All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 16, 2025 - Uncensored - Piers Morgan
01:01:38
20250416_albrego-garcia-deportation-trump-harvard-takeover-
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Due Process vs Illegal Aliens 00:10:02
You have millions of people who have broken the law and come here illegally.
I think that Trump has a referendum or a mandate to send the illegals who are here back home.
So I'm all about it.
Get rid of all the illegals.
Sure.
Let's not use terrorism in order to get rid of all of our constitutional rights, due process.
We need to keep all of that in place.
That is what makes America America.
Please, please make illegal aliens and support for MS-13 the Democrat.
Mike, please go tell all your buddies on the Democrat side, I would love for you to make this your argument going in that we need more illegal aliens in the country.
Like, you are one of the internet's biggest conspiracy theorists, and I'm very glad to be on this panel with you so I could just call you out for that.
But like everybody else is in the middle of the day.
How was your Carl Harris campaign last year?
How did that go?
Did that go across your way lost, Mike?
He was a wife beater in addition to this information that he was a member of MS-13.
And people will sit there blue in the face and say, oh, he, you know, he was this innocent guy.
He was just working.
It's simply not true.
A year ago, President Trump told Time magazine in vivid detail about his plan to deport 15 million illegal immigrants.
He spoke about mass deportations more than 100 times as a candidate.
And the American people voted for Donald Trump.
When the wheels hit the runway, it gets complicated.
There are laws, there are mistakes, and there is compassion.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador by mistake.
The government has admitted that.
The Supreme Court says that was illegal.
Border Chief Tom Homan says that we should have no compassion because of this.
Every time I read a story about this, it's Maryland father, Maryland father.
They don't mention he's a member of MS-13 who is designated terrorist group, one of the most violent gangs in the world.
They don't mention he's MS-13 member.
They don't mention he's an El Salvadoran citizen being held by the country of El Salvador.
Well, the problem is we've not yet been shown the hard evidence that Garcia was or is a member of MS-13.
That remains inconclusive.
What we do know is a 2019 court order even blocked his deportation over concerns for his safety.
Well, Trump's team says the Supreme Court's order to facilitate his return only means they should let him back in to face due process if El Salvador agrees.
And the president of El Salvador does not agree.
The question is preposterous.
How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States?
I don't have the power to return him to the United States.
You can release him inside of Salvador.
Yeah, but I'm not releasing.
I mean, we're not very fond of releasing terrorists into our country.
We just turned the murder capital of the world into the safest country of the Western Hemisphere.
And you want us to go back into the releasing criminals so we can go back to being the murder capital of the world.
That's not going to happen.
That's not going to happen.
Well, that was pretty crystal clear.
So Garcia is probably a moot point, certainly as far as the Trump administration is concerned.
But there's going to be a lot more.
Trump won the argument about the U.S. border and he's fixed the crisis at lightning speed.
He doesn't get enough credit for that, in my opinion.
That's partly because we're debating every individual who's been caught up in the vast deportation net.
The American people voted for kicking out criminals, but did they vote for kicking out rumored gang members without clear, concrete evidence produced, or gay makeup artists who may have been deported by mistake?
Let's find out.
I'm joined now by Jack Pozobic.
He's the senior editor at Human Events, the Democrat strategist and former Kamala Harris advisor, Mike Nellis, Dinesh D'Souza, the conservative filmmaker and host of the Dinesh D'Souza podcast, and on her uncensored debut, Kim Iverson, the host of the Kim Iverson Show.
Welcome to all of you.
Mike Nellis, let's start first of all with Kilmar Garcia.
What's your assessment of it?
Yeah, my take on this is that, you know, look, the American people voted for stronger border security.
They voted to get dangerous criminals, violent criminals out of this country.
I accept that.
I also want that.
What I don't think the American people voted for is getting rid of due process.
The way you determine whether somebody is a criminal in this country is through the judicial system.
You have to go through that process, and there are processes that are set up to remove people like Kilmar or anybody else.
The federal government has produced no evidence that Kilmar is a danger.
He was doing everything that he was supposed to do, everything the federal government was telling him to do.
He was following the instructions he was given by ICE.
The only evidence to the conservative movement that the Trump administration has made is that he owns a bull's hat.
And if we're going to start throwing away people and locking them up because they have bullshit, we have a lot bigger problems in this country than people coming across the border.
And look, I would put it this way.
We have Dinesh on the panel today.
Like, Dinesh, like you, you are someone I have profound disagreements with.
I'm sure we're going to get into some of those today.
You were born in India and you're here legally.
I want you here.
I support your right to free speech.
But if we start throwing people like you out of the country with the Democratic president, like that's not right either.
And I don't want that.
And I want to make sure that people have access to due process.
So they've got to show that Kilmar is a dangerous criminal, which I don't think they can do because otherwise they would have already done it.
Otherwise, we need to bring this guy home.
That's what the Supreme Court has ruled.
And every day that Trump is not listening to the Supreme Court, we're in the middle of a constitutional crisis.
Okay, well, let's go to Dinesh, a response to that.
Well, let's look at the differences between me and Kilmar.
For one, I came to the country legally as an exchange student.
I then became a foreign student and went to Dartmouth.
Then I went through a process of getting a green card legally to work.
I went through five years of naturalization.
So I came to the country in 1978.
I only became a citizen in 1991.
This guy, Kilmar, came to the country illegally.
So start right there.
This was a guy who sneaked into the country in violation of law.
That alone makes him a criminal.
Now, the question is, what do we do about people like Kilmar?
The accomplishment, Piers, you noticed, you noted, Trump has sealed the borders.
So it's difficult for new Kilmars to sneak across.
But we still have millions of people who are flagrantly and deliberately allowed in by Biden and just millions of illegals in the country.
Does Trump have the right to send those people home?
That's the first question we have to ask.
Now, an immigration judge admittedly looked at this case and said, yes, I kind of accept that this guy was a gang member based upon an identification apparently by someone in the gang.
Note also that the judge said about Kilmar, if he goes back to El Salvador, he will be in danger of being killed by a rival gang.
That alone implies that the guy himself was a gang member.
Why would a rival gang target him if he wasn't himself in a gang?
So the Trump administration has made this determination based upon the facts of the case.
They've sent him to his native country, El Salvador.
He's a citizen of El Salvador.
It's the job of the Salvadoran government to decide what to do about his gang membership or his criminal status.
That is not really our concern.
So I do see these notable differences between Kilmar and Dinesh.
Right.
The point that I make is that.
I would argue.
Yeah, go.
Sorry, Pierce, can I follow up?
Which is the point that I'm making is they have not had to face a judge in order to deport this man, and they've made a determination without providing any evidence.
That's very easy to see a Democratic version of Donald Trump doing this as someone that they disagree with, like you.
It's not that I'm questioning your immigration status or anything.
I'm saying that there is a due process in this country, and we have to get those things right.
Kilmar was already going through that process with ICE, and we can attack people because they came here illegally.
A lot of our ancestors came here legally.
If I had to guess, I'm Irish and Italian.
A lot of my ancestors probably didn't come here through the proper channels either.
And what I want to make sure is we don't fall down a separate slope where we're not having due process.
Well, first of all, Dinesh, well, hang on, Dinesh, before you hang on, before you respond, I would on that ICE point.
My understanding about this guy is that for the last few years, every year, he has been interviewed by ICE.
He has no criminal record.
They've established no crime that he's committed.
He is a father of three kids with special needs.
And he has persistently... denied ever being a member of MS-13.
And the only person it seems who has said he was is an anonymous source who identified him as somebody they believe to be a member of MS-13.
There's no other independent corroborative evidence that he was a gang member.
Now, the significance of that, you know, in relation to your point, Dinesh, about, well, you know, why would he be under threat?
There are lots of people who are not members of gangs who are threatened by gangs, right?
One of the tactics that gangs often use is extortion, racketeering, threats, and so on, harassment.
We know this.
It goes back to the mob, right?
I mean, this is how they made a lot of their money.
So I think the idea that he would have to be a gang member himself to be under threat from a gang, I don't think that that is credible in his case.
If you look at the background to it, there could be plenty of other reasons.
But surely the fact that ICE was seeing him every year, but did not determine that he should be deported is in his favor, isn't it?
And at what point is he just then put on a plane and put into one of the worst hellholes of any prison anywhere in the world, purely because it seems to me of one anonymous source eight years ago who thinks he recognized him as a gang member when nobody else has corroborated that.
Well, the immigration judge, as I understand, accepted the testimony that he is in fact a gang member, but nevertheless said that despite that, he should not be returned because he might face danger at home.
I also understand that this so-called rival gang has essentially been wiped off the scene in El Salvador.
I mean, Bukele has had this massive crackdown in which the gangs just don't have the kind of power that they once did.
Gang Testimony and Danger Claims 00:09:41
But I think the bigger picture here, Piers, is this.
You have millions of people who have broken the law and come here illegally.
They're in the country.
I think that Trump has a referendum or a mandate, not simply to seal the border against new illegals, but also to send the illegals who are here back home.
Now, the Democrats are saying, no, what you need to do now is set up an elaborate judicial process where each of these, let's just say, five, seven, 10 million illegals all get to go to court over a period of months, if not years.
And so in effect, what it does is it makes permanent the illegal move on the part of the Biden administration to bring all those people here for entirely nefarious political motives.
From tariffs to market turmoil, things are looking pretty rough out there.
Well, our sponsor, American Heart for Gold, has an answer.
There are many new threats to financial stability, a full-blown trade war, a fluctuating stock market, an uncertain bond market, stubborn inflation, and colossal national debt.
If you're still relying solely on paper assets, you could be heading straight into the storm.
So what is the solution?
Well, a simple and tested one is to get out of the chaos and invest in something real, physical gold and silver.
American Heart for Gold is a company you can trust.
They've got an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and a proven reputation for making the process simple, safe and smart.
You can have gold and silver delivered directly to your doorstep or placed into a gold IRA with major tax advantages.
Mention my name, Piers, for up to $15,000 in free silver on your first purchase.
Call 866-692-2474 or text Piers, that's P-I-E-R-S to 655-32 or follow the link below.
Okay, let me bring in Kim Overson.
Welcome to Uncensing.
Kim, what's your response to what you just heard?
I think we're just losing the plot here.
I mean, the fact that Trump used terrorism.
I mean, look, this guy, if he's illegal, if he's part of MS-13, great, get him out of here.
Don't let the door hit him on the way out.
I'm happy to deport all of the people who are illegally in this country.
They all should go.
They don't need to be here.
If he's an El Salvadorian citizen, then he's back in El Salvador.
It's El Salvador's problem.
If he's got a problem in El Salvador, he's going to have to deal with it.
It's not our job to protect every single person on earth.
Otherwise, we'd be opening the door to millions more people.
But I think we're losing the plot in the fact that Trump used terrorism as his excuse to deport these people.
And that sets such a dangerous precedent.
We have courts to deal with illegals.
They're not supposed to be here.
We can put them through.
We could do rocket dockets.
We don't have to make it these long, drawn-out court cases that Dinesh is talking about.
We can move them through the courts very, very quickly.
And as Dinesh pointed out, the border is already secure.
We don't have any new people coming through.
So great.
Now we just deal with the people that are here.
We can't get rid of due process in order to do that.
But terrorism, using terrorism, I mean, this is so dangerous.
Talk about going back to Patriot Act.
This is how we ended up with Guantanamo.
This is how we ended up with black sites.
This is how we ended up with indefinite detention.
We don't want that.
And this could be used against every single American.
Once they set up these processes, they don't get rid of them.
They use them.
And they're going to start using them against all of us.
So terrorism as the reason when we have laws in place to get rid of all of the illegals in this country sets that dangerous precedent that we should all be extremely alarmed by.
So I'm all about it.
Get rid of all the illegals.
Sure.
Let's not use terrorism.
Let's not use the excuse of in the name of national security in order to get rid of all of our constitutional rights.
You know, those go out the window.
Due process just completely goes away.
Court hearings disappear.
We need to keep all of that in place.
That is what makes America America.
So I'm extremely alarmed by the use of terrorism as the excuse.
Okay, Jack Pasobic, you posted this.
They all have to go and then unhumans.
And there was a pretty big reaction to that.
And what did you mean by calling them unhuman?
Well, unhumans is actually, Piers, thanks so much for having me on.
First time, first time.
But Unhumans is the name of the book, New York Times bestseller that myself and Joshua Lysak put out last year.
We talked about the secret history of communist revolutions and how to crush them.
And we talk about how in the past, the releasing of criminals and the coddling of criminals by people like the Bolsheviks or the French revolutionaries or the Chinese Communist Party were used as terror tactics against their own countries.
And that's exactly what we see the Democrats doing now with the release of and the championing for the release of violent criminals into either the United States or back into the populace.
You see this with Soros prosecutors.
You see this with the reaction to Carmelo Anthony.
And now you see this with this ridiculous stunt, political stunt, where Senator Chris Van Hollen is now on a plane down to El Salvador for, I guess, a special visit.
I don't know if this is a first date kind of situation while he's down there with Obrego Garcia, but he's not going to visit with the actual members of the family of Rachel Morin and the five children that are left behind, who was killed and raped by an illegal alien member of MS-13 in his own state.
And so you see this problem that the Democrats have, where, by the way, I love if the Democrats want to make this their argument for the midterms going to 2026.
Please, please make illegal aliens and support for MS-13.
Mike, please go tell all your buddies on the Democrat side.
I would love for you to make this your argument going in that we need more illegal aliens in the country.
I'm right there with you because I think that's perfect for the Democrats.
They consistently do this over and over and over.
And, you know, people say that this guy doesn't have a criminal record.
Well, it just broke earlier today that as a matter of fact, Abrego Garcia did actually have his wife had a restraining order on him that was filed in 2021, that it was petitioned, a final order was put up.
And yet, I don't hear anyone talking about this.
That in fact, he was a wife beater in addition to this information that he was a member of MS-13.
And people will sit there blue in the face and say, oh, he, you know, he was this innocent guy.
He was just working.
It's simply not true.
Right, but you're saying it's simply not true.
You believe 100% he was an MS-13 gang member.
My concern about this story is not that.
The order that he was deported was not deported as MS-13 member.
It was that he was illegal.
That was the original order.
And then the second order came out that said he was deported to a different country, not El Salvador.
So hold on for just a second.
First of all, Jack, great to meet you.
Longtime fan.
Like, you are one of the internet's biggest conspiracy theorists, and I'm very glad to be on this panel with you.
So I could just call you out for that.
But like, everything is.
How was your Carol Harris campaign last year?
How did that go?
Did that go as well as your weight loss, Mike?
How's all you still like this when there's still those empties?
How are you still like this when there's epic?
Jack, hang on.
Let me talk for a second.
I like how many steps are you up to today?
No, if you're going to come out here and attack me personally, then I'm going to respond right back.
What'd you say to me, though?
I didn't hear it.
If you're going to come out here and attack me personally, then I'm going to come right back.
I'm happy to have it, buddy.
I'm happy to have it.
But look, here's the deal: this guy, this man Kilmar, they've separated him from his wife and family.
They've done it with no due process.
There's no evidence.
So his wife separated him from his wife and family when she filed a restraining order on him.
She doesn't want him home.
She's in court.
She's in court filing a restraining order.
Hold up for a second and let somebody else talk.
All right.
You're going to get plenty of time.
It's a long show.
All right.
And Pierce is going to step in when I'm talking too much.
The only person that I've seen talking about this restraining order is you.
Maybe it's real.
Maybe it's not.
But you don't have a track record.
I don't want to hear about what was actually filed in court.
One of the biggest liars on the internet today.
At the end of the day.
I'm more than happy.
I can provide you the order right now.
Here's the number.
They should have no problem facing a judge, but they don't want to face the judge.
They don't want to go through the state.
She did face it.
That's because they don't have anything, and you know it too.
She faced the judge when she went into a restraining order on him.
Yeah, Dinesh, I want to ask you, Dinesh.
You don't know about it because you haven't actually looked up the receipts, Mike.
No, the problem, Jack, is you don't have any credibility on anything.
If I can judge in here, let's try and keep the ad hominem attacks to a limited number, please.
Dinesh, you want to get in here?
Yeah, I think this is not a dispute of ill will here.
By and large, today the journalist Andy No reported and he provided receipts.
He showed the court document where Abrego Garcia's wife did file the restraining order.
He noted the irony that she is now claiming that he is a wonderful husband and is apparently raising a whole bunch of money off of his name.
So, you know, this was what came out this morning with accompanying receipts.
I think the big question here is this.
On this issue of deporting illegals, who should be making the decision?
I think the reason that Trump has declared the invasion, it's part of his way of saying, listen, you know, I ran for election in front of 300 million people and I was given a mandate to do this.
So shouldn't it be my call as to whether or not somebody who is illegally in this country gets to stay here or goes home?
It was, in fact, Biden's call for the past four years to bring all these illegals here.
Trump's Mandate for Deportation 00:15:29
Why shouldn't it now be my call to send them home?
These judges have not been elected by anybody.
So sure, there is a due process that should be held.
But if you declare an invasion, I think this was the logic of declaring the invasion.
And what else do you call swarms, you know, not tens, not thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but millions of people coming illegally into the country.
What is that if not an invasion?
He was also elected to government overreach.
We've allowed it.
Now, I may be about to shock you with this, but tallow is an exceptional moisturizer.
The oil in our skin shares many of the same fatty acids as tallow, making it nearly impossible to beat.
You can have silky, soft skin, like me, with an all-natural alternative.
It has no fillers, and it's much more than just a moisturizer.
It can replace lotion, night cream, wrinkle cream, neosporin, and much more.
It's powerful enough to heal your skin, but it's safe enough to spread on your toast.
And if you're looking for natural solutions, what about your toothpaste?
Van Mann's mint bone toothpowder is packed with all the minerals and the nutrients needed to remineralize teeth.
They use xerofluoride, SLS, glycerin, and foaming agents.
The aim for all of Van Mann Company's products is to be edible, especially those which are literally used in your mouth.
Go to vanmann.shop slash peers and use code peers, that's P-I-E-R-S, for 10% off.
That's vanmann.shop slash peers and use code peers for 10% off.
Yeah, I mean, I would say, Dinesh, to this, the frustration must be for Trump is that he's had a spectacular success on the southern border.
But rather than everybody talking about that, they're all talking about this case.
Because at the moment, most people are not satisfied that there's been enough evidence produced that he is a member of MS-13.
And I think the simplest thing would be if they just produce all the evidence.
It seems to me very strange that he is every year interviewed by ICE, but is never deported as a result of those interviews, that he has no criminal record, notwithstanding the story that I saw this morning as well about the restraining order.
That wouldn't necessarily infer a criminal conviction.
I don't think it's automatic that if you get a restraining order, there's any crime is being accepted as having been committed.
So it's a complicated story.
And the problem is, the more of these stories you have, the more distraction it will prove to be to the bigger picture, which is that Trump is delivering on his promise on the southern border.
And so I think that there's a political aspect to this where if I was Donald Trump, actually it's easier to bring this guy back and face due process and actually go through the story and see whether he was a gang member or not definitively.
And if he was, then kick him out.
Then no one's going to argue.
But they're arguing because at the moment there's not enough evidence that's been produced.
The reason they're arguing, Piers, is that if Trump were to relent and bring this one guy back, there would immediately be 10 other guys to take his place.
And you'd have people on panels like this one saying, show me the evidence that this guy did this and show me the evidence that that guy did that.
Here's the point.
If you have a home and you've had a home invasion by 100 people who are now in your home, now you've sealed the fence.
There are no new home invaders coming.
But that isn't the extent of what Trump ran on.
Trump also ran on getting the home invaders out.
Now the Democrats are saying, well, the home invaders might have crept into your house illegally, but they really aren't committing any further crimes while they're here.
And therefore, you now have to have court hearings for each one of them before you expel them.
That, I think, is the underlying absurdity of the situation.
But what I would have done...
Okay, well, I bring Kim back in here.
What I would have done...
Well, hang on one sec.
What I would have done, Kim, I think, I would have started with the convicted criminal illegal immigrants, of which there are many, and I would have deported all of those.
Then I don't think anyone would have been arguing.
If you literally just settled on the ones who were convicted of crimes and you deported those, I think Trump would be applauded by people on the right and the left.
The problem comes when you avoid due process, as many people see it, and when the courts get involved right to the Supreme Court level and start to say this isn't right, particularly if your own administration has admitted there was an administrative error with this guy.
It was a mistake.
Once you've said that publicly right to the top of your own legal team as an administration, it's very hard to then argue we can't do anything about this.
If you make a mistake, make amends.
No, I'm with you that they don't have any real evidence.
There's no solid evidence he was MS-13.
It doesn't really matter if his wife had a restraining order against him or not.
Plenty of people have those and they didn't do anything wrong.
It's a tactic for child custody.
The fact is, though, he was illegally in the country.
So I don't really care whether he was MS-13 or not, quite frankly.
I think that we just get rid of everybody who's illegal.
They've just got to go back to where they came from.
And if it's unsafe for them, then they'll have to find somewhere else to go or they'll have to work on some other protection.
It's not our job, unfortunately.
I mean, as much as I'd love to have a bleeding heart and save everybody, we can't do it.
So it doesn't really matter.
I mean, the facts of the case actually don't matter, except for the fact he was illegal.
And I just keep bringing it back to Trump is using terrorism.
And that's the plot that I don't know why people are just removing this completely.
That aspect of it, if you want to talk about due process, if you want to talk about government overreach, I mean, Trump ran on not only getting rid of all the illegals from the country and securing the border, but he also ran on getting rid of government overreach.
And using terrorism is just marching in a very dystopian future, especially when Trump sits there in the White House and says homegrowns are next.
Then he goes on Fox News and reiterates homegrowns are next.
I think we got to be focusing more on the fact that terrorism was used as the excuse, not the fact that, you know, whether or not he was MS-13, debating the merits of every single individual case.
Illegals are illegals.
That's it.
You don't need to know anymore.
And then we just focus on how, what process are we going to use to get rid of them?
Terrorism is not the way.
I googled yesterday how many illegal immigrants are in the United States and about four different results came up which suggested around 13 million.
So I tweeted about that and said, would you genuinely deport 13 million illegal immigrants?
To which there was a resounding yes.
And then people said, but actually it's nearer 30 million.
Then some said 50 million.
Some said even maybe it's as high as 100 million.
Once you add in all the dreamers, all the kids of people who came in illegally, who knows how many?
Are we going to end up deporting?
And it's a genuine question.
If you believe that all illegal immigrants in the United States of America, a country literally founded on immigrants, are you going to deport potentially 50 to 100 million people currently in America?
And what will that do to actually the fabric of society in America, much of which relies on immigrant work?
So, I mean, these are legitimate questions, which I don't have the answer to it.
It's not my country.
But as, you know, how do you feel, Kim, about the idea of potentially, if you literally take it literally, that you end up deporting 50 to 100 million people?
Would you be comfortable with that?
Yes, we would have to do it.
We have to rip the bandaid off and we have to set the, we have to abide by laws.
I think that what would happen, though, I think you're right, there's a fabric of society that is built on immigration.
And if we start deporting absolutely everybody who's here illegally, then maybe Congress would for once do their job and actually make new immigration laws that would allow for people to come into the country legally.
And, you know, it would actually force them to actually do their job rather than appear on shows or campaign constantly.
So I think it would cause effect.
Okay.
I'm going to switch to Marmu Khalil just quickly.
But Mike, you know, it just seems to me if what Trump had done was stop the literal invasion of people at the border.
There's no other way to describe it, given how many millions came in in the Biden administration.
He stopped that almost stone dead.
If he then deported all the convicted criminal illegal immigrants, that would have been a stunning success for his administration on the issue of illegal immigration, it seems to me.
It's when you start going into, well, everyone that's ever come in illegally, it is a gigantic number of people.
And a lot of those people do a lot of the shittier jobs in America, right?
And are needed for those jobs.
And, you know, who's going to get their hands dirty and replace them?
I don't know the answer, but I do know it's a really difficult, difficult issue once you move past those who've actually committed crimes, which I think is a win-win for any political group, whether you're on the left or right.
But let's turn to just quickly, Marmu Khalil.
So he's the leader of this protest group at Columbia, leading this mob.
The difference with him is he is a green card holder.
But Mike, I've seen Democrats trying to defend this and saying that he should not be deported.
But it seems to me a pretty open and shut case with him.
This guy was brazenly, openly supporting what Hamas did.
Apparently, he was reportedly seen handing out pro-Hamas literature.
The mob that he was fronting, members of that mob, not him personally, but members of the mob went in and committed acts of vandalism, of violence.
They attacked people and so on.
All of which would be grounds to deport somebody on a green card, wouldn't it?
I mean, if he'd repeated any of his pro-Hamas sentiment at a green card interview, he would never have got a green card in the first place.
Well, I think for me, this just comes back to due process.
Like, I think anybody who's waving a pro-Hamas flag or handing out pro-Hamas flyers is ridiculous, and I don't want anything to do with them.
But I don't want a federal government that's just going to deport people because they don't like what they say.
And if he's here illegally and if he's here with a green card, I want to make sure that he has to, that the Trump administration follows the law.
They show, I mean, they were arguing that this guy was coordinating with Hamas and causing terror incidents here in the United States.
They need to be able to prove that and show it.
And it's just like the situation with Kilmar.
The Trump administration is flagrantly violating the law.
They're not listening to the Supreme Court.
They're not listening to any other judge.
And I think it's a dangerous precedent because if they can remove this guy or they can remove Kilmar without due process, they can really start coming after anybody.
And as Kim pointed out earlier, Trump is talking about going after homegrown people next.
And I don't even know what that means, but they're throwing people into dangerous El Salvadorian prisons with a guy who calls himself the coolest dictator in the world.
That does not seem like a recipe for freedom or civil liberties or anything like that.
It's just dangerous.
So making sure that we follow the law, making sure we follow due process, just do it the right way.
I'm all for getting out anybody who is a dangerous criminal.
Get them out.
But we got to do it the right way.
Okay.
Let's just turn to Harvard.
This interesting situation where Trump has now basically withdrawn $2 billion worth of federal funding.
Now, I had no idea, Dinesh, that Harvard has private endowments valued at $53.2 billion.
Why on earth are they also getting $2 billion worth of federal funding?
I don't get it.
And particularly if they're going to spew obviously very partisan, anti-Trump, pro-far-left woke agendas, as Harvard has been doing for the last few years.
I don't see any reason why they should continue to be getting $2 billion worth of federal funding.
Do you?
Absolutely not.
These universities have been part of a collusive racket with the government itself.
If you look at university prices, they've been going up dramatically, far in excess of inflation.
Now, why is that?
The simple answer is that the money is largely coming from the federal government, and it comes many different ways.
Research grants, Pell grants.
So the students are getting grants.
The faculty is getting grants.
The administration is getting grants.
Now, Harvard is notorious because they, of course, have this massive endowment.
But even other colleges that don't have the endowment are heavily subsidized by the government.
Now, you know, you can take government subsidies, but then you are subject to federal laws.
The left knows this.
They went after Bob Jones University a generation ago.
They said, listen, you are discriminating against blacks, and so we're going to yank your federal funding.
Basically, all that's going on now is that the right has learned to play exactly the same game and use the levers of the federal government against these universities.
So Trump's position is that, okay, it's not just, you're not just not allowed to discriminate against whites.
You're not allowed to discriminate.
You're not just not allowed to discriminate against blacks.
You're not allowed to discriminate against any racial or ethnic group.
And Harvard manifestly does do that.
They have all kinds of DEI programs.
They have separate graduations for different ethnic groups.
So the government is fully entitled to begin the civil rights investigation and begin the process of removing federal funds from this very well-endowed university.
Hey, Mike Baker here, host of the President's Daily Brief podcast.
If you want straight talk on national security, foreign policy, and the biggest global stories going on of the day, this is the show for you.
We publish twice a day, Monday through Friday, once in the morning, again in the afternoon.
And on the weekend, we go longer with the PDB Situation Report with excellent guests, including national security insiders and foreign policy experts.
Check us out on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Also on our YouTube channel at President's Daily Brief.
Yeah, Kim, I mean, did you see any problem with what Trump is doing here?
Yeah, I mean, look, universities have engaged in ideological overreach for a long time.
They're insane.
They've become totally and completely insane.
But I don't think the answer to ideological overreach is government overreach.
And that is what's happening here.
I'm all about them ripping away government funding for the sake of ripping away government funding.
These universities don't need it.
As you pointed out, Harvard is extremely wealthy.
What are they doing with an extra $2 billion of our tax dollars?
They don't need it.
But that's the reason we should be ripping the tax dollars away, not because we want them to adhere to a new form of ideological overreach that we want to impose on them.
I'm just not for that.
Julie, to be honest, what the Trump administration has asked Harvard to do is to have viewpoint diversity.
Now, Harvard is so lopsided that many of its departments are made up of 12 different species of Marxists.
I mean, quite apart from what Trump is doing as leverage, don't you agree that these universities would benefit enormously if there was a larger proportion of Republicans and conservatives on the political science faculty?
I mean, this would actually reflect the debate that is happening on this show and around the country, which is simply not seen at Harvard.
Yeah, but that's not really what they're doing.
Because they're saying, okay, we're going to get rid of the, we're going to get rid of the DEI, but then we're going to have safe spaces for Jews.
I mean, that's what they've done.
They're saying no more safe spaces for all these other people.
But now we're going to come in and we're going to say, except unless you are an anti-Semite of some kind.
And then we're going to have, now we're going to create safe spaces for this other group.
I mean, they're not really making it even across the board for everybody.
Democrats Must Return to Basics 00:07:24
Well, Dinesh, can I take your two connections asking for Harvard to have DEI for Republicans?
Jacka, we'll get to you eventually.
Don't worry.
But Mike, go on.
No, go on.
I mean, I'm just saying, like, look, I don't think I agree with what Kim said earlier.
The federal government should not be like overreaching and telling universities who they can or cannot hire, what they can or cannot teach, or what their civil rights practices should be or their enrollment should look like.
And Danesh, like you, you literally just put the nail on the head.
Like, you want Harvard to hire more Republicans.
And so Donald Trump is going to pull away, you know, $2 billion in funding, which to Harvard is a rounding error because they have such a large endowment.
But I worry a lot less about Harvard, which can afford to stand up to Donald Trump, and more about smaller universities that don't have large endowments but should have the freedom to be able to teach what they want to teach, to hire who they want to hire.
I don't want the federal government getting involved in that for conservative universities or liberal universities.
I don't care.
Well, I think the point that you're missing.
Jack, I want to ask you.
Hang on one sec, guys.
I want to ask Jack a question.
He's been waiting patiently.
But I want to ask a slightly different question, Jack, of you, which is that President Obama weighed in on this yesterday, praising Harvard for standing up to Trump.
We also saw Joe Biden coming out of his crypt to make another of his weird rambling speeches, which I think was quite alarming to Democrats, never mind anybody else.
You also see huge amounts of funding coming in for Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
When you add all these three things together, I'm thinking: do the Democrats understand properly what's happened to their party?
Because if they think the future is with AOC, with Biden continuing to ramble in public, with Obama coming on and encouraging universities, which everybody I think pretty much agrees, have been overreaching in the way they've been behaving to attack the Trump administration and stand up to them and so on.
None of this shows me that the Democrats have learned the lessons of this absolute drubbing they got at the election, which led to the re-election of Donald Trump as president.
No, I would actually agree with you, Piers, there.
I think that actually, believe it or not, I would agree with Joe Biden just a little bit.
And I'm going to say something nice about Joe Biden, which, you know, I think I'm not exactly, as my reputation, as Mike mentioned, known for.
But I think what Joe Biden did is brought out yesterday, came out yesterday, and he was talking about economic issues.
He was talking about Social Security benefits.
And he was talking out there.
Now, not him as a person, I think, is a good avatar for the Democrat Party, just like all of these other boomer stocks that have been going on in the Coachella speeches and the rants of 83-year-old Bernie Sanders with his multiple mansions.
But what they're trying to do is you do have sort of some of these old men of the party who realize that they've totally lost by giving into identity politics.
And that's exactly what Harvard University has been doing.
That's exactly what the woke left has been doing.
That has absolutely hijacked the Democrat Party.
And so you do have some people, and you've got others out there saying, go away from the identity politics, get back into economics, get back to understanding this populist rise up that's really been happening across the political IOMAHA is a huge part of that.
But instead, you have so many ideologues and Chris Van Holland playing right into that saying, no, we need to double down, support criminality, support the identity politics, support wokeness, that they just can't quit it.
So we'll see.
I mean, if they want to make this continue to be their argument, they can, but it does seem like they haven't quite learned their lesson.
Mike, we had a fascinating case in the UK this morning, the UK Supreme Court ruling that the word woman in UK law refers to biological sex.
It's seen as a massive win for women's campaign groups.
It's been criticized by trans activists.
But what struck me as startling was that this was even news that a woman should be defined as a biological woman and should be defined by biological sex.
And again, talking about the state of the Democrat Party, you're beginning to see some of them, Gavin Newsome and others, beginning to talk out about the unfairness of, say, trans athletes in women's sport and so on.
But at its heart, this comes down to whether you perceive trans people, trans women, to be women who should then be afforded all the rights that women have, including the right to use female safe spaces, to compete in women's sport and so on.
But that's such a vote loser, it seems to me, not just in the UK, where there's been this big ruling, but in the United States, that a Democrat party surely now has to move to a place where it can avoid the battering ram that Karmala got, your lady, when Trump did the Trump's for you and she's for they them ad, which was so devastatingly effective.
What do you make of that UK ruling?
And what do you think about the way the party has to go forward now and accept that this kind of very far left woke ideology, what many people think is science and biology denying ideology, has got to stop if you want to get re-elected?
I mean, I haven't taken a look at the ruling from the UK yet, so I'll have to get back to you on that.
But what I do think Democrats need to do is get back to basics.
And I actually agree with Jack.
We have to get back to talking about economic issues.
We have to start taking that seriously again because Piers, a second ago, you said that the Democrats got drubbed in the last election.
I would tell you it was a lot closer than I think a lot of folks on the right in MAGA world would like to perceive.
But we lost because we didn't do enough to help people put food on the table, buy a house, retire with dignity, starter fame.
And I think that's...
Well, you lost everything.
Well, hang on, hang on.
Let's go through it.
Let's go through it.
You lost the White House.
You lost the House.
You lost the Senate.
You lost the popular vote.
You lost the Electoral College.
I don't know what else you call that other than absolute drubbing.
You can quibble about the exact number.
But you can't quibble about the scale of the win.
For Donald Trump, four years after January 6th, for Donald Trump to win the popular and Electoral College vote was truly stunning.
Truly stunning.
And a repudiation of much of what the Democrats stand for, which is why the Democrat Party popularity right now is polling in the mid-20s.
Historic lows.
So, look, the point that I'm making is that it wasn't a landslide.
We lost everything, but everything was pretty close.
And that's the point that I'm making.
So Donald Trump's been trying to act like he has this giant mandate to do all this crazy stuff that people didn't vote for and people don't want.
What people voted for were cheaper grocery prices.
He's making grocery prices more expensive because of the tariffs.
They voted for more affordable housing.
These lumber tariffs on Canada are going to make new houses explode in terms of prices.
People were already stretched then, and Democrats didn't do enough just to support them, didn't do enough to help them, didn't do enough to make them feel seen either.
We spent way too much time telling people how great the economy was and not doing enough of listening to people's concerns.
We have to get back to that.
But every problem that we had economically when Donald Trump won six months ago or however long it's been is worse today because of the tariffs.
He's done nothing to make prices more affordable and he promised to do that on day one.
And so I think the pathway for Democrats to get back is to focus in on economic issues, try to shut out as much of the other stuff that for the vast majority of people they don't care about.
Doesn't mean it's not important and we don't try to figure out how we talk about it.
But economic issues are going to be the core way that we get back because Donald Trump is making the economy dramatically worse right now.
Space Tourism Excuses Fail 00:09:09
Okay.
I want to just ask Kim, if I can, about the other massive story in the news this week, which is the all-girl celebrity team that flew into space on Blue Origin, the Jeff Bezos rocket.
And they've been getting heavily criticized here.
A lot of people saying it's a bunch of rich women, very entitled, very privileged, who've gone up there for 11 minutes.
And it's all a waste of time and money and they're virtue signaling.
And they're talking about the environment in Katy Perry's case and so on, whilst using up all this rocket fuel and so on.
So what I did, rather than react immediately, I went back and checked what I said publicly when William Shatner went up on Blue Origin, I think on the first trip it took, which also had some women on it.
And I said that I thought it was fabulous.
And so it would strike me that I would be a sexist hypocrite if I didn't also say that this was fabulous.
In the end, it's space tourism, isn't it?
Why are these women getting hammered when they can afford to do it?
They had an amazing experience.
It was a joyful thing for them.
It's their money.
It's not ours.
Why are they getting hammered when William Shatner was celebrated for doing exactly the same thing?
Well, when was William Shatner sent off into space?
Was it recent?
I actually don't know.
Was it it was recent?
Okay.
So look, I just think they're being dragged because right now everybody's Earth first.
And we really want to focus on Earth and the problems that we have here that are going on.
And, you know, they're going off into space into space tourism, you know, billionaires going up there and just completely, completely just devoid of reality of what's happening here when the rest of us are being asked to tighten our belts and we're dealing with high rising costs and tariffs and potential wars.
And they're going off into space.
And it just seems really extremely frivolous.
So, I mean, look, if I were asked to go into space, I'm not going to lie, I'd probably say, sure, put me on the rocket.
I want to try it out and see what it's like.
I mean, I think any of us would say yes to that.
It's just the fact that it even was offered, that it happened right now when we've just got so many problems here that we're dealing with.
I just don't understand this whole, we're going to go off into space and what exactly are we going to do?
I mean, one of the excuses Gail King said was, well, this is good for humanity because Jeff Bezos is trying to figure out a way to send the trash that we have here on Earth out into space.
Like, that's a good thing.
We're going to shoot trash into space.
I mean, this is the absurdity of it.
And thinking that, what, we're going to end up one day terraforming Mars or something?
I mean, I'm not really sure, but it certainly feels like a lower middle income class family buying a yacht when they can't even put shoes on their kids.
I mean, that's kind of what it feels like.
I think that's a good question.
What do you feel about it?
I mean, they seem to mean.
Yeah.
Yeah, go on.
Hey, I'm Caitlin Becker, the host of the New York Postcast, and I've got exactly what you need to start your weekdays.
Every morning, I'll bring you the stories that matter, plus the news people actually talk about.
The juicy details in the world's politics, business, pop culture, and everything in between.
It's what you want from the New York Post wrapped up in one snappy show.
Ask your smart speaker to play the NY Postcast podcast.
Listen and subscribe on Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I think the resistance to it is not because of that so much.
It's precisely, Pierce, you said it very well.
If this was just a ride by a bunch of people who have the money to do it, then it should just be presented in those terms.
But what happens is that it's presented as, if you look at the news articles, they talk about, quote, the crew of this spacecraft.
Now, this is equating Katie Perry with Sally Ride, who was, you know, one of the original astronauts.
Now, she was crew.
She was an astronaut.
She trained as an astronaut.
She had astronaut skills.
That's not what was going on here.
So I think it's the pretentiousness of the whole thing that rubs people the wrong way.
Yeah, I mean, Jack, I saw you nodding away there, but is there not a hypocrisy?
We all celebrated William Shatner going up.
We all thought that was great to see the old James T. Kirk of the, you know, the captain of the Starship Enterprise back in space in his 90s.
I don't remember any of this backlash when he did it at all.
In fact, quite the opposite.
So is there not a trace of sexism underpinning the criticism here?
There may be.
I mean, that being said, William Shatner, I mean, he's dedicated his entire career towards the idea of space exploration.
I'm sure many of the people that work at Blue Origin and SpaceX with Elon many times have credited Star Trek, the original series, and then the later movies that he was in to really inspiring more space travel.
And I do actually agree with what Dale King said, that space travel is something that should unite all of humanity.
I mean, even during the Cold War, during the space race between the West and the Soviet Union, there was this idea of shared human endeavor.
You know, who's going to be the first to, you know, the Russians get to space first, but the Americans make it to the moon first.
And there was this sort of idea that even though we were competing, we were at least doing it together rather than going to nuclear war under the shadow of nuclear war.
So I do get it from that perspective.
But I do, I have to say, I agree with Dinesh a little bit that there is a bit of pretentiousness for them calling themselves crew and acting as if they were the ones who were operating the flight.
No, actually, it was being operated from on land.
But that being said, I actually do completely agree with sending these liberal celebrities into space.
I have a long list of other liberal celebrities that I'd love to have sent into space.
Jeff, give me a call, man.
Just give me a call.
One-way trips are a lot cheaper.
I mean, Mike, the question for me is, would I have the balls to do it?
I don't think I would get in one of those rockets and be fired up into space.
I mean, it's a pretty scary thing to do.
It does take personal courage to do it.
Gail King, she was terrified before she got in there.
And they've come out.
And, you know, it seems to me that, again, it's a bit of fun space tourism.
Are we overthinking all this?
You know, does every rich, wealthy person have to be directly accountable for every pleasurable thing they ever do now because other people can't afford to do it?
Or can we not enjoy the fact that I actually enjoyed the footage of them looking down on Earth?
I enjoyed when William Shatner did it and enjoyed it when they did it.
It's fun.
I think it's fine.
I don't really care too much about it.
Although, Pierce, if you get an opportunity to go to space, I'm happy to sit right beside you and hold your hand.
Might probably be just as scared as you would.
So, but here's the thing.
I hate hiding.
So I'm the wrong guy for this.
I do too.
I absolutely like flying.
Flying is tough for me enough.
I really hate it.
Yeah.
So, so, but my view of this is: I think the reason that people are so frustrated at it is we're in this moment in time where we're being told that we've got to have cuts to things like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security and cancer research for kids and a whole other government services that people rely on.
And I googled it this morning, knowing that this was going to be a topic.
And, you know, Blue Origin, which is the company that Bezos owns here, has gotten like seven, eight billion dollars from the federal government.
And then SpaceX has gotten like another 20, 30 million or billion or something like that.
And it's a lot of money.
And so when I hear that we don't have money to make sure that like people have health care and we don't have enough money for cancer research for kids, but we have money to send celebrities into space, that rubs me the wrong way.
So it's not so much that I care that Gail King or Katy Perry went into space.
It's that the infrastructure that was built to do this was funded by the federal government.
And then we don't have money to help people build a road, build a bridge, make sure people have health care.
That's what bothers me.
Okay, let's just very quickly end with this extraordinary revelation.
For the first time in cinema history, Dinesh, this weekend's box office has three religious Jesus-themed movies in the top 10.
What does this say about the state of the world?
Well, I think what it says is that Hollywood is completely out of touch.
Even when the Snow White movie bombed for Disney, they kept blaming it on the actress as though she was the sole reason for the movie failing.
But the real reason the movie failed is that they went to the old Snow White plot and they destroyed it.
They removed ultimately all that they removed Prince Charming.
They removed the dwarves.
They remove the essence of the story.
And so people go, well, I'm not interested in that.
And so I don't understand how a highly successful global industry like Hollywood could get so out of sync with the interests of its own customer base, but that has evidently happened.
And it's created a massive opportunity for new independent studios like Angel Studios and others to create, you may say, rival entertainment and find their audience.
Kim, can we at least agree, talking of Easter, that British chocolate is vastly superior to American chocolate?
China's Sphere of Influence 00:09:26
I'm sure it is, Pierce.
I'm sure it is.
I don't know.
I think this is a problem that Robert F. Kennedy is trying to fix.
You know, Cadbury eggs are made in Mercy now.
Cadbury eggs are made in Pennsylvania.
Can we talk about COVID?
That was a devastating revelation.
Guys, thank you all for a very interesting panel.
I really appreciate it, especially to the two newbies, to Jack and Kim.
Thank you.
Dinesh, thank you for coming back.
Mike, thank you for coming back.
I appreciate it.
Well, two weeks on from Liberation Day and the Trump tariff regime has rocked the financial world.
We've had a stock market panic, a bond market panic, a mini-crash, a massive escalation with China, and finally, hastily arranged exemptions for key electronic goods.
Is it going according to any kind of plan?
What exactly could that plan actually be?
Well, joining me now is Oren Cass.
He's the founder and executive director of American Compass and author of the Once and Future Worker, a vision for the renewal of work in America.
Well, Oren, thank you for joining me.
You've been out there defending all this.
I've got to say, most people I talk to are scratching their heads going, what the hell is going on here?
Can you, in simple terms, give me some clarity about what you think the Trump master plan is with these tariffs?
Sure.
Well, thanks for having me, Piers.
I've been out there defending the idea of the direction I think they're going, because I think you're absolutely right in terms of the specifics, the lack of clarity, some of the changes we've already seen.
There have definitely been costs and disruptions here that we should be trying to avoid.
But what I think the administration is really after and importantly so is changing the basic arrangement of the international economic system.
Really, since the end of the Cold War, we've had this so-called open liberal world order, and it has not worked very well for the United States, especially in recent years.
And I think the administration sees that.
Folks like Secretary Rubio have been very clear that they think this moment of American hegemony is over.
We're moving to a world where China will be a competitor, where China will have a sphere of influence and the U.S. will have a sphere of influence.
And so I think they're trying to think about, well, what are the demands that the United States wants to have within its sphere of influence?
And I think the demands, frankly, if we look at them, are pretty reasonable, but it's definitely going to be some disruption to get from here to there.
I mean, we've never seen a tariff war like this, where America slaps tariffs on every other country in the world and goes pretty nuclear on tariffs with China at the same time.
You know, I know Donald Trump well.
He's a very good deal maker, and he normally starts from a position of a pretty outlandish starting place.
Is that what he's done here?
Has he basically just thrown a rocket up in the air to get everyone's attention?
And are we then going to see individual trade deals done with all these countries, many of which may turn out more advantageous to the current trading arrangements that those countries have with the United States, advantageous to the US?
And secondly, notwithstanding that, how does the China part of this end up?
Because at the moment, they're showing no sign of blinking.
I think you're exactly right that we are seeing the Trump style of negotiation here.
And it has its strengths and effectiveness.
It also has its costs and disruption.
It certainly did get everybody's attention.
He then has paused, obviously, most of the tariffs.
If you look at markets, they bounced most of the way back.
I think we're off maybe about 4%, which acknowledges that there's some cost here, but certainly not a disaster.
And I think what you're going to start to see is over the next few months, some very good deals made with at least a few countries.
Japan seems to be at the front of the line.
And there's actually good precedent, even with Japan in particular.
Ronald Reagan, back in the early 1980s, with very high tariff threats against the Japanese, got Japan to self-limit its exports of cars to the U.S.
It was Japan that realized it had to tell Honda and Toyota, you can't keep flooding the American market with cars.
You have to go set up shop in America.
And that's why we now have the, it is a Japanese-owned set of car makers, but they are essentially American automakers now in the American South, employing hundreds of thousands of people.
And I think those are the kinds of agreements you're looking for.
Actually, a commitment from these other countries that, yes, we want free trade, we want good relationships, but it has to be more balanced.
It can't just be you export, we import, and we lose the manufacturing jobs.
And if countries start to agree to that, I think you could see a much stronger and healthier alliance, both on economic and security terms.
And then to your point, part of the goal here is to leave China out, to have everybody in this block agree we are going to exclude China.
We are going to have barriers to China.
And so, you know, I think obviously at the moment we're in this extreme situation with 140% tariffs.
But I think the long term here is not a great deal in free trade with China.
The long term is free trade with China doesn't work.
China is going to have its sphere and its trading partners.
But if we really want to have free markets for the United States with our allies, China can't really be a part of that.
So could we see a situation where you end up where Elon Musk has indicated he'd like things to end up, where say the United States and Europe has complete free trade between it and potentially with other countries, Japan, Mexico, Canada, whatever, that the exception, the outlier would be China, because that presents the biggest existential economic threat to the U.S.
But that everywhere else, you could end up ultimately with completely free trading arrangements between the countries.
Certainly with respect to tariffs, and I think a good example of this, if you look at the sort of global 10% tariff that the administration has started with, they're already sort of leaving Canada and Mexico out of that.
One of the things they've done because of the initial threats that Trump targeted at Canada and Mexico is they've moved up renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement.
And I think the goal there is absolutely to settle a very strong free trade agreement.
They've made clear that, you know, all those countries agreeing, we're keeping China out, has to be a part of it.
Those countries have to commit to balanced trade with the U.S., not just they export, we import.
But on those terms, it would be great to have free trade.
It would be great to have that with Japan, with India, with Europe, with Korea, with Australia.
You can think about what that alliance would look like and recognize that what the U.S. is asking for here is the same thing that's the same standard the U.S. holds itself to, right?
They're saying we all need to be committed to actual free trade with exports and imports, not you make the stuff, we buy it.
We all need to spend our fair share on security and defense.
And we all need to agree that we're going to keep China out.
It can't just be the U.S. keep China out, but China gets in through Mexico instead.
And I think that's a much better arrangement for the U.S. Frankly, it's a better arrangement for our allies than what we have at the moment.
And I think we're seeing in their openness to negotiating that they recognize the path forward too.
And then China will have its own sphere of influence, and there will be countries allied with China.
And that's sort of the way of the world.
I think that's how the world usually has been and how it is going to be in the future.
And Aren, that is probably the most positive, optimistic endgame for this.
In your wildest nightmares, what is the worst case scenario?
Well, I think there are a couple of risks.
One, certainly, is that the disruption that this process causes has real costs and could cause significant economic pain, especially if it's not done smoothly in a sort of clear way where everyone understands what's happening, where people have time to adjust.
And so I think, you know, it's funny, just as we saw going zero to 100 on globalization created the China shock, caused all sorts of problems, going zero to 100 on reversing it has the potential to cause a lot of damage too.
And so I certainly think it's important that we have a smooth, predictable path forward on this and not try to do it all at once.
The other thing I worry about is that we sort of stay in limbo with China.
I think there hasn't been enough clarity right now.
Do we want a deal?
Do we think we can make it work?
Are we trying to separate from them?
I think both for certainty and for America's interests, we need to be very clear.
We are not interested in an economic partnership with an authoritarian, communist, state-controlled market.
And that has to be very clear to everybody on our side and theirs.
Orin Cass, great to talk to you.
Thank you very much.
Unclear Path Forward on China 00:00:24
Piers Morgan Uncensored is proudly independent.
The only boss around here is me.
You enjoy our show.
We offer only one simple thing.
Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Uncensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.
And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate, and entertain.
And we'll do it all for free.
independent uncensored media has never been more critical and we couldn't do it Without you.
Export Selection