously they've added a few nations over the years, lost a few nations, et cetera, et cetera.
But that kind of core block has really been the driving force behind OPEC.
Really just some dramatic stuff here.
The UAE's decision came as the World Bank warned the war in the Middle East has caused the biggest loss of energy oil.
Sorry.
Sorry, folks, of oil supply on record.
Energy prices will rise by about a quarter on average as a result this year, it said, while it could take about six months for shipping through the key Strait of Hormuz to return to, quote, pre lore levels.
Quote, the poorest people who spend the highest share of their income on food and fuels will be hit the hardest, said the World Bank's chief economist, Indermit Gill.
The UAE's decision to leave OPEC will not have immediate impact on the global energy supply due to ongoing closures of the Strait of Hormuz, but could lead to a longer term boost in output.
The country has invested heavily in boosting its production capacity and has warned for a long time to pump more oil, the economist said.
So, again, this departure, what's to say?
Yeah, this departure could lead to lower oil prices but higher volatility on the market in the coming decades.
And yes, that is true.
Again, the UAE is one of the leading exporters globally of oil.
And again, them being independent, them not being beholden to OPEC price quotas, production quotas, is going to be a game changer, quite frankly, on the market.
This is really going to harm the more lower income countries that are part of OPEC.
This is very much a, it's not OPEC at this point.
I wouldn't go as far to say it's a wealth transfer program, but it's certainly become very bottom heavy.
So again, the top earners are gaining less and less from this partnership and the higher, the more competent countries, I guess you would say, are certainly benefiting or not really benefiting as much as they used to.
So Fascinating stuff coming out of the United Arab Emirates.
I'm going to be getting this before we go.
This was a poll that just came out recently from Harvard showing that the general ballot is now split.
So it's 50 50.
Really dramatic stuff.
So, you know, I mean, the narrative across the conservative commentariat has been that, you know, the Republican Party is on its, you know, knees and that there's been massive upheaval and vitriol over the Iran war.
And these are all true.
I mean, that is true that basically everyone I speak to that's a Republican, you know, I don't really have as many like, Normy oracles, because it's quite funny they don't really exist anymore.
I think the majority of people are at least vaguely familiar with what's going on in the online discourse.
I mean, everyone knows what looks maxing is, anyone under 35.
So that kind of tells you all you really need to know there.
But what's interesting, the general ballot tightening up, I think, says more about the Democrats than it does about the Republican Party.
That's just, I don't think that the Republicans are growing in the polls right now.
I don't think they're sort of building up support and polling because of the Iran war.
I think it's in spite of Of the Iran war.
I think the primary reason is because the Democrats just really aren't offering much.
They're kind of crazy people, et cetera, et cetera.
And yeah, this is just obviously the Republicans surging here.
Again, nothing they're really doing so much is that they just keep looking over at what the Democrats are up to and they're like, please, we just can't let these people in charge put these people in power.
Because again, I mean, a lot of people are even questioning if we even reward the GOP with a midterm victory.
Now, I think it helps the Trump agenda.
So I think it's worthwhile.
But I sort of understand why people feel that way because, again, If you look at the SAVE Act still stalled in the Senate, and you just ask questions like, what's the point of even having Republicans if they can't even get like bills out of 80% support across the finish line?
It's neither here nor there.
The point is, general ballot polling has been tightening up.
We saw a few weeks ago that the general ballot was like 48 52, which in some polls would put it within the margin of error.
And now we're seeing from Harvard, again, a fairly reputable poller here, that again, the poll has tightened up here to a 50 50 split.
Now, does that mean that the House is razor tight?
No, because the general ballot is slightly different than what the actual midterm projections would be, because again, we don't have a general ballot and then you allocate seats from that.
You vote in individual races.
Everyone knows this.
So, again, what are the implications here?
Again, it does show that the Republicans are tightening up races nationwide, but this doesn't mean that now they're going to survive the midterms or whatever.
Because, again, I mean, you can go to betting odds.
This is from Kalshi here.
I mean, who's going to win the U.S. House?
Well, the polls, you know, the better betting markets, the markets are saying the Democrats will still win the House.
And I still think that's likely.
I think the Republicans hold the Senate, maybe lose a seat, and then the Republicans get, I don't know if they get hammered in the midterms.
So, I will amend.
My initial prediction, where I thought we would get hammered in the midterms in the House, and I think we will lose maybe a half dozen to a dozen seats, probably a half dozen seats.
And polling odds indicate this.
Again, you can look here.
How many House seats will the Democrats hold after the midterms?
Some people are saying above 249, but also it's still tightening up that it's going to be 245 to 249.
So just a sort of razor thin majority there.
So again, there's just a lot of moving parts here.
But again, the fact that the congressional ballot is tightening up just indicates.
That again, this idea that you know there's people in mass that are you know not going to vote Republican or abandon the Republican Party, I think is a miscalculation.
I don't think it's a miscalculation to say people are dissatisfied with the Republican Party.
That being said, people hate Democrats, people just really hate Democrats.
And you know, they're just kind of going political theory that the Republicans are actually the default ruling party, and then the Democrats, you know, we put the Republicans in time out every once in a while, we bring the Democrats in for a few years, and then we just go back to.
The default party, which is the Republican Party.
And we're kind of seeing that here.
Is that, are we ready to put the Republicans a timeout right now?
I don't know.
People are looking over at what the Democrats are up to and they're not too happy.
So, with that, we're going to get into this last story and we will be bringing in the great Stephen Edgington at the halftime mark.
He'll be joining us here shortly because I want to cover this story.
If you know Stephen Edgington, he's obviously the lead U.S. correspondent for GB News.
GB News is a British conservative outlet.
You guys probably are somewhat familiar.
With GB News.
But yeah, he's the US Correspondent.
He's doing fantastic work.
And I'm going to bring him in to commentate, give some commentary on what he's kind of thinking, what he's seeing.
Because, you know, everyone's talking about it, and a lot of people kind of roll their eyes at this stuff.
But there is something to be said about the pomp and circumstance around King Charles visiting the White House.
I mean, we have known for a while that Trump is a bit of an Anglophile, and he does have a soft spot for the royals.
Pretty interesting stuff here.
Again, we can just play the video here of the White House, their arrival ceremony for King Charles and Queen Camilla.
see Trump really doesn't like behave this way around other world leaders.
Like, he just really has always had a soft spot for the British monarchy.
I think there's something to be said about that.
I think it's because he really loved Queen Elizabeth.
If I had to speculate, he really loved Queen Elizabeth.
And so, I don't know what his relationship is like with King Charles.
He certainly respects him, but I think a lot of that is because of sort of favor that was bought by Queen Elizabeth.
And now King Charles is sort of able to continue that on.
But Trump, you know, we've heard some interviews over the years, him talking about his mother.
And he has said that his mother, Donald Trump's mother, Mary, was quite a big fan of the Royals and that she really liked the Royals.
Trump indeed also has a soft spot for Britain.
He owns quite a bit of property in the United Kingdom, specifically in Scotland, where his mother is from.
His mother is from the Highlands.
And Trump, yeah, clearly does sort of view some sort of connection with Britain, as do many heritage Americans.
I mean, many of us, our own lineage comes from Britain and the country itself, its fabric is British.
I mean, literally going into the revolution, all of the founders.
Viewed themselves as Englishmen and they were contesting for their rights as Englishmen, and they viewed the revolution as kind of a tragic thing that just kind of had to happen.
So, this is quite interesting.
There's something here, there's something about 1776.
I know we're not supposed to care about these moments, and the monarchy is obviously basically a shell of what it used to be.
It's mostly just pageantry now, but there is something where everyone kind of stops.
There's a reason why everyone in the press is talking about, again, King Charles' visit right now.
There's something kind of different about when I was in DC this weekend.
We had the American flag off the lamp posts or whatever, but there was also Union Jacks hanging off.
There's something interesting about that, I'll say that.
Now, obviously, the relationship between Britain and the United States has been a bit frosty, and I think that's not really as much to do with King Charles, more so to do with Keir Starmer.
He's just a bonehead.
He has lower approval in Britain than Congress has in America.
I think that tells you all you really need to know about how the British people feel about Keir Starmer.
This is an article from The Economist.
No British government has ever imagined that an American president might turn his back on these.
Special relationship between both nations until now.
Again, this isn't so much Trump turning his back on Britain.
It's more him just growing, you know, growing frustration with Britain.
I think he does, again, have that soft spot for Britain and he's seeing the way that they're self destructing and that is very frustrating to him.
That is very hard for him to watch.
And so he's more just kind of shaking Keir Starmer and the nation broadly and just saying, like, what are you doing?
Why are you self destructing like this?
Like, in many ways, I've made this point, Britain is kind of America's Israel.
You know, this is like, you know, Israel, you know, some people will contest that, well, Israel should be America's Israel.
I think Britain's actually America's Israel.
So you kind of view this as like the cradle.
You know, this is where it all came from.
You know, everyone, you know, is reading Locke and Smith and all these different theorists throughout American history.
And, you know, a lot of them trace their lineage or direct, you know, they're from Britain itself.
So I think there's something to be said about that.
This is all self imposed.
I think Trump is just simply saying, like, hey, the fact that you only have like a couple dozen operational warships, that's kind of a problem.
For those who don't know you, I mean, you have been on IRL in the past, you know, you're probably a familiar face to some, but for those who don't know you, could you give a quick intro of who you are and what you do?
I had to bring you in, obviously, very fitting story.
You know, some roll their eyes at it, some maybe just say, well, this is just Pageantry.
This really has zero implications.
But there's something going on here with this visit with King Charles, obviously, coming to the United States, meeting with Trump.
People have noted for quite some time that Trump really does have a soft spot, maybe for Britain, but specifically for the monarchy.
And I think a lot of that can be attributed just to Queen Elizabeth.
I mean, he was clearly a fan of Queen Elizabeth, had a lot of respect for her.
And he had noted that his mother was also a fan.
And I think that's probably where a lot of it comes from.
His mother, obviously, is from Britain, she's from Scotland.
And he has noted that his mother had quite a bit of appreciation for the monarchy.
Now, it's just interesting.
I think this is what makes this whole kind of dynamic interesting is that the monarchy still wields so much soft power.
I would almost, I mean, I've spent a lot of time in Britain.
I would almost argue that Americans seem to be more fixated with the monarchy than even the British people themselves, as far as just keeping up with, like, kind of the drama, so to speak.
But the fact that the monarchy wields so much soft power at this moment where Britain's standing on the global stage has never been more uncertain, all these dynamics kind of circulating is just really kind of fascinating to watch.
I'm not sure what your thoughts are on all of this, as you've been on both sides of the pond, obviously.
Yeah, I mean, being here in America is interesting that I think there's a lot of goodwill towards the Brits, and a big part of that is the royal family.
And when you speak with just ordinary Americans, you know, it always comes up is what do you think of the king, or what do you think of Meghan Markle, or what do you think of Harry and William?
And there's this absolute obsession for a country that's so proud of being a republic with the monarchy.
And I think that those ties between the British monarchy and, you know, the American people.
Never really went away despite all of this celebration on the 4th of July and Hamilton going after George III and all of that.
It all seems in jest because, as I said, they just have such an emotional sway here.
And it's like a kind of, I think it's because America lacks that unifying historic institution that Britain has.
The president can't unite all of America.
It's always going to be a divisive head of state, a divisive institution.
Whereas in Britain, On the most part, and that is changing, I have to say, the king and the monarchy is generally a uniting factor and really goes through all of politics, both sides, you know, supporting whoever's on the throne.
And I think Queen Elizabeth II did a fantastic job of uniting the country despite going through some terrible, terrible moments.
After the Second World War, we saw the decline of the empire, obviously, the rise of immigration, huge demographic changes.
And the queen was there.
In all of these hard times, and was really a unifying voice and a unifying figure for us in Britain.
Now that everything has changed so much in recent years, and King Charles has made some fairly political comments, particularly around multiculturalism, his support of Islam as a religion, and also green and environmental issues.
He's become more of a divisive figure, but still, largely, most Brits would support the monarchy if you look at opinion polls and so on, even conservatives and those on the right.
Are still largely favorable towards King Charles.
So his visit today and over the next few days is a kind of historic moment.
You know, these state visits are pretty rare, and I think it's the first time that a British monarch will be addressing the Joint Congress tomorrow for more than 30 years.
So it is an interesting time to be in DC, especially when there's so much tension right now between the British and American governments.
And this is again to the point of.
The monarchy being a kind of apolitical institution, one that obviously Trump very much admires.
Trump loves the pageantry of it.
Obviously, as you mentioned, his mother.
I mean, he even made a speech today at the White House saying that his mother had a kind of crush on King Charles, which was quite funny.
So, but, and this is despite all of these political tensions between Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, particularly over the Iran war.
Obviously, the British government has been very resistant to allow the Americans to use bases initially in the war to bomb Iran.
But also over broader issues of immigration, which JD Vance has been talking about a lot, and also free speech, where the Starmer government have taken a very, very different stance.
And the U.S. administration has been very, very critical openly of British policies on these issues.
So the King basically acts as a diplomatic tool, essentially, for the British to paper over some of these political divisions and cracks and sort of tensions between both governments.
I was leading into this conversation, I was reading sort of the headline.
Sub line from The Economist, where they're basically declaring that this sort of special relationship, so to speak, between the United States and the United Kingdom is effectively dead.
And, you know, not that he's speaking on behalf of Britain, certainly not, but Mark Carney, obviously someone that would kind of fall into that old alliance power block.
I mean, he made this sort of dramatic speech at the World Economic Forum where he said that old order is dead insofar as that 20th century kind of NATO, Western led, American led order is dead and that everyone is kind of operating separately.
And this kind of goes back to sort of that.
Don Roe doctrine, that Trump doctrine, where he, everyone he views, whether you're the United Kingdom or whether you're some disparate third world country, he views every negotiation as both parties are self interested and whatever we carried in for the 20th century is effectively dead.
And that's been his way of conducting affairs.
And this is quite frustrating for a lot of people because they'll say, well, why are you being so soft on Russia?
And then when you really evaluate it, it's like, well, because he kind of respects power.
So he's a bit more disrespectful, it seems, to countries like Spain because he's like, What are you doing?
Like, what are you doing?
You're self destructing.
I mean, you made the point on demographics, especially, and that's something people have noted is that the mass immigration is just a bizarre self inflicted L that all these countries across the West are insistent on doing.
And Trump will kind of respect power more so than sort of old alliances.
But we know all this about Trump.
We've commented on this for years.
That's what's so interesting is then King Charles comes, he lays out the red carpet, he has nothing but nice things to say.
And then, in addition to that, sort of the entire press in the United States and everyone in the United States, they say, the king's visiting.
They don't say the King of England's visiting or the King of Britain's visiting.
They say the King is visiting.
And we've had other royal families visit the United States before, whether they're from Sweden or Spain or wherever, you name it.
They don't get the same treatment.
They certainly don't get the same treatment we're seeing now, but they certainly don't get called the King.
They're just saying, oh, he's the king of Spain.
I didn't know Spain had a king.
That's typically the response you get.
So it's just a really bizarre dynamic.
And I'm having some trouble unpacking it.
But one thing I do know is all the points you made are 100% true.
And also, it kind of gets to the point that sort of what is still the core of the United States is that heritage American population, that population that's been here for hundreds of years.
And they descended from the British, those original colonists.
And if you look, I mean, not to get too esoteric here, but if you look at like the founding of the United States, you know, a lot of those men, didn't really want to go at it with Britain.
They thought it was a tragedy.
They thought this divorce was actually quite sad.
And they just felt like the revolution was more inevitable and kind of against their will than anything else.
And so there's a lot of interesting dynamics going on there.
I don't know what you're seeing, but yeah, it's funny that Trump will just dunk all over Kier Starmer, as he should.
And then King Charles comes around, even with all the sort of divisive comments he's made.
Well, listen to this quote from Trump today outside the White House speaking next to King Charles.
Honoring the British king might seem an ironic beginning to our celebration of 250 years of American independence, but in fact, no tribute could be more appropriate.
Long before Americans had a nation or constitution, we first had a culture, a character, and a creed.
Before we ever proclaimed our independence, Americans carried with us the rarest of gifts moral courage, and it came from a small but mighty kingdom across the sea.
So I think Trump is.
Perfectly encapsulating how America began and that really strong connection between Britain and the United States.
America is an Anglo country.
It is not an idea, it is a people.
And Trump has done a perfect job there of explaining that.
And he also later said that, and I'm going to slightly botch this, but Britain and America, the Anglo American relationship, essentially lit fire to the world, gave the world this incredible modern era.
That we have today, whether it's technology, culture, the English language, our two nations pioneered basically everything that we see around us today in this modern world.
And this kind of anglicized culture has become the global hegemonic culture.
And people, it's a bit like being a fish in water.
People don't quite realize that everything, so many things around us, come from Britain and come from the United States.
Even how we dress, I'm dressed in a suit today with a tie.
So is Xi Jinping and the leaders of Mongolia and the Congo and Argentina.
That comes from British fashion.
And equally, America's had an incredible role in partnership of innovating and creating amazing technologies that we all use today.
So, yeah, it's an incredible moment.
And I think when it comes to the so called special relationship, I know you were mentioning about how Trump views other countries.
Really interestingly, today, this morning, there was a leak against the current British ambassador in Washington, who was caught in a secret recording of him speaking to school children, weirdly, where he told them that there's no such thing as a special relationship between Britain and America, and that the only country that has a special relationship with America.
There was a sort of rare moment of undiplomatic honesty there from the British ambassador here in DC, who didn't know he was being recorded.
And this has been released very, this happened weeks ago, and yet it's been released this morning.
So, one has to wonder who's trying to make some mischief here and cause some problems whilst the king is visiting Washington.
But it's interesting that there's this idea that this phrase, the special relationship, which came from Winston Churchill, who obviously had this very close relationship with Roosevelt during the Second World War, there's this idea in Britain that's become more popular in recent years.
We should stop using this phrase, special relationship.
It sounds needy, it's kind of a bit of a cliche, it's not really true.
Again, I think there's a bit of resentment in Britain against America as the kind of global hegemon, the global power.
Obviously, we had that position until the Second World War.
And there's a feeling that we don't get much out of this so called special relationship.
Particularly, there's lots of criticisms of how Tony Blair followed George Bush into Iraq and Afghanistan as a kind of America's lapdog, that Britain doesn't really have an independent foreign policy because we're essentially just.
Doing whatever America says.
And there's this weird dynamic where it's kind of on the opposite side in America.
There's this feeling that Britain is too independent from American foreign policy, particularly when it comes to this Iran war, where Starmer has been reluctant to help the US and help American troops, particularly with the use of those bases.
And Trump, even earlier this year, was saying that in Afghanistan, the British troops and NATO troops were holding back as if we were somehow like cowards during that war, which is total nonsense.
Hundreds of Brits died for that.
Frankly, American escapade, which is totally pointless.
So, there's interesting sort of tensions that have happened over the last 70 years.
And I think it's a bit of a myth of this special relationship that Churchill kind of invented in the Second World War.
But having said all of that, I think the history is important.
And that quote from Trump is true.
You know, we are connected through culture, we're connected through language, we're connected through some shared history.
So, there is something unique about it.
But is it a special relationship in that?
You know, Britain and America have shared goals, and you know, we've always, it's always sort of beneficial for both sides and so on.
I don't think so.
I think the ambassador is right in that, you know, Israel, for example, has a lot, much more sway in terms of practical outcomes in foreign policy than Britain.
But when it comes to so called soft power and cultural power, you know, there's no one else.
Britain is hugely dominant, whether it's in Hollywood or TV shows or music.
You know, all of these celebrities, the monarchy, and all of that.
And, you know, the question is whether that matters or not.
Does it matter that we have soft power in Britain or not?
I mean, a lot of people, you know, would say a bit like that Stalin quote about how many divisions does the Vatican have?
You know, it's just sort of what's the point?
So these are the dynamics that are interesting that are going on.
Is that the soft and hard power plays, like you said, Trump really respects the hard power, but he has an affinity to the soft power.
And it doesn't seem, I don't think, that the soft power.
Is having too much of an impact on actual foreign policy when it comes to, say, you know, is Trump going to favor Britain in a trade deal?
Or, you know, is Trump, for example, is that the State Department are talking about whether they should recognize or whether, you know, whether the country is neutral on the issue of the Falklands.
I mean, that's like a key, that's a great example of where all of this stuff that Trump is saying about the king and the, and, you know, how his mum fancied Charles and all of this stuff, does that have any actual tangible impact?
On US foreign policy, well, your country at the moment won't even recognize British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
I mean, if you juxtapose it with Israel, again, Israel, you know, there's clearly overlapping foreign policy as far as soft power goes.
I mean, the only Israeli celebrity I can name is like what maybe Gal Gadot.
I think that's it.
I don't think I can.
Natalie Portman, I think, is Israeli.
Like beyond that, there's really not much going on.
We're Britain.
I mean, it's like, how long do you have?
I could name British celebrities all day.
So, yeah, I mean, to your point, I mean, even if the people do have like an affinity for each other, is that manifesting an actual like global alliance?
Not really.
It's breaking down further to steel man Trump's position here.
I mean, you got to think he was born in 1946.
When he was born, Britain was, you know, I mean, all over the world.
I mean, they were sort of, I mean, obviously they had sort of been dethroned in World War II as the global hegemon, but they were still considered a major power, probably the most preeminent power in Europe outside of the Soviet Union.
Compared to now, in the same lifetime from Trump's birth, To now, what is Britain now?
I mean, no offense, but it's like kind of a mid level European power.
I mean, they're kind of jostling for position with Germany and France.
It's just a serious, you know, kind of drop.
And I think that frustrates President Trump quite a bit more so than these other countries.
Because again, the way he speaks when he's talking about Britain's issues and the Republican Party largely, I guess you would say, they do seem pretty incisive that they see the demographic upheaval of Britain as the major issue within Britain.
Now, granted, they typically will just talk about Islamic immigration to Britain, which is like, yes, that's a problem.
But also, When you walk around Britain, it's not necessarily Islam you're thinking.
You're just thinking, wow, there's not a lot of British people here anymore.
Especially when you walk around like London or Birmingham, you're just like, wow, there's not a lot of British people here anymore.
And, you know, some Brits will respond and say, well, it's not like America has a much better sort of maybe not better, but maybe, you know, more American feeling cities.
But America, for what it's worth, like, you know, our sort of native population, that's up for debate.
I mean, I have a position on it, but a lot of people disagree with that position.
A lot of people that are even right wing disagree with that position.
We're in Britain.
It's obvious who the indigenous population was.
They made up 99% of the country like 50 years ago.
And now they have about the same demographic composition as the United States.
And you just have to say, if you're President Trump, that's extremely bizarre and frustrating and bewildering to see.
It's like, why are you giving your country away?
And I now, I mean, I had a show with Connor Tomlinson.
We discussed this ad nauseum.
Now, this kind of debate is finally happening in the United Kingdom.
There's these conversations being had, and you're seeing reform surge in the polls.
Obviously, there's the new Restore Britain party that's You know, seeing some support as well.
Clearly, the British people are fondly like sort of seeing this and like, okay, we can actually do something about this at the ballot box.
It's quite interesting to see.
But yeah, I mean, to Trump's defense, I mean, you got to think he's seen Britain go from one thing to, you know, now JD Vance made this point at NatCon how can you even rely on them as an alliance if the entire, you know, group of people that you penned the alliance with got swapped out overnight?
I think that it's a slight exaggeration to say the British government is ruled by Islamists.
I mean, Maybe we're heading in that direction.
And if you look at the Green Party, for example, which is also surging in the polls, they have a very strong Islamist influence as kind of alliance, the classic red-green alliance between essentially these Marxist communists and Islamists.
And if the Green Party succeeds in perhaps forming a coalition with the Labour Party in the next election, which isn't totally to be discounted, that's a real possibility.
Then I think the argument that JD Vance is talking about would have much more credibility.
And obviously, Starmer does have his own base of Islamist and Muslim support that he has to appease in some way.
But we're nowhere near the point of being a Pakistan or anything like that.
That's a complete exaggeration.
And I think there's sometimes some hyperbole online or on Twitter.
I meet Americans all the time who basically say, your country is over and stuff like that.
And they don't know what my country is, frankly.
You know, places all over.
Maybe they've been to London or something, but most of Britain is still white British.
If you look at, I think, the demographics, it's about 72% in 2021.
That would have changed somewhat due to what was called the Boris wave of migrants who came under Boris Johnson.
But still, you know, a good majority are white British, you know, whereas compared to America, where I think it's around 50 something percent white Americans and declining as well.
So we still have a country.
We're not over, we're not lost yet.
I understand where JD is coming from, and I think these criticisms of immigration in Europe are very, very legitimate.
And it's worth pointing out the fact that British people have always been against immigration.
It's the elites that have imposed it on us.
And as you say, with the Reform Party, it looks like there is an opportunity to change this, and obviously that's being debated at the moment in British politics.
When it comes to your point about Trump and seeing the British Empire decline and Britain really decline from this incredible global power to what it is today.
I think it's interesting that one could make the argument that some of the decline, and I think the decline was essentially inevitable with the way the empire was set up and the kind of liberal democratic institutions that we spread.
The kind of logical conclusion of that is that the people would, the peoples, the native peoples would eventually have sovereignty and their own democratic institutions.
That's where, arguably, the empire was heading from its birth if it was based off this kind of liberal democratic ideas.
But there is an argument to say that the Americans actually accelerated this decline in the empire, both during the Second World War and after the Second World War, particularly Roosevelt, who was very, very against European colonial projects, and particularly the British Empire, and was very insistent in all these conferences and Tehran and so forth, even working with Stalin against Winston Churchill.
I think that was a form of treachery against Britain's ally or America's ally.
And I think it's a real shame that Roosevelt.
With this surrounded by semi communist advisors.
There's some idea that even people like Harry Hopkins and others were even communist agents.
I don't know the truth on that.
It's difficult to, you know, the historians argue over these things.
But Roosevelt certainly drained the British economy.
Churchill enabled him to do so.
We handed over masses of our scientific research and so on to the Americans essentially for nothing in return.
And Britain was really bankrupted by the Second World War.
And America.
Decided to pump a huge amount of money through the Marshall Plan into Europe, including in Britain, which is fantastic and helped us rebuild.
But at the same time, we were still paying off those war debts until I think about 2008 to the States, whilst the US was also pumping huge amounts of money into Japan and Germany, who'd lost the war.
And look where Japan and Germany are today.
Their economies are actually much more developed than Britain's and have had a competitive advantage over us, particularly in manufacturing.
So I think we have to.
Take the most, the biggest brunt of the blame.
The British politicians after the war made some huge, huge mistakes.
And if you read someone like Enoch Powell describing after the war, particularly on the economics, we essentially turn into a kind of welfare state where they invent the NHS, we open the borders, and there's huge, huge problems.
But at the same time, the US, as the global power, in particular, did not help Britain during that transition period.
You know, if you look at 1956 with the Suez Crisis, for example, where Britain, France, and Israel captured the Suez Canal after Nasser, who was the Egyptian dictator, Nationalized the canal, Eisenhower actually said to the basically threatened the entire British economy he was going to dump the pound if we didn't leave the Suez Canal.
And after that, after the British were forced in a complete humiliation to leave the canal, Nasser, the Egyptian president, but basically became a Soviet sort of satellite.
And it was, you know, in retrospect, that was a huge error from the Americans.
And again, part of this kind of weirdly vindictive attitude towards.
Toward Britain after and during the Second World War.
So, yes, I understand Britain has, and Trump is completely right to see Britain declining, and it's sad, and people in Britain are sad about it.
But, you know, let's not forget that a certain subsection of American foreign policy experts and diplomats and presidents were very, very happy to see that decline happen, encourage that decline to happen.
To allow Stalin and the communists to take that place.
And you saw that in Vietnam and all over the world where a European colony would collapse into communism.
And it's like, is this what you wanted, America?
And the same thing with Egypt after Suez.
So it's a really complicated and nuanced history involving a lot of very bad actors in the 20th century, both British and American.
I mean, you can just read through any history book regarding the decolonization of Africa.
And even if the impetus was on the Brits, the Americans, A, were pressuring them, B, were like basically throwing a brick on the throttle.
I mean, the entire story of Rhodesia is basically that.
In addition to that, I agree in the sense that Trump and Vance are correct on sort of diagnosing the issue, even though I think the Islamic angle may be over exaggerated.
This is me not running cover for Muslims.
I'm just saying, like, I think the reality of what Britain could turn into is a lot closer to South Africa than it is to like Pakistan.
And my point is, it's kind of interesting because you can say this is true, but America has the exact same.
Granted, we don't have as large a proportion of our immigration coming from Muslim countries, but we still face the exact same pinch from immigration insofar as upheaving our culture, causing an economic crisis, et cetera, et cetera.
We have the same problem.
And so it's like, actually, it kind of hits to the point maybe we kind of tried to dispel at the top of the show.
It's like maybe our fates are kind of united insofar as we are kind of facing the same issue, even if the streams of migration are coming from different countries.
I'm like, we can dunk on London and Birmingham all we want, but they're building monkey statues in Dallas to like celebrate some.
Like Hindu God or something.
So it's like, can we have the same problem?
So, I mean, I don't know.
It's like, that's great.
Let's take the gloves off for Europe as long as we're keeping that same energy with the rest of the third world that's like directly impacting us.
So, Stephen, I don't know if you have any final thoughts and then where people can find you for more.
And I firmly believe, you know, I think the black building, I agree, is just nonsensical because there's still time left on the clock.
And I do believe that Britain, out of all the countries in Europe, actually is kind of best positioned to sort of make it out of this fog that I think all.
Of the Western nations are in.
So, yeah, I don't think there's any sense in blackpilling.
Like, you, I think everyone has successfully diagnosed the issue.
Now it's time to, like, actually get our hands dirty and get to work on a mop in this mess up.
And, uh, yeah, you know, I agree, like, with Trump and Vance, with them when they're diagnosed.
I'm not saying that I am, like, Islam is a major issue.
I think it's completely incompatible with the West.
So, I think any people running cover for Islam or sort of apologizing for Islam is just ridiculous there.
It's incompatible with the West, et cetera, et cetera.
That being said, if you look at America's situation, I mean, we're not very much better.
And we bought a lot of time with Trump, and things are moving in the right direction.
But again, we've just faced 40, 50 years of the same thing Britain's been facing, which is unfettered mass migration.
Like to Stephen's point, go to Dearborn, go to Detroit, go to Dallas, go to Queens, New York, go to really anywhere in California.
Like it looks the same as, yeah, like a Birmingham or London.
So.
No need to blackpill.
I think we've all successfully diagnosed the issue.
I think that's not the problem now.
I think the problem now is sort of determining which sort of right wing political vehicle is going to be the most viable to get us out of this mess that we're in.
So with that, I'm going to bring on.
Oh, wait, let's see.
Is Devore live?
I don't know.
Maybe they changed up the schedule.
I don't know.
I don't see Devore live.
So we're just going to send you guys.
Somewhere else, I guess.
So we'll see what happens.
But with that, we'll wind the show up.
You can follow me on X and Instagram at Real Tape Brown.
Come give me a follow.
Make sure you go follow Stephen at Stephen Edgington on X. He's fantastic.
He's doing great work.
And we'll be back tonight for Timcast IRL at 8 p.m.