Trump administration secures massive Supreme Court victories, including deporting Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 despite Judge Boatsburg's objections and firing hundreds of probationary federal workers. The Court also authorized pausing grants to non-compliant states, aiding Letitia James' legal challenges while Elon Musk reviews government data via Doge to cut waste. With a proposed 104% tariff on China and plans to secure the Panama Canal, these rulings signal a decisive shift against activist judges, aiming to curb illegal immigration and reduce foreign influence despite congressional privacy concerns. [Automatically generated summary]
Transcriber: CohereLabs/cohere-transcribe-03-2026, Qwen/Qwen3-ForcedAligner-0.6B, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Supreme Court Wins Explained00:01:51
Welcome to the big show.
We have some surprising wins.
I mean, like one win after another.
Boom, boom, boom.
Just here yesterday, I was telling you about the Supreme Court win.
It was bad news for Letitia James in New York, as well as, well, 21 other states in Washington, D.C.
Well, guess what?
We get some bad news for some Venezuelan migrants that are said to be part of a gang here because they are going to be expelled.
They have just gotten the authorization from none other than the Supreme Court.
We're going to get into all of that.
Plus, markets are a total mess.
We've been all over the place.
We're going to break this down here.
Okay.
While I'm all for being tough on China, you know that we might want to be more thoughtful about some of our friends, right?
Because we kind of want Japan to do okay, Korea to do okay.
We can tariff them, don't get me wrong.
But I kind of like what the president was talking about way back when, you know, the 10% tariffs, maybe 15% for everyone across the board, except for China.
We'll go after China.
We'll get into this because there is a way out of this mess.
And I have an idea or two.
And of course, there's one more thing that we got to talk about, not just the 1798 Act, but actually the big win for firing federal workers.
Amazing, right?
They're firing federal workers now because the Supreme Court says they can.
Welcome to the show, everyone.
It's really, really good to have you here.
Make sure you subscribe, share, like, comment, all that good stuff.
It's really important every little bit you can, right, for the algorithm.
The algorithm matters.
Okay, here we are on a huge Supreme Court victory for Donald Trump.
At least it's an order that says things can stay as they are for now.
You see, remember those Venezuelans that were part of a gang, TDA, and they said, we're going to get rid of all these guys and we're going to put them in an El Salvador prison?
Deportation Rules and Judges00:12:35
Well, there was a judge that said, I don't think you can.
I don't think you can do this.
They were using something called the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to get rid of Tren de Agua, which the administration was calling a terrorist organization.
So they want to get rid of the terrorist organization.
They say we're effectively at war with Venezuela.
We've sanctioned Venezuela, of course, and that they are sending these guys from TDA into our country.
And so in order to get rid of them, we've got to take this into account, 1798.
They're like grasping at straws because, you know, look, it's been difficult.
Hey, we had an open border.
Come one, come all for so long.
And now they got to kind of turn this thing on its head and they're saying, how do we get the authorization?
I mean, it should be sort of basic.
You're here legally, we can deport you.
But in this case they're taking it a step further and they're saying, you know what, not only can we deport you, we can deport you to another place like a really bad country.
So hey, guess what?
You maybe don't want to come here in the first place.
Well, judge Boatsburg, he came forward and said, no, I don't think you can do this, I don't think that that's possible.
He tried to get the plane to turn around midair and then he asked a whole series of questions.
Right, he's like, Why were you taking them there?
What time did you take off?
Why didn't you turn around?
You didn't have the authorization to do this.
So he asked all these questions and you had the administration basically giving him the middle finger.
Pam Bondi's like, yeah, whatever.
He put one deadline in place and said, I want my questions answered.
And then he put another deadline in place.
And she kind of sort of placated him on some things.
But basically she's like, buddy, you don't have the authority.
You don't have the authorization to be able to do this.
And the Supreme Court agrees with her.
Here she is.
Just hours before he was putting new demands on her, she's like, Yeah, go fly a kite.
Let's start, if we might, from the decision by Judge Bosberg.
Tomorrow is your deadline to answer questions.
Those questions include the following What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil?
Where did it leave from?
What time did it leave U.S. airspace?
And what time did it land in a foreign country?
You have, I don't know, four, five, six questions the judge wants answers to regarding the details of those flights over the weekend.
How will you respond at the Department of Justice?
Well, Will, our lawyers are working on this.
We will answer appropriately.
But what I will tell you is this judge has no right to ask those questions.
You have one unelected federal judge trying to control foreign policies, trying to control the Alien Enemies Act, which they have no business presiding over.
And there are 261 reasons why Americans are safer now.
That's because those people are out of this.
Country.
The judge had no business, no power to do what he did.
And, Will, he came in on an emergency basis on a Saturday with very, very short notice, if any, to our attorney to run in the courtroom.
You know, and this has been a pattern with these liberal judges.
You just spoke about that.
It's been a pattern with what they've been doing.
This judge had no right to do that.
They're meddling in foreign affairs.
They're meddling in our government.
And the question should be why is a judge trying to protect terrorists who have invaded our country?
Over American citizens.
You know, TDA is a terrorist organization.
They are organized, they have a government structure within them.
They are sending money not only throughout this country to each other, but back to Venezuela.
They are a terrorist organization, and we are not going to have that in our country.
Well, effectively, the Supreme Court is agreeing with her, or at least I should say, agreeing that they can deport more and more Venezuelans for now.
So the majority of justices concluded that the Venezuelan migrants.
who had brought their cases.
They did so in the wrong court, but that they were entitled to an opportunity to challenge their removal.
However, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday night, this is last night, that the Trump administration could continue to deport them, continue deporting Venezuelan migrants using that Wartime Powers Act for now.
This overturns a lower court that had put a temporary stop to the deportations.
Now, this decision is certainly being hailed as a big victory.
for the Trump administration.
You had Stephen Miller recently saying, like, how is it that you can have these lower courts, like one single judge out there, suddenly deciding the entire policy of the country?
And it begs an important question.
I'll let him say it.
You cannot have a democracy where single individual district court judges can assume the full total powers of the commander-in-chief.
Even on the Supreme Court, it takes agreement of five Supreme Court justices to change a federal policy.
Five.
A single district court judge out of 700 cannot set policy for the entire nation, let alone on national security and public safety issues.
The president has been clear that he has tremendous respect for Justice Roberts and believes it's essential the Supreme Court crack down and stop this assault on our democracy from these radical, rogue judges that are usurping the powers of the presidency and laying waste to our entire constitutional system.
Now, one of the interesting things here is that they are saying if you're going to deport them, they need to be told in advance.
So that's something that they did agree on, that you have people now from Venezuela that have been confined to Texas, and they're saying you've got to basically give them some notice that they're about to be deported.
So, okay, fair enough, right?
But the point is, you're here illegally, you're believed to be part of a gang, and we're going to suddenly have all these judges here, there, and everywhere saying, no, you can't deport them?
I'm sorry.
I think you can deport them just from the fact that they're here illegally, and then you throw in the gang stuff, and it's like, guys, I mean, what do you want?
I mean, but this is big in that you basically had the Trump administration saying F you to the judges, saying F you to the system.
We know that we're in the right here.
We will take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
We will win, which is exactly what they have done.
And you have some people, like even this one guy over on CNN just a couple of weeks ago saying, you know, he was kind of impressed.
He would have loved when he was at DOJ to be able to tell some of these district judges to take a hike.
All insiders start us off.
Ellie, you know, when you look back at Judge Bosberg's rulings, some people have also mentioned he's also a pretty close friend of, you may know him, Brett Kavanaugh, Trump's Supreme Court Justice.
They were roommates.
They still go on trips together.
Obviously, that doesn't have Dictate how he's going to rule.
But it does speak to the nature of what Jeff Zelani was getting at how do you determine who's a judge you don't like?
Is it just because they rule against you?
Well, that seems to be the rule with the Trump administration.
But let's remember this judge has been, if anything, remarkably patient and solicitous with Trump's DOJ.
I mean, I've been watching what DOJ has been doing, the way they've been responding to this judge over the last three days with awe and astonishment.
I mean, this is now the third consecutive day the judge has said, I want specific details from you, Justice Department.
And they have responded by saying, we'll give you a little bit, but no, you don't need the rest of that.
We're not.
No, he's right.
I mean, but that's why I think they were so confident in their position.
I want to share with you what President Trump is saying right now.
Quote, the Supreme Court has upheld the rule of law in our nation by allowing a president, whoever that may be, to be able to secure our borders and protect our families and our country itself.
A great day for justice in America.
Listen, guys, this is not that hard.
Power the federal government absolutely positively has, and this should not be disputed in any way, shape, or form, is to control its borders.
And I realize there were a lot of reasons for whatever reason.
Well, I think we know the reason.
It had a little something to do with, well, can we call it gerrymandering?
A new way of gerrymandering, right?
Let's bring in 800,000 people into the state of New York that are here illegally and suddenly give them the opportunity to vote in elections.
Oh, that'll turn out well.
Well, that's what they were trying to do, okay?
Kid you not, that was the intention.
So the one thing that the federal government has absolute power to do is to control its borders.
And if that means we have to go back to 1798 and find a reason to do so, so be it.
We're going to do so.
And now the Supreme Court agreeing that yes, absolutely, you have the power to control your borders.
That is one of the federal powers bestowed onto you.
Reminder to subscribe, share, like, all that good stuff.
I'll tell you who does not like this.
Well, one Jasmine Crockett.
You get all the Democrats out making a lot of noise, but this lady is very, how do I say, special, okay?
Like this one, she's in a category all onto herself.
They're actually talking about her possibly running for president in 2028.
I mean, I say bring it on, but you know what?
You gotta be careful what you wish for.
Anyway, Jasmine Crockett is like, ah, you know, we need more and more and more and more migrants here because wait till you hear her justification.
Because what?
Because she's not going to pick the cotton.
Literally, she said it.
She said it.
I mean, she's talking about an inhumane, lousy, nasty thing to say.
She thinks all the poor people got to come here to do her bidding.
I'm sorry, Jasmine Crockett.
So I had to go around the country and educate people about what immigrants do for this country or the fact that we are a country of immigrants.
Right, right.
The fact is, ain't none of y'all trying to go and farm right now.
Okay, so I'm lying.
Raise your hands.
You're not.
You're not.
We're done picking cotton.
We are.
You can't pay us enough to find a plantation.
I mean, do you think that was funny?
Or is that really how she feels?
It may be how she feels.
In other words, we need migrants to do all these meaningless jobs that nobody else wants to do.
I mean, not a very nice way to phrase it there.
Ms. Crockett, Representative Crockett, but, you know, she's not exactly the most eloquent.
Nor does she have the nicest eyelashes.
Anyway, I mean, can you imagine saying something like that?
But she did, and that's her sort of interpretation of why we need migrant labor.
The only problem with that is you can't just keep shuttling people into the country and have no idea, no clue who's here.
I mean, why can't you come up with a better system?
Why can't we expect more from our government so that we come up with a better system and we have people that are here and maybe can do some of those jobs?
I'm not saying everybody's going to have a PhD in computer engineering.
I mean, it'd be nice.
But we need people to do a diverse amount of work.
And we can do that, but we can do that in a legal way, can we not?
Can we not have a system that actually, I mean, I look at the Democrats right now and it's bizarre because you can just go back in time actually to Obama, believe it or not, who was deporting people left and right.
And none of them believed in this until now.
Until now.
It's kind of this let them eat cake, Jasmine Crockett approach.
We're not going to do it.
So we need them to.
Okay, fine.
But let them be here legally.
Don't they have a better shot?
Don't we all have a better shot if we know who's in this country as opposed to shuttling people?
Unless, of course, it is about something else entirely, which I do think it might actually be.
Right?
I mean, how else can you justify bringing in all these people illegally unless, of course, you want non-citizen voting?
They did in Berkeley, California.
They were trying to do it in New York.
This thing just got shut down a couple of weeks ago.
The New York State top court said, no, you guys cannot have 800,000 people who are not here legally actually voting.
So this is part of what it was about.
Well, that's ended.
It's totally ended.
Jasmine, I'm sorry.
You know what?
Either you're going to get Americans to do it or you're going to find a system that allows for people to come in, be here in a recorded way that everybody knows about where, you know, it's all on the up and up and we know who's here.
Separation of Powers Violated00:11:09
Or you're not going to, I guess wages are going to have to go way up.
Let's take a look at this.
Take a look at this.
This is the sort of number of border crossings that have taken place over the last however many years.
You can go all the way back to see.
This one goes back to 2000.
And so as I look at this, under Joe Biden, Axios did this chart.
You had monthly crossings at nearly 250,000.
I mean, it's incredible.
And then look at the plummet.
Donald Trump comes into the office and is like, woo!
We go right down, down 96%.
Isn't that amazing?
Well, I think, I suspect that some of the rhetoric coming out of the administration, including things like, hey, we got a 1798 Deportation Act that we can put in place anytime we want, is probably a deterrent of sorts, I think, right?
Maybe?
Just a little bit?
Oh, we've been watching this market today, and we're going to get to all these tariffs, and we're going to talk about all this good stuff.
But, you know, one of the bright spots was actually gold.
Amid all this concern and all this fear, people went into gold.
We're an independent show here.
We don't have to have any, any, any, any well, we do have advertisers, but you know what I mean.
Like the big, big, big guys like they have on the networks.
And we don't have any management structure getting in the way of what I want to say.
So it's just you and me.
And well, I let it all hang out there every single day.
So we appreciate our advertisers here on the show, our little show advertisers, people like American Heart for Gold, a good group of people over there that can definitely help you if you're interested in investing in gold.
It's one of those things I do talk about all the time in good times and in bad.
It was down a little bit yesterday.
I bought some today.
It was actually back up.
Goldman Sachs thinking it's going to go to 3,300 this year.
We'll see how this all shakes out.
Again, part of, you know, if you see the dollar start to lose some momentum, one would anticipate that gold prices would go up.
Of course, you've got the uncertainty factor, which helps gold prices go up.
And you have central banks all around the world that are like, oh, my gosh, what's going on in the U.S.?
I think I'm going to go into gold.
So all of these things help.
If you're interested in gold, go over there to trishlovesgold.com.
You can get up to $15,000 in free silver.
You can text Trish, my name, to 655-32, or you can call him at 1-844.
495-1115 today.
Wow, another win.
Like I'm just winning, We got lots of good wins to talk about, and then we'll talk about the market.
But Trump got another, another big win here.
You know, we just found out that employees that he fired, they were employees that were on probation of some sort.
He went through and fired them all, and immediately there was a lawsuit, and that one went all the way to the Supreme Court.
It was actually a Clinton judge, interestingly enough, that looked over that lawsuit, and then it had to go up the to the rank and file to the Supreme Court and he got another win there.
CNN just flabbergasted having to talk about all the wins at the court level.
We start, though, with breaking news at the Supreme Court.
It just handed President Trump another win, allowing his administration to fire hundreds of probationary federal workers.
I want to get straight to Paula Reid, who was looking through the decision.
Paula, what did they say?
So, Dana, this is a significant win for the administration.
The fourth one that they have notched from the Supreme Court in just the past few days.
Here, this decision is focused on thousands of.
Fired probationary federal workers.
Now, this decision will allow the government to keep those individuals off the payroll while the larger questions about these firings are litigated.
Now, this was decided not on a constitutional issue or really on the merits.
It was decided on something called standing, which is whether the individuals who brought this lawsuit had the right to do so.
And here the court says that the nine nonprofit organizations did not have standing in this case.
So, again, this is sort of a technical win, but it is still a win for the administration.
Though it's unclear how this will apply to all fired probationary workers because a separate judge in Maryland earlier this month ordered a pause and a reinstatement of some employees that are not covered by this case.
But I do want to say, Dana, the Justice Department, the Trump administration, they've been waiting for a while for good news from the courts after a string of losses, and they have been getting a lot of good news from the high court over the past few days.
Okay, Paula, stand by because I do want to come back to you in a short while about other topics the Supreme Court is.
Hmm.
So, you know, it must kill them.
They're like win, It's amazing how much they have challenged him, right, on everything.
And I think that at the end of the day, what they're learning is at least at the Supreme Court level, what the decision is, is that, yeah, you know, he has the powers bestowed onto him and he's using them.
And so in this particular case, he wanted to trim some of the fat, right, out of the federal government.
And by the way, nobody's talking about what Biden did.
He did this.
Barack Obama did this.
Like, why is it all of a sudden an issue when Donald Trump does it?
Not to mention, they didn't want Doge in there looking at anything.
Remember that?
Like, Doge wasn't even allowed sort of as a consultant, as a government contractor to come in and try and figure out where all the hefty things were that you needed to cut in the first place?
Well, that got struck down, too.
I mean, these guys, they just can't figure it out.
I mean, you had the federal grants, by the way, just yesterday afternoon getting getting tossed as well, the Supreme Court allowing Donald Trump to say, okay, we have the ability to review all of these federal grants.
So let's go through it, guys.
I mean, you got the deportations, right?
Those can go through.
That can happen.
You've got the firings that they wanted to enact.
Those can happen.
You've got the federal grants.
Poor Leticia James is coming apart at the seams because they can take away the federal grants to states that are not complying with their federal rules.
And then, yes.
The answer is Doge can absolutely go in there and look at all this stuff.
So guys, you know, I don't know what to tell you.
Kind of up a creek without a paddle here.
Remember the federal grants, right?
The president had signed a whole bunch of executive orders.
This was one of them.
He wanted to get rid of federal grants that were going to various things like diversity programs, DEI stuff, foreign aid programs that he did not feel were actually encompassing his ideals and his agenda.
And so that went all the way up to the Supreme Court.
And just yesterday afternoon, they decided, sure enough, you know what?
He's the president of the United States.
He has his agenda.
He has the right to ask these states to provide some explanation.
But yet they don't even want Elon in there to begin with.
I mean, this is this Representative Goldman, who's basically a puppet for the Biden administration still.
He's out there still today, literally today.
Sorry, guys.
You know, it's been done already.
Like Doge is in there and they're going to continue to be in there.
And he's like, no, they don't have the right.
They don't have the right here.
Some of the witnesses here today as well.
But the problem I have with this hearing is this is an important argument, but it pales in comparison to what's going on right now with Americans' privacy, with Americans' national security.
We're talking about whether there should be a warrant to search a certain amount of information lawfully collected from foreigners.
It's not a broad set of information, and yet some.
You know, non government employee Elon Musk is getting access to every single American's personal identification information.
Every, his employees, some of whom have been, who have already been found to have stolen information from one company to bring to another competitor.
Okay, they're really, they're freaking out.
Gosh, he sounds a little like Letitia.
I mean, he doesn't quite have the, Je ne sais quoi that this lady does.
No one elected Elon Musk and his minions, and no one has allowed him to have access to this information.
This is a violation of the separation of powers.
The United States Congress, the United States Senate, has the sole discretion in having the power of the purse, and not Elon Musk.
We are here today to seek a preliminary injunction to stand up against those forces.
Who believe that they can unilaterally have power and have control, all in the hands of the president of these United States?
Hmm.
Well, that didn't work out.
So, you know, Goldman's still fighting it there in Congress today.
She's still sort of fighting it, although she's kind of in a depressive state because she just really, really lost 21 states and Washington, D.C., learning just yesterday afternoon that, in fact, the Supreme Court is saying, yeah, you know, he can pause the federal funding.
I mean, it's like one hit after another.
What are these people going to do?
By the way, how the heck does Doge know where the blow is if they can't get in and look at the books?
We've had all kinds of government contractors before, right?
And some of them haven't gone so well for the government.
Edward Snowden comes to mind, right?
So this is commonplace.
You bring in consulting agencies all the time to look at things.
But just because it's Elon Musk, just because it's associated with Donald Trump, suddenly now we can't have anybody taking a look at anything.
Give me a break.
Give me a break.
Leticia James, you lost, okay?
And you're losing again and again and again and again.
Here she is furious.
Remember when Pam Bondi said, we're not giving you any money, and she just shut off the spigot?
Now the Supreme Court says, yeah, Pam, you got the jurisdiction to do that.
Well, Leticia doesn't think so.
Not only does this administration's new policy put people at risk, but it is plainly unconstitutional.
The president does not get to decide which laws to enforce and for whom.
When Congress dedicates funding for a program, the president cannot pull that funding on a whim.
Later today, I am meeting.
Well, he did.
He did.
And guess what?
The court backed him.
So, Letitia, I know it's tough.
I know she was flipping out the other day, you know, with her big thing with Al Sharpton, where she started getting all revved up and then she started misquoting scripture and Martin Luther King and this, that, and the other.
Look, it's over, Letitia.
Okay, he has the right to do this and and I get it people are going to be so so upset which is why It's a little tricky now when we look at the stock market because these people they want to have something to go on right something anything to go on white wolf.
Panama Canal Sovereignty00:03:29
Thank you so much for the generosity I'm looking at you're talking about unleashing American energy.
This is wonderful news.
Yes, it is great that Donald Trump is going to unleash more American energy Listen guys, we're gonna need it.
We're gonna need it.
We're gonna need it.
It's gonna help bring energy prices down.
You know what else?
Helps bring energy prices down.
I guess a recession?
Hopefully we're not there, but i'll tell you, the data that i'm seeing, the real-time data, is not good.
There is such a vulnerability right now in the markets, and I know nobody wants to hear this.
We're all on the same page in that we think tariffs are a good thing.
Right, they're a good thing in terms of dealing with our enemies, but maybe they're not such a good thing when you're dealing with your friends.
I mean, you can put some in 10 to 20, 10 to 15 I think his original plan was 10 right across the board.
That would actually probably be pretty healthy and good, and you'd collect a certain amount of revenue off of it, which would enable you to do the tax cut.
That makes sense, but what we're looking at right now is basically an overall rate of somewhere in the vicinity of 22, and that maybe doesn't make as much sense except for China, of course.
I'm happy to see China all day long it gets.
They're at 104 right now 104 tariffs for China, and everybody's really, really worked up about that.
I will say though, that you know there's some big big, big picture items out there in terms of us vis-a-vis China that are hopefully going to be addressed.
I mean, the Panama Canal for one, right?
Here's Pete Hegseth talking today.
Very clear.
China did not build this canal, China does not operate this canal, and China will not weaponize this canal.
Together with Panama in the lead, we will keep the canal secure and available for all nations through the deterrent power of the strongest, most effective, and most lethal fighting force in the world.
We will do this in partnership with Panama.
Together, we will take back the Panama Canal from China's influence.
And we will do this along with other capable, like-minded allies and partners.
This is what peace through strength looks like.
I don't disagree.
Like, the Panama Canal is critical.
It's right here in our Western Hemisphere.
Just go back to the Monroe Doctrine.
We want to have a lot of presence.
We don't want to be surrendering it to China.
And that's effectively what's happened over the years.
So we can let Panama take the lead, but we need to make sure that we still have access to that canal.
critical for a variety of reasons.
So that's important.
The other thing you got going on is 104% tariffs now being leveled at China because they're trying to play some giant game of chicken.
And I just got to tell you guys, you know what?
You're not going to win that one.
You're just not going to win that one.
Donald Trump has that all day long because, you know, he doesn't really like China that much to begin with, shall we say.
And I do have a feeling, dare I say, I do have a feeling that He's willing to go the extra mile, right?
Vis-a-vis China, etc.
He's willing to push that as hard as he needs to push it in order to get the desired result, which is some kind of more fair, if there could ever be a fair trade agreement with China.