Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.
This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.
So if that is something that's important to you, please go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and you'll access to our full shows, unedited, ad free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.
We need your help to build the future of independent news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints dot com.
Good morning, Welcome to Counterpoints. Emily Broke, Liberated, liberated.
How liberated are you today?
I'm not retiring for a while ever, so not even I'm not even gonna.
Look sonsco of one to ten.
You're very liberated, look quite liberated, full full revolution, liberate, EL Day.
I really celebrated EL Day. For sure. You're gonna be another L Day today. Probably it would taut And we're going to talk about this in a moment. China justin nownounced that it is retaliating against the American tariffs. Donald Trump's plan was he was going to put tariffs on the entire world and then warn them not to retaliate. Yes, he does not. I don't know if he had a plan B. I hope he does. Because Plan A did not work. The world is retaliating, and we'll talk. We'll
talk a little bit about that. There's full blown warfare inside the Trump administration. Although it's funny because it's like, do David Sachs and Elon Musk like, do they count as the administration? You know, in the old days, you knew who the senior government officials were, and if they were out on cable attacking each other, then you had, you know, staffer on staffer violence. David Sachs is the
cryptos are for the White House. Elon Musk is was the co president and sort of running DOGE, but not running DOGE a special government employee. But is he a government employee or has Trump kicked him out? Or is he actually still running things and he's going to fire hundreds of thousands of people over the next several months. Is not totally clear. So does that count as an
administration official criticizing another one? I don't even know. Because the membrane between what is the administration and what is the oligarch class is just so thin that they just move right in and out of it. Whatever. In any event, Musk thinks Navarro's moron. We're going to talk. We're going
to talk more about that. The Supreme Court a little bit of a victory sort of, you know, so far for the Trump administration's effort to keep these probationary employees that they fired from being hired back, except for the ones they need to hire back because they accidentally fired them.
And these people's jobs just keep ping ponging through the court.
Really absurd, not efficient.
And so then Ryan, you've well on Capitol Hill right now, Republicans are actually raging against Donald Trump's budget, his big, one, big beautiful bill. He met with some of them last night and they are still not super pleased.
But lose three.
He can only lose three. And Freedom Caucus at least as it yesterday, was saying he might lose up towards a dozen.
They always say that, but we'll get into it.
Yeah, we'll get into that. And then Ryan, you have a.
Guest for us, Yes, Congress and the Luzio from Pittsburgh Rust Belt Democrat. He has really been making a lot of Democrats angry by not just completely towing the party line that Trump bad, therefore tariff's bad, and Trump's tariff plan obviously dumb, therefore all tariffs are dumb. He's trying to find a middle ground where he's saying no, like, actually, we do need some industrial policy, and it's got a lot of people mad at him. So this is a refuge for those kinds of people.
Well said, we will talk to him all about that. Drop site scoop as of this morning.
Also, yes, so Hamas filed with a lawyer in the UK a one hundred plus page brief to demand that
the UK delist it from its terror designation. And so we're going to go through the We're going to go through some of the pleading, because it's an absolutely fascinating document no matter where you stand on the question, because they talk about they talk about anti Semitism, they talk about the role of Zionism and Israel, they talk about what their position is when it comes to a future settlement in the region, and they make a straightforward argument
that we do not belong on this terror list. And here's why.
Yeah, that'll be pretty interesting to go through.
It's an interesting, interesting indication of the way that Hamas is increasingly relating to Western institutions in a way that where it used to be more standoffish and consider all of them to be considered all of them to be just enemies.
N you had a really interesting conversation with Naomi Klin, and I'm excited for everyone to see and we'll talk about it a little bit as well. But Ryan sat downe with Naomi Klein yesterday actually to get I mean, it's interesting because I think her work was really formative for you back in late nineties early sure, for many, many many people.
Yeah, Naomi Klin was the man back then, and you know, nineties we still had a bit of a monoculture and so and she was, I mean, she still is a very big name, obviously in left spaces and in journalism in general, but in the nineties she was almost hegemonic when it came to representing the anti globalization side of the debate over you know, the post post Soviet Union world order, which and so it was your idea and I thought it was a really good one to get
her take on this wild arc from you know, Seattle to Trump and because you've got some people on the right being like, ha, you guys got what you wanted.
Now.
Look And there was this line that said, you know, one of the chants in Seattle was another world as possible, like well, hey, here's another world. But look, we didn't mean all other worlds are better, Like we always acknowledged things could get worse, and it does appear that that was always going to be the better bet. Things getting worse is always the most likely outcome.
I had a chance to watch.
It's on her own that that's what's happening.
People should Yeah, I had a chance to watch the interview and it's really really interesting through that lens, so exciting segments. Stay tuned for that.
Let's jump into our gondo this morning. She lives in Canon on the West coast, so right, that's like six am for her.
That would be absurd, that would be unkind but globalization zoom prerecorded.
Let's jump into the A block.
China is now retaliating retaliatory tariffs is a day zero. We can put it up on the screen. This was announced last night early this morning. It's been developing. They've slapped hertalitary tariffs of eighty four percent on US goods in response to Trump takeaways just from the CNBC breakdown here, they said, this has arise from eighty four percent to thirty four percent.
It is starting on April.
Tenth, and we export about one hundred and forty four billion dollars worth of goods to China. That's as of twenty twenty four, so obviously this is very significant. This is a statement from Treasury Secretary Scott Bestent on Wednesday after this announcement. He said, I think it's unfortunate that the Chinese actually don't want to come and negotiate because they are the worst defenders in the international trading system.
They have the most imbalanced economy in the history of the modern world, and I can tell.
You this escalation is a loser for them.
Ryan, you made an interesting point as we're opening up here that this is what Trump said everyone can't do.
This is America has the upper hand.
And you see a little bit of that in Bestent statement that the United States has the upper hand, and so if you want to retaliate, you're going to get something so much worse that it's probably worth you coming to the table. I think I think that's probably an argument he's going to find to be a winner with the EU, with Australia, with Japan. I don't know that he probably had high hopes for China, but it probably had some hopes for China.
I guess I don't know IM. I've kind of given up trying to get into this guy's head. At this point, China has spent the last twenty years building up its manufacturing capacity. It's it's capital markets as well, it's it's supply chains and its ability to operate distinct from the United States. Like, we can't we can't live without them. They currently they can live without us. We start a war trade war with them. At that point, he's like, all right, what do we like? So what's the point
of even analyzing any of this? Like they're just gonna whoop us, and like they need they have all the things that we need for our manufacturing capacity. There's an article in one of these clean tech trade publications that talked about how just a few days ago they added export license requirements to a bunch of things. I've never even heard of, dysprosium, turbium, tungsten, that one, I've heard of, indium, yttrium,
a bunch of others. These are the rare earth minerals that they produce that they export to US for us to use to complete the assembly of automobiles, electric vehicles, solar panels, all the things of the modern economy. Like they have the productive capacity to produce it.
Hippies like you prevent us from mining here.
Mine at all you want, go for it an well, we don't have it yet from Ukraine.
It's an important distinction with Ukraine.
Lie, they don't even have a bunch of that stuff.
The distinction with trying to think those importantly, the reason that they just go comple it puddled to the metal on a lot of this stuff, including labor corosts. I mean, it's one of the most important contrasts is that it's been the way that they have built up their industrial capacity is you know, the way we built up our industrial capacity wasn't all sunsets and roses, was not great.
What they've done is also really, really really not great and is still happening under our noses to some extent right now.
They've done it like they are they're ready for this, and we're not. They're smart, We're not. They have the world with them, we've lost the entire world smart smartest, like the smartest in like they have a meritocracy, like the people who are the most talented at economic policy rise up in the ranks. In China, we have Peter Navarro, Elon musk and and Wharton graduate Donald Trump. Yes, we're not sending our best into this battle.
King of Wharton's finest. Donald Trump last night was at the National Republican Congressional Committee's at dinner here in Washington, DC, and he talked about some of this. Again, this is just from the last like twelve hours. So let's take a listen to President Trump.
If we follow through this agenda, we will be rewarded with a phenomenal economy and a massive victory at the ballot box in twenty six because we will have a record of triumph like no president has ever had, like no Congress has ever had. They will not be able to even touch your seat. Your seat is secure, and we'll pick up forty fifty or even sixty seats, and we'll have something that's going to be smooth sailing for
years to come. If we don't get it done because of stupidity or a couple of people that want.
To show how great they are.
You just have to laugh at him, or smile at him, or cry right in their face. But it is the largest transaction in the history of our country. And don't let some of these policies to go around and say, you know, because I'm telling you, these countries are calling us up, kissing my ass. They are dying to make it you please, please make it to you. I'll do anything. I'll do anything, sir and criticized because the globalists will
go after you. For seven decades, American ships have patrolled the seas, American troops have kept the pace and peace, and American wealth has enriched the globe. But despite all we have given to them, you will not find an American car in Berlin, in Tokyo, in Seoul and Shanghai.
Not a car.
Beautiful guys, I didn't want to have any arm wrestling contests with any of them. I can tell you that they're good, strong guys. That's what they want to do. They love to dig hole, that's what they want to do.
They don't want to do.
Gidgets and widgets and wadgets. They don't want to build cell phones with their hands. Their big strong hands doing a little thing. Remember when Hillary Clinton went to West Virginia and she had decimated them three weeks before in like sub state where they make little tiny circuit boards.
The gidgets and wadgets and they're big strong hands.
Guy's mentally ill.
Even for Trump.
That was a hell of a riff.
Guy.
The guy's just.
He's talking about the big strong hands, like hours before the tariffs actually went into effect. And obviously that's the reality that we've woken up to this morning. We're filming this before markets have opened.
It makes me think of all of these when you read through history and you there are periods of time where people had a mad king and you're like, god, that must have sucked, like literally a mad king, not like a king where like he's like ridless. You disagree with him on this issue, but this is this is the king's prerogative at this moment, like an absolute mad king where he's just nuts. I think this guy's lost it. This guy's nuts. You say he's gonna win, He's gonna
win fifty seats, are you like, are you insane? Yes, like you're you are on the cusp of a financial crisis that you have sparked for no reason. You're going to go down as like the worst president in American history. If you continue with this and he's you're not going to touch us, we're going to win fifty seats.
Well, so that's the I mean, if you continue with this is the I was gonna say a million dollar question, but multi trillion dollar question.
She shows no signs of back and down.
So I want to get in all of that after we roll through some of what else happened yesterday, because Jameson Greer was testifying in front of the Senate, and Andrew ross Orkin will start with us is going to be a two made quite an interesting point on CNBC yesterday that I think we'll probably probably learn more about like a year or two from now.
So let's roll into ross Orkin.
Given what the government's been doing and this administration's been doing, it would not shock me, and I hate to speculate if we were to find out that a whole bunch of people who work in Washington as a elected leaders one way or the other, ultimately sold stocks last week or potentially worse than that short of the market.
Okay, so Ryan, they don't have to disclose this, what is it, thirty days they're supposed to disclose their trades Washington.
Yeah, what's I think something like that for the executive Yeah, right, yeah.
They're supposed to. This came out of the Stock Act of was twenty twelve, after the revelations about Nancy Pelosi. They passed this saying that they would disclose their trades within and John Bayner and John Bayner within thirty days. And so we have no idea.
And what's his name, Max bought Spencer Spencer. Baucus was the Financial Services chairman or ranking member on the Financial Services Committee. Came out of the meeting with Bernanke and Hank Paulson in two thousand and seven when they told him, like, hey, this thing is about to go down. He walked out of the meeting and sold his stocks. And that one in particular rattled the public to a point where they're like, all right, you got it, Like you need to do
something about it. In Congress is like, sure, we'll let you know what we're doing after we do it, but we're not going to stop doing it. Yeah.
And by the way, if we don't disclose it, it's not that big of a deal. It's fine. Get over it, right, Okay, So that's just something to keep in mind. Obviously, people could be short in the market, they could be doing all kinds of things. A lot of times, the way that members do this is they say that their wife was trading or their husband was trading, or you know, they have a really flimsy excuse and say, my broker does all of this. It's not a blind trust.
I don't have no members of Congress of the issue here. It's more the White House.
And people in the White House potentially. Right, let's put a three up on the screen. This is from David Sachs. I think we have this here. Black Monday hoax is over. This is a post from cryptos are As David Sachs. And then there was a community note, and I say, what was because if you go to this tweet there is no longer The note readers added contexts they thought people might want to know, as a three forty five easter in the same day this was this tweet was written.
The SMPA is down two point six percent for the day, racing overnight gains and down.
About six percent.
So he posted this in the morning six percent.
From when the tweet was written, yeah, and so now if you go to this post, actually, he added.
He added an additional tweet to the threat.
He said, after wrongly predicting a crash yesterday, some people are gloating. This is around six pm yesterday because the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down point eight four percent today on the real black Monday, the DJIA plunged by twenty two point six. People use these terms without having a clue what they mean.
He is right about that, and what he's talking about is that throughout the day there was there was a bounce like that, and the markets were actually up for a while, and there was some hope that maybe the countries wouldn't retaliate very quickly and that Trump might revisit this.
And it was the same false hope that led them to kind of, you know, run up the market in January and February, and then when it became clear that no, no, this guy's dug in on this thing and China is going to retaliate, then the market crashed again.
So we still don't know how it's going to open today, of course, But Jameson Greer was testifying before the Senate yesterday and got some really some genuinely very tough questions from Democrats, no surprise there, but Ryan some interesting question from Democrats that we wanted to roll through as well. So let's go This is questions from Mark Warner, a question from Tom tillis obviously at establishment Republican, and then we'll have other clips to get through with jameson Greer
as well. He is the US Trade Representative, so he's basically the guy in the office who's tasked with managing the US's trade relationships across the world. So hell of a time to be Jamison Greer. He is very much of this kind of new right world, very much on board with this agenda, is not being forced to be in this situation. He's a kind of true believer in restructuring these global trade relationships.
So let's go ahead and roll a four here.
We already have a free trade agreement, we have a trade surplus, so getting the least bad Why did they get whacked in the first place.
We're addressing the one point two trillion dollar deaths in the largest in human history that President Biden left us with. We should be running up the score in Australia.
And the question on Australia they banner have a trade surplus with Australia, we have a free trade agreement. Why they are incredibly important national security partner? Why were they whacked with a tariff?
Senator, despite the agreement. They ban our beef, they ban our pork. They're getting ready to impose measures with your company, with.
Your Greek letter formula. The fact that we have a trade surplus, we.
Have a global tariff on everywhere we're trying to address the one point two trillion dollars.
I think that Biden left us with.
I think that answer, Sir, You're a much smarter person than that answer.
I'm assuming this all got gamed out, because because it's a novel approach, it need to be thought out.
Whose throat do I get to choke if this proves to be wrong?
Well, Senator, you can certainly always talk to me, but I won Are you at the tip of the spear? Well, I'm at the tip of the spear.
It's an interesting insight into how Republicans are thinking about all of this, which is, who do I get to blame if it all blows up in our face? And that if is a huge.
And Mark Warner is asking a reasonable question, but he's asking it into a completely unreasonable environment. Like he and I don't normally defend Mark Warner, but he's an insane person in an insane asylum. He's like and so I get why he's yelling. He's like, guys, you said that if we have a trade deficit with the country, then if so facto they have trade barriers against us, and then we're going to screw them Australia. We have a
trade surplus with them, So what is your problem? And it's just talking points.
Well, I think that's interesting because the yeah, soccer, if soccer were here, he would be going through the roof because the beef is beef. One of the things beef. It's insane. We are pushing the beef x sports are like hormone Leyden beef exports on other countries and expecting them to just take it. But I think there's so we have another clip here. Actually that will be helpful too. This is a finance committee, so same committee that you've been here.
We ship a cow all the way to Australia. By the way, what kind of global system is that? Nobody around here? And he's the eat beef.
Our food system is so insane. I mean, we don't have to open up that Pandora's box, but.
Cow is I don't know really heavy?
How much could a banana cost? Michael ten dollars? Here is Senator Bennett talking to Jamison Greer. We can roll this next club.
I understand your position is that the long term gain is worth the short term pain. But what is that short term pain that'll look like?
So, Senator, I think we can look at I think we should look at history and data for this. You know, it's hard to project what's going to happen with prices, but we know in the first term, first Trump term, the President imposed historic tariffs on China on an enormous amount of goods coming from China, and during that time, inflation went down.
And I know you're smart enough to know that the likelihood is that prices are going to go up for the American people as a result of the tariffs that you put in place.
Do you disagree with that?
I mean, when you say that the American in your testimony, that you expect the American people will bear the burden or that, and I'm sure they will bear any burden on some level, But what do you think that what do you think that burden is actually going to look like.
Well, I think the challenges, frankly, are going to be more for companies that are largely dependent on imports from from China and Asia, where they have to adjust their supply chains in a quick set of time.
Right, and you're laughing, I'm just going to toss right to you.
Well, that's great news. So these tariffs are only going to be a problem for companies that have, you know, global entanglements in their supply chains. That's good. I'm glad to hear that. Let me let me check which company. Oh, that's all of the companies, that's every company. Okay, Well, guess we're back back to square one with that on your point. By the way, on the on Dow futures based on this China news that we opened with DW Nasdaq SMP all down about two percent. But here's the
good news. As your wealth shrinks every day as a as a country and as a person, when you lose two percent every day, you're actually losing just a little bit less in absolute numbers. Okay, So there is really in light at the end of the tunnel. Well, let's put this and it's a big zero.
Well, so as how long this goes on, let's put this Kaitlin huey Burns post this is the next album.
Yeah. If you have nothing and the Dow crashes two percent, you didn't lose a thing.
You will own nothing and you will be happy.
Wow.
Genius.
Kaitlyn huy Burns says. She asked s gott Best on the Hill yesterday whether the tariff's going into effect tomorrow, so they are in effect right now? Are set in stone or negotiating tactic? And Bessent replied, quote, they are negotiable, but not a negotiating tactic. There's a lot to get into with that.
I kind of I'm with Bessent on this one. All the let me stand up for Besson.
Here, stand up for Beson.
I get what he's saying there. He's saying, look, all right, the tariff is fifteen percent, or it's eighty five percent on Lesotho, maybe it could be seventy five. Like the number is negotiable, yes, but the idea that we are putting forward, that we are going to break the back of the global trading system and create something new in
its place, that's not negotiable. That's what he's saying, yeah, we don't believe him, because like Trump in that speech was like, they're all begging me for a deal, and you know, he's going to make some deals and he's I think he's eventually going to have to either back off this reforced off of it, because you can't break the global system as one person. Yeah, without or we just have no system left.
I mean, you can break the global system.
But he's breaking it. What I mean is at some point Republicans have to step in. I mean they would need sixty seven votes to override his veto. Yeah, but you keep shaving two three percent off every single day, So there's gonna that that's gonna that pressure is gonna build. So here's where people spent too long building up. People spent their entire lives building up what they have. And I don't think they're going to let this mentally ill guy just take it away. Maybe they will though.
Well so Politico, I think this was in playbook the other day. I was talking about how Republican. The incentive for Republicans, this is the implication I'm paraphrasing it right now, is they know they're voters trust Donald Trump. Republican voters trust Donald Trump. That may chip away, that trust may trip away, but right now, Republican voters trust Donald Trump more than when they trust his opponents. When it comes to I mean, he's his numbers. Harry Entton has pointed
this out. We'll get to it. His numbers on the economy are slipping. But Republican voters have confidence in Donald Trump to the extent that it means they trust him more than other people. And so if the choice is Donald Trump or you know someone who opposes Donald Trump's approach.
We'll talk about this polling more in a minute, but here's a good one for it that backs up your point. You Gov asked April second, will forever be remembered as the day American history was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, in the day that we began to make America wealthy again. Do you agree or disagree with that following statement regarding tariffs. Republicans, by seventy to fourteen either strongly or somewhat agree with that independence. Fifty one percent
of independence disagree with that. Forty one percent strongly disagree. Obviously, Democrats are like spitting to spittake to that one and so you know, overall the country does not agree with that statement, but Republicans still do.
Yeah, And so I just think this is important because, like I think Trump's tactics and this is a question we'll have for the that I'll definitely have for the congressman later. I think Trump's tactics are completely like bananas. There's no disagreement on that. I think a lot of voters make the calculus that it's between these banana tactics or the status quo, which is shocking levels of debt and deficit raising under the Biden ministry. You really the chart,
just the skyrocketing. It wasn't Jess Biden, but after COVID Trump contributed to that as well. It was just crazy levels. And people feel like that contributed to inflation. And they look at the establishment and status quo, and then they look at Donald Trump and they look at for example, China's you know, they look at China, they look at different places in the world, and they say, this is unfair. Trump taps into that, and the response it's it's not
persuasive the opponents of Donald Trump. For a lot of Republican voters, it's not persuasive, and so I think also there's a genuine question as to whether, and this speaks poorly to our politics.
You have Jamison Greer, who I.
Think was pretty it was a pretty capable defender of a weird process, a bad process that is a policy in and of itself. But when did you see how the tweet, the Walter Bloomberg tweet shift of the market day before yesterday? It was the craziest thing in the world, predictable but insane, and I think part of what may happen here. I'm not saying it will happen, but I'm saying there is still a possibility that we see a shift.
Trump pulls back, probably a month from now. I shouldn't say probably, but let's just say hypothetically a month from now, a few weeks from now, Trump pulls back. There was a shock for a long time, and then markets go back up and we see companies having maybe there are significant layoffs, maybe there are jobs brought back in. That's what we see right now is this push and pull, Big Stalantis temporary layoffs, and then the Honda Civic manufacturing
coming back to Indiana, for example. And I just I don't want to discount the possibility that this is better in the long run than the status quo. I'm not saying it's the possibility. I'm not saying it's the thing that's actually going to happen. But I still think that there's what we have no idea where Trump stops, and I don't think he has any idea where he stops, so that, I mean, I think a lot of voters
are probably making that calculus too. I think that's what allows him politically to keep stringing Republicans along with it.
But that's not going to last forever.
I mean, I think you can get away with that for another two to three weeks maximum maximum.
Yeah, the problem with Trump's approach here, besides the approach, is the sudden nature of it and the way that it has struck fear in everybody. So even if he was completely right about the fact that you need to put these blanket tariffs on everybody, including Canada and Australia like, which he's not. But let's say he was doing it the way he did it without getting buy in from Wall Street, from union, well, he got some buy in from some unions, from some members of the Democratic Party.
Has meant that there's this fear among the public that we're going to have a recession, and these are self fulfilling situations in an economy like ours that is based so heavily on consumer spending and business investments. So if you are a business now, you're not hiring, you're probably laying off and trying to build up your cash reserves to the extent that you can. If you're a custom
if you're a consumer, you're out. You might actually be out there trying to buy that washer that you've needed before it doubles in price, but in general, you're not spending money. And in fact, this poll said that one fifth of one out of five people were considering a quick purchase because of the looming tariffs and so like that could give a little sugar high, and it said another one in five we're stopping purchases because of them. But the overall all the coime means people aren't going
to spend it. So then now all these businesses that rely on anything going on overseas are going to start getting hit with duties and in order to pay, like, in order to pay this tariff, you need cash. You haven't sold your product yet. This whole thing we've got here relies on cash flow and credit. You can't really throw in it. Oh like, oh, by the way, you own extra twenty percent right now, and it's still well, whoa, I don't have that. I only have exactly what I
need to make it. Everyone's just you know, gasping for.
Air in the China tariffs. So we started talking about our fifty percent increase, like thirty four to eighty four percent increase, And I'll skip ahead to a ten here and put this element up on the screen. The Law Street Journal reported on a survey the Chamber of Commerce did which was very very interesting and said most businesses were still or many businesses were still planning to keep
their financial entanglements with China. Interestingly, this survey also saw many of those companies see China as like the biggest geopolitical risk. And that's the line that Donald Trump is telling between saying, hey, you see China as a risk, so bet on the United States. The problem with that is the tactic here has created uncertainty. Donald Trump sees the uncertainty as his leverage to get people to bet
on the US. But that uncertainty is precisely why people are just being risk averse and not taking risks at all. So maybe this, this retaliatory tariff changes the calculus for some of those companies in the survey. It's obviously taken before, but I mean, it just it's it's very, very hard. The possibility that it just laid out is just that it's a possibility. I think it's a possibility that's not being treated a series. It should be in the media.
Who's but who's financing that? Like who? Like the major companies are not they don't expect Trump's tariffs to be here four years from now. Yeah, so they wouldn't. They would have no reason to build a plant. The he hates the Chips Act, he hates industrial policy from the top down.
So it's a huge problem.
So then like who's right, Who's Who's who's financing these these projects? You just had Microsoft that you saw this announced that their their billion dollar three data centers in Ohio that they're they're pulling out of those. So the conditions aren't just the economic conditions aren't right for it. Yeah, not good timing for that, So like who just theoretically, who would who's betting who would lead this renaissance? Would Who's who's who's putting their chips in on the US here.
Yeah, Greer laid out the case that he thinks plenty of the pointing of the Honda Civic. And what's the other one that they've pointed to you so far. There's they have a couple of things that happened just in the last week or so, but certainly are offset by Stilantis, by Microsoft, and by some of these other like negative
effects as well. So it's pretty it's pretty hard to make the case that it's, you know, on like that there's some objective metric by which it's it's clearly already a roaring win.
Yeah. And if you I mean, if you know, why why would a company bet on us over China? Given their education system compared to ours, their manufacturing capacity compared to ours, their supply chain access compared to ours, their stability and like leadership compared to We're a basket case. We have authoritarianism but instability. We're rounding people up and throwing them in gulags, but we can't even get a
stable system. Is it's the point of the gulags? What are you talking about criticized Israel?
Oh, you're which gulags are you talking about.
There are a couple of salvador Ones, but also the detention centers all around the rest of where students are being rounded up for op eds and participating in protests and sent to.
Let's watch this clip of Harry Enton on CNN reacting to this was going pretty viral on the right yesterday.
I saw it when Charlie Kirk posted it.
But let's a eight.
This is a eight. Let's rule Harry Enton on CNN yesterday.
So Trump's approach here, what are we talking about Trump's approach to presidential power? I think the American people recognize what he's doing here is completely from we're talking Get this, eighty six percent of the American public believes that Trump's approach to presidential power is completely different from past presidents, compared to only fourteen percent who believe it is in line with president And we're talking about at least seventy
nine percent of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. So again, you can agree or you can disagree with Donald Trump, but.
What you can't.
Disagree with is that he's doing things very differently.
And this is interesting.
So Trump's presidential power is too much the right amount, too little. Well, forty seven percent say too much, but then you get thirty six percent who say the right amount. Then you get seventeen percent.
Who say too little.
So you're essentially dealing with a majority of the American public fifty three percent who do not say that Trump has too much power.
Ran I think it's funny that some I Maga world saw that as like a brief glimmer of hope, the Harry Enton thing, which is basically just voters saying we think the guy is doing things differently. Charlie Kirk pulled out the tweet the quote Trump is not a lie him duck. If anything, He's a soaring eagle. But the context of it was Harry Enton basically saying that, yeah, voters look at or looking at Donald Trump being like, this dude's doing all kinds of different stuff.
I mean I'd have been in that, just like, yes, I would have been in that eighty seven or ninety percent or whatever. Yeah, yeah he is. Yeah, he's the first one to ship people to dungeons and El Salvador and then to suggest that he might do it to American citizens too, That is, he wants to yeah, he wants to Bush is like Wow, I could do that.
He's like, whoa, that was a possibility that was on the table.
We had to use that Guantanamo thing. Well, they send him anywhere. Here's the way to do I thought we had to do it secretly and send him to the Egyptian dungeons where they torture them, and but pretend that we didn't do it.
Well, here's the difference.
Just do it out loud.
George W.
Bush now gets lots of press.
His daughter's on Today's show, and people think very warmly about George W. Bush in you know, men Hattan and you know these these newsrooms whereas and he could send people to you know, torture sites and black sites. But Donald Trump is actually honest about what he's doing.
And so he's hated and again Obama.
The answer is why not dislike both?
Obama not prosecuting the people responsible for the torture program continues to aunt us.
That's a good point.
Let's put this one would at the time.
Let's put this poll on the screen. This is a nine as you go polling results. Ryan, did you take a look at these as are some post quote Liberation Day polling fifty one to thirty eight agreement with Republicans are crashing the American economy in real time and driving us to a recession. And then fifty one to twenty agreement with the tariffs of the largest peacetime tax hike in US history. Those numbers are the combination of strongly in somewhat degree on both. So that's where you get
the both fifty one numbers and eight. So I don't find that particularly surprising.
Yeah, if you go if you go through this entire poll, you see a public that you see a public where Democrats are like massively against all of this, Independence are hugely against all this by like two to one margins, and Republicans are pretty squeamish on it. They still like Trump, But when you dig into Republican support for what's going
on here, it's not that great. I noticed one here where they said they asked why do so, they asked why Trump was doing this, And one of the theories that they asked people about, they said, the tariffs are a means to compel loyalty from every business that will need to petition Trump for relief. That's a theory I've seen Crystal put out that this is part and parcel
of Trump's consolidation of power. That now, if just exactly what they said, If you're Apple, or if you're a small company from Columbus, Ohio, and you're like, look, I'm going to go under, then you call your congressman, you call whoever you know who knows Trump, and you plead to the king for mercy, and the King grants you mercy, or else your whole town goes up in amphetamines. And the independence said by a forty six to twenty two. You know, the rest are like, I'm sure forty six
to twenty two so more than two to one. Independence are like, yeah, that's why he's doing this. He's consolidating his own power. And it fits with what people understand to be his personality that he loves to be the guy who's like, you're fired or you're the man, and he loves to keep people in suspense and to have control over them. And I don't think people want their lives at the being messed with for that reason.
Yeah, well, nobody wants their I mean that's the reason we have the system we have. You shouldn't be at the whim of a president. I mean, this is congressional power. He's evoking emergency authority to do this. This is Article one power and that's part of the problem that's probably going to come back to him. It is just like just final point the strange position that people like myself and probably Stagger to some extent find themselves in, which is and on the left as well, that it's like
these there's there's something very serious here. And I don't discount the possibility at all that you know, I'm not saying it's a huge possibility, the possibility that there's some some good that comes out of this because he can
reverse course on a whim. And that's the sort of strange situation that we find ourselves in in the United States, is that he's he's he's consolidated emergency authority to do this, and I mean where we just kind of have to wait to see if he blinks and what that if he does blink, what it looks like in the particulars of it. And we're talking to seventy countries that he says are bagging to make deals. The amount of power
there is just enormous. So it's just we have no idea, We have no idea what's coming down the next few weeks, which is why we will be here covering all of it.
Maybe, yeah, that's true.
Let's move on to the feud between Peter Navarro and Elon Musk. If you haven't heard how the feud is escalating between Elon Musk and Peter Navarro, you are going to want to stay tuned for this because I dare I say, Ryan, it's been a little bit entertaining. Carolin Levitt at the White House Press briefing yesterday weighed in on that rift. Elon Musk is coming from a more libertarian basically pro free trade. He said he wanted a.
Free trade zone between the United States and the EU.
The other day he has been posting videos of Milton Friedman talking about the many benefits of free trade libertarian
economist Milton Freedman. That is so. Peter Navarro, on the other hand, is one of the more vocal protectionists who some people feel is pushing Trump in the direction that he's gone, maybe to the chagrin of advisors like Scott Bessant and Howard Lutnik, who probably would prefer a policy that has pauses and all of that built into it and hasn't effected stock markets quite in the same way
that it has. So let's roll Carolyn Lovett getting asked about that relationship, which is spilling into the public a bit.
Yesterday, there's been some public sparring between Elon Musk and the President's.
Trade advisor Peter Navarro on some of these tariffs.
Must actually refer to Navarre jay as being quote dumber than a sack of bricks?
Are you what of our is the administration? The President all concerned that.
This is maybe impacting the public's understanding of these tariffs, It might be messing with the message on it.
You know, look, these are obviously two individuals who have very different views on trade tariffs. Boys will be boys, and we will let their public sparring continue. And you guys should all be very grateful that we have the most transparent administration in history. And I think it also speaks to the President's willingness to hear from all sides that he has people at the highest levels of this government.
In this White House, you have very diverse opinions on very diverse issues, But the President takes all opinions in mind, and then he makes the best decision based on the best interests of the American public.
Ryan.
I don't think that's completely crazy that it's in some ways beneficial for us in the public to see where Elon Musk actually is on trade, and to see how he treats other people in the administration, and to see the tension that exists within the administration not just over the question of trade, but actually over the particular tactics of this approach. I don't know. I'm curious how Elon Musk would be reacting if, say Bob Lelittheiser had been
in charge of this I approach. I think there's a sense that maybe with Leithheiser in the administration obviously he was with the first Trump administration, he was with the Reagan administration, he seen this kind of a serious policy type guy who has Trump's ear, would this would this rollout have been less chaotic? I don't know. The chaos is also clearly part of the point here, But wood Elon must be reacting this way.
Under those circumstances.
I don't know. I think maybe he just really hates Peter Navarro.
Well.
I also think it's the policy. Like you know, he is like probably the world's greatest more on at this point, he invested all of his energy, and you know, many millions of dollars into electing a guy whose stated policies would destroy his companies.
That's quite interesting.
And then he then enacted those stated policies, and the guy lost his mind. Now he's talking about a free trade deal with Europe, after he has spent the last year savaging all of the neoliberals who would agree with him in making that kind of a free trade deal and propping up far right wing nationalists across Europe, and then and then being shocked when those leopards eat his face.
It's like, you can't be this stupid. And yes, it's nice that we're getting some transparency, but it's also come on, it's Elon Musk. It's impossible to not know his every thought. He forces it right in front of your face.
Right, it's not an intentional.
Everybody knows his stupid thoughts.
It's not an intentional strategy of transparent. It's not like we are going to finally let the American people in.
Now.
The consequence of it, I think is helpful for the American people. But yes, it's not them being like we are so we have such pure heart that we are going to let you do this. So we're going to play a clip now of Peter Navarro talking about Elon Musk. Elon Musk responded to it, and man does that spiral from there? So let's go ahead and roll this next element.
When it comes to tariffs and trade. We all understand in the White House and the American people understand. And Elon's a car manufacturer, but he's not a car manufacturer. He's a car assembler. In many cases. If you go to his Texas plan, a good part of the engines that he gets, which in the EV case is the batteries come from Japan and come from China, the electronics
come from Taiwan. The tires come what we want and the difference is in our thinking and elons On this is that we want the tires made in Akron, we want the transmissions made in Indianapolis, we want the engines made in Flint and Saginaw, and we want the cars manufactured here. It's like this business model where BMW and Mercedes come in to Spartansburg, South Carolina and have us assemble German engines and Austrian transmissions. That doesn't work for America.
It's bad for our economics. It's bad for our national security. We want them to come here. And with the Eon, it's fine. He's a car man. If he's a car person, that's what he does. And he wants to achieve foreign parts and we understand it. But we want him home. We want him home. National security, I'm sure, and everything's good.
That absolutely said Elon musk Off, and not yeah, there's nothing surprising about that setting Elon musk Off. So Elon musk responded to post of a post of that clip, and you know, put the little asterisk in his response to someone who posted the clip and said, this is what Peter Navarro said, he put little ascaris Peter Ritardo.
Well, I hope Musk is happy. He at least gets to say that.
He gets to say that golden age. And then he also replies Navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false. Tesla has the most American made cars. Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks. And then he tagged the account I find retards and then he tagged Peter Navarro's account in his response. There that's what set off the Caroline Levitt exchange. So again, like it makes sense that this is how they're responding to one another.
And Peter Navarro is somebody who there are a lot of people in Trump's orbit who are quite uncomfortable with Elon Musk's aggressive libertarian economic policy, particularly because it's led him to have deep financial entanglements with China, and a lot of people actually just have you saw this, Like you saw this spill into the surface with Deep Bannon over the HMB stuff.
A lot of this is like simmering.
It doesn't it doesn't erupt every day, but it's shimmering beneath the surface between a lot of true believers in Trump protectionist circles Trump like the sort of maga industrial policy realignment circles who have a deep distrust of Elon Musk.
And I think that's where you get. Peter Navarro asked publicly about Musk, just openly saying like Elon's fine, you know, it's all fine, We're glad he's in the administration, but X, Y and Z, he's just shooting from the head, and that created this public controversy.
Yeah, and consumers of this news program would never kind
of mistake me for some Elon Musk fanboy. But he does assemble a lot of the batteries here because he has a big plant in Nevada that makes batteries for Tesla, and Navarro does sound like a moron when he starts talking about the difference between an EV car assembler and an EV car manufacturer, because the problem that a lot of unions and the UAW for instance, has with the transition from the from the kind of cars they've been making for one hundred years to the evs is that
there's so much easier to assemble. Like an EV is it's like a battery and some and some wheels and then a really you know, advanced software system wrapped around it, and then some panels that fall off as soon as you drive the car off the lot. But it he keeps kind of reverting back to language about that that it that that fits better with the old Detroit, like we're going to do the transmission and okay, yeah, like anyv technically, I guess it has a transmission, but it's
like a one speed transmission. It's like that's it, Like you press the gas and it and it goes. Doesn't have the multi speed transmission. It's not you know, you're putting the putting the collutch, you know, in V six and V eight and like all of these, all of the fine tuning that requires sophisticated manufacturing isn't there with the quote unquote engine of an EV, which is just the battery and it goes so uh yeah, more on is fair. I think in this point. I think Muscus
Muscle's right. There are a lot of musks. Chinese production is for the Chinese market and for other markets like Tesla's a gold global brand, and you know, the other American auto companies should maybe try to figure out why that is.
It's not that he was to your point, it's not that he doesn't import materials. It's that he does it last.
Than Chinese where Earth's and other you know, he needs other elements of the Chinese supply chain, but not necessarily the ones that Navar was talking about here.
It's so this is the last element, be five.
This is also what I mean by we're not bringing our best against the Chinese and these negotiations. These these are morons, all of them.
These two. You can just see there's something like this is what happens internally in every presidential It's like the long running bit here in DC about how actually Washington is viep. It's not west when it's not house of cards like it is, it is veep. It's completely true, it's at this point. But this is the type of stuff that happens internally all the time. Now we can
put the next element up on the screen. Caroline Levett total Daman jabbers yesterday, we are the most transparent administration expressing our in history, expressing our disagreements in public. You know again, this this is whatever, I love it whatever. That's basically I mean, that is the best possible response, right Like they're not even trying to spin it and saying everyone is united here this is a totally a white house or everybody's on the same page. We're running
like a well oiled machine. And the reason I think is important, which is fundamentally, this is Donald Trump's policy. I don't think Scott Bessett knows or Howard Lutnik knows where Donald Trump wants to stop with any of this. I don't think they know. I don't think Jamison Greer knows what Donald Trump wants to see in negotiations with Australia and what that means, how long that means he'll continue.
You know, they might know that he wants them to address non tariff barriers, great, I don't think they know when he's willing to say that's enough. We have struck a deal with Australia and we will you know, completely come to the table finalize this thing. And tariffs are off or tariff's are much lower than they were, Tariff
increas is much lower than it was. And I think that's what this reflects at the end of the day, is like they can't be on the same page because there's one person whose opinion on all of this matters, and he plays it close to the best, and he's doing that because he thinks it's his leverage. But at the same time, they have no idea. Like that's what that means at the end of the day, is that it's just this is what we were talking about this earlier.
It's what Donald Trump decides, and he's speaking of not being transparent, like we actually don't really know because he hasn't said where this stops.
It's good enough, And in the end, this is a rare moment where it doesn't it doesn't matter, like the propaganda doesn't matter, the messaging doesn't matter the infighting, the ex fighting, none of that really matters. What matters because it's the public is not going to experience this refracted through the media. They're going to experience it. And this stuff is either going to work or it's not going to work. And it doesn't work, it does not matter
what they say about it. And if it works, people will be very happy. So far not working, and that's all that's going to matter. Like if we get a financial crisis cent a recession out of this, it's it really isn't going to matter how the White House messaged it and whether they were on the same page, whether their fights were internal and leaking or playing out on Twitter, won't matter. If you lost your job, you don't care.
Let's move on to this big decision from the Supreme Court yesterday. We can put c one up on the screen, the Supreme Court. This is the CNN headline, Supreme Court backs Trump for now on fired probationary federal employees. We'll read a bit from CNN's reporting. They say Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to keep several thousand probationary federal employees it is attempting to fire off the payroll while
lower courts wig whether the downsizing efforts are legal. The latest in a series of wins for the White House at the Conservative High Court, and so that's referencing obviously the decision the day before that Amy Conny Barrett dissented from, but the rest of the Conservative justices agreed on and.
The argument what they the argument they made was that the unions don't have standing to sue here.
Oh in yesterday's decisions.
Yeah right, yeah, So it's not that they didn't rule on the merits of the case. They said, which to me, like, how could a union not have standing? Like what is the point of a union if not to be the representative of the workers in a lawsuit like this? But whatever, they that's where the Republican court is. The unions don't have standing in a case that involves all the firing of all of these workers. But also one kind of funny quibble I would have with the payroll, the point
about whether they're on the payroll. These firings involved first putting people on these long administrative leaves, then giving them severance, and then once that's wrapped up, then they're on unemployment benefits. So if you think you taxpayer are saving money. You're not just that these people are not working, You're still paying them. By the end of this, the process of firing these people could be the most costly example of
waste fraud abuse in government. Like ever, you're going to end up paying billions of dollars to many thousands of people to not work, which, by anybody's definition is waste fraud and abuse.
Not I'm true, although is it.
Imagine if I came to you and I was like, I found a government agency that is spent, that is actively and purposely spending billions of dollars to get people to not work on your behalf, You'd be like, Wow, that's a scandal. It's called doge, it's.
Called doggie, it's called doggie. So the question is whether it's waste running an abuse that justifies the end of the means of waste abuse, to justify the.
End of that limiting ways for musc of these oligarchs, that is a feature like these people not working. If they are regulating them, if they're enforcing laws on companies, that is a feature for them, not a bug. They don't want these people at the EPA telling you, oh, by the way, you can't do this thing to this river.
Yeah, well, so this is more from So, this is more from the CNN article. They say labor unions and other groups had challenged the OPM so Officer Personal Management's rule in the firings, which affected thousands of employees and sent shockwaves through various federal agencies, some of which later rehired the workers. US District Judge William also nominated by Bill Clinton, ordered the administration to immediately offer over sixteen
thousand probationary employees their jobs back. Each agency had and still has discretion to hire and fire its own employees. Here, the agencies were directed by OPM to fire all probationary employees, and the executed. They executed that directive to staunch the irreparable harms to organizational plaintiffs caused by OPM unlawfully slashing
other agency staff required immediately reinstating those employees. And so with the Supreme Court said here is that the unions didn't have standing to make that case to the point you were making earlier on So what this means is
thousands of probationary employees. By the way, the probation employees have been a subject of controversy among people supportive of DOGE because the probation probationary employees oftentimes are people that maybe recently got a raise and so we're on probationary status in this new position, and so they might be
some of the best and brightest. The second of all, they're new employees in many cases who are just coming in to the administrative state and haven't been molded by the decades of bureaucratic procedure and processes and ideology, just the ideology of the bureaucracy in and of itself. And so if you're DOGE, you might look at probationary employees and say, these are the people to keep, These are
the better people to keep. So even within DOSH goals, the fate of these probationer employees is a question in and of itself. But right now, what they're trying to prove, and they're excited to keep proving through the courts, is that they can do this because that is the unitary executive theory that Trump is and rust Boat and others are borrowing from Richard Nixon and saying this is the president's administration. It is under the will of the president.
The president can do what he wants, and he can, you know, do it through the process that he wants. That's what they're the point that they're trying to make through the courts right now, And what it means in practical terms for these employees is that their jobs. It's like incredible whiplash. I know a lot of people don't have sympathy for bureaucrats in Washington.
Yeah.
People, Well, it's not a particularly sympathetic group of people in the aggregate. When you dive into some of these individualations, you're like, oh, my gosh, that's what this person is doing. That sounds very important, like VA work, for example, some work at the VA. Like, oh, maybe we should keep that person. But the aggregate not the most sympathetic group of people. But nevertheless, their livelihoods are just pinging through the courts right now.
Yeah, not ideal.
Not I deal.
Ryan.
Let's move on to Capitol Hill, where a mutiny, to quote Politico is brewing, and that's actually the correct terminology here. There really is a mutiny brewing on Capitol Hill at the moment over Trump's one big beautiful bill. They want this pass before Easter, which gives them House Republicans, Republican leadership on Capitol Hill in the House and Senate forty eight hours to get this through the House of Representatives
before the House leaves for a two week recess. Right now, this is we could put d one up on the screen. The state of affairs is pretty bad for Trump. So this is the chairman of the Freedom Caucus yesterday before going into a meeting with Trump saying he's just not going to change my mind. And actually I correct myself, Andy Harris did not go to the meeting. Other people went to the meeting. Andy Harris said he's not going to change my mind. So I'm not even going to
meet with Donald Trump over this bill. And there's a new political article out this morning from Meredith Lee Hill about that mutiny where they this is actually really well said. In the lead of the piece, it says, first they caved on the speaker election, then last month they fell in line on a budget vote and again on divisive government funding bill. But now it seems House Conservatives are
ready to make a stand. Dozens of House Republicans are undecided or outright opposed to rubber stamping a Senate approved budget blueprint for the GOP's domestic policy megabill and an all out whip effort from Johnson. Mike Johnson and his
leadership team has only produced modest gains. If Johnson and Trump can't flip most of those members in the next forty eight hours, lawmark makers will start to board flights for a two week recess, denying the president a show of legislative progress as financial markets wobble over his tariffs. And that's exactly the question here. Trump wants this bill passed right now. He applied more pressure throughout the day yesterday at that meeting and then at the National Republican
Congressional Committee dinner. Is very very intent on getting this bill passed because they think it's something that can And I'm curious for your take on this, Ryan Steady, the markets a little bit that can, you know, be something that shows if you get the corporate tax rate permanent, it helps with restoring et cetera.
And that's why they want this right now.
They want it before Easter two week recess, within forty eight hours. And what we're starting to see is both establishment pushback on Trump. We posted that clip of Tom Tillis yesterday saying whose scalp can I have to jamis secure USTR. So you see Republicans who are actually uncomfortable with the tariff and sort of libertarian perspective, and now Republicans who are uncomfortable with the way Trump is handling the budget from almost a libertarian perspective, but on the populace side.
Yeah, and so this is the this is more of the reconciliation, right, This is where they're they're writing the underlying reconciliation bill, which is only kind of the guideline then for the next bill that they where they end up where they fill in the details about what the tax rates would be and what the different different policies
would be. So which makes it a little easier for Trump to say, look, just just vote yes on this, and then I promise you when we do the final bill, I'll make sure that I take care of your your your demands here on the tax rates and on and on the spending cuts and what Andy Harris, you know that is saying I don't trust I don't trust the
president to be able to do that. Not that I don't trust the president, but I don't think that he has the power really to go to go forward and do that, especially as he's floating that he's going to raise taxes on the rich m hm, when whereas the Freedom Callers generally wants them to, you know, either keep the taxes on the riches saying, or cut them and so. But but the Freedom Caucus, I'm curious why you think this is different. I'm just so used to the Freedom Caucus.
I mean, I have a theory for why this could be different. I'm curious for yours. I'm just so used to the Freedom Caucus talking this huge game and then the night before the vote, they're promising that this time they're really going to hang together against and it's this is against Trump, like against Bayner. You know, they got a spine against McCarthy. They've got a spine against Trump.
Yeah.
They have always just uh talked to talk, and then when a time comes time to walk to walk, they they they get just enough no votes that it still passes. So why I have a theory, But I'm curious for why you think this is different.
Well, my theory is that they feel like they've been taken for Trumps for the last roughly.
The last every time they are Chumps.
Well, I'd say that's they would say that every time over the course of the last year. Whereas before, I mean, when you're in opposition, you know, it's it's easier. But whereas before they feel like they were being they were able to make more significant concessions, whereas because of the Trump factor they have acquiesced and said we trust Trump.
There's this new thing where.
Conservative media used to be like conservative media itself, not like Fox News. But you know, the ecosystem of alternative conservative media used to be very in favor of the Freedom Caucus and still is for the most part. But when Trump is on the other side of the Freedom Caucus, a lot of that mediabal side with Trump, right, you know, you get the bright parts of the world, well or the Bannons of the world, will get on board with Trump and say this is Trump's plan.
We're going along with Trump. This is the point that Trump is making.
But at this point that's going on so long that the Freedom Caucus is like, hey, we cannot pass this budget resolution without spending cuts that offset what's going on, Like you just this is a quote to the Hill from Eric Burleson, who's a Freedom Caucus member who called Trump's budget bill quote financially immortal. They're not, you know, quibbling with the bill. They see it as being like really significantly messed up. And that's where this is Lloyd's
smucker quote. We've got to that's a hell of a name. We've got to reduce spending to put the country on a better path fiscally. Yeah, I think the disagreement is some of us really believe that the resolution is an important foundation on which to build a good bill, and so we want to ensure that some of the principles that all of us agree to are included. Man, good luck, that's all I can say.
Yeah. My theory for why they would they might hold the line here is that it's not a big it's not the stakes aren't that high. Like if you don't pass this reconciliation instruction now, you can still do it in two weeks. There's not gonna be a government shutdown. Like there's there's no Trump wants it. But it's as my kids say, or I would say to my kids, it's a want, not a need. So he doesn't need it. And so he doesn't need it. It's like what leverage
does he have? And also I think Trump is going to find out something about the law of political capital in Washington that there's only there's only so much you can do to your own approval rating and to the hopes and the feelings of the American public. Like if they turn and they're like, we think we're headed for a recession and this all sucks. You don't have as
much power. When you call up Andy Harris and they're like, I really need you here, it's like, well, you know what, maybe you shouldn't have like wrecked the country in three months.
It's completely true that, you know, one of the people leading this current resistance from Trump's right flank is chip Roy and Tip Roy and Trump have had many differences and trade barbs and sort of it's baked into their relationship. But chip Roy is a leader in freedom coucice circles.
Hee's somebody even in like conservative media that people look to as kind of a weather vein, you know, to see what the conservative take is or the kind of hardcore conservative take is on a given situation on Capitol Hill. And he's being really adamant right now. And I think ran part of the reason is while there is support for industrial policy protectionism even from people who would have previously in the Tea Party Arab been very skeptical of that.
There's some support for restructuring our trade relationships, there's not support for this indefinite testing of the market and of these major companies' bottom lines because to a certain extent, it doesn't it gets away from popular. We've talked about this entire show, but like at a certain extent, it
doesn't become populist, it becomes like oligarchical. So I think that's right now probably factoring in and this is I think the point you're making is probably factoring into why there's a sort of invigorate, reinvigorated wave of frustration among folks in Freedom Caucass circles like, hey, we have to codify these spending cuts. These spending cuts can't just we're cutting all these taxes. Great, if we don't codify these spending cuts, now, when are we ever going to do that?
So Freedom Caucus might wind up with some of the same bad luck that the Democratic populists wound up with, which is that the moment that they they had like had neoliberalism on the run, they've and they've got the American Rescue Plan, and they've got the child tax credit, and they've got all of this kind of industrial spending. The exact moment that they're that they're notching win after win after win. The economy is coming back from a pandemic.
You've got all these corporations jacking up prices, you've got supply chains collapsing, and you've got these price increases. So it was the most difficult political environment to push a lot of new federal spending, even popular federal spending, into the economy and into in the public, and a lot of it was rolled back as a result. People were
very angry then when it was rolled back. Now, just as the Freedom Caucus is getting the ability to really slash spending in a serious way, they might be doing it into the teeth of a fierce recession, which is the absolute last time the public wants to hear about austerity. Yeah, it's just unfair. The world isn't fair.
The world is not fair.
Life lessons from Ryan Grinn.
Ryan Grinn, I just said I was trying to say Ryan grimm on counterpoints, and it turned out to be Ryan Grin counterpoints. So either way, I think it works great. Let's move on to this interview set up with Congressman de Lucio, who has taken some arrows in a really interesting way for his criticism of Donald Trump, while also supporting just.
The idea that may be some tariffs are okay, well maybe a little bit. Yeah, all right, stick around for that, all right, to talk more about these tariffs and the Democratic response, Joined by Pittsburgh Democratic Congressman Chris Deluzio. Congressman, thanks for joining.
Us, Thanks Yan, thanks for having me on.
So you found yourself kind of at the center of this controversy as somebody who has you know, actually cares about industrial policy and manufacturing. All of a sudden, the entire world is focused on this. You wrote a piece in the New York Times that got a lot of attention fairly recently and also had a post go kind of viral on the interwebs where you made the case that, Okay, Trump's tariffs are wrong, but here's where tariff policy and
industrial policy you can play a role. And man, I was stunned to see how many Democrats were furious about that. They're like, how dare you?
Like?
What all we should be saying is that Trump had So we want to get get into that in a moment, But I wanted to start with Carolin Levitt over in the White House talking about iPhone production in the wake of some news that if we completely reshored all of our iPhone production and iPhone would cost something like twenty nine thousand dollars. I don't know what kind of deal you get from your carrier that makes it a little
bit cheaper. Maybe you can get that down to twenty five thousand with the right bargaining in the Verizon store. But let's roll miss Levitt here, and I want to get some of your response to this.
Does the President endure something that Howard let They've said on television this weekend, which was that the army of millions and millions of human beings screwing in little screws to make iPhones, that that kind of thing is going to be moving to the US. Is that how the President envisions manufacturing shifting and if so, how.
Long would that take?
Roughly, the President wants to increase manufacturing jobs here in the United States of America, but he's also looking at advanced technologies. He's also looking at AI and emerging fields that are growing around the world that the United States needs to be a leader in as well. So there's an array of diverse jobs, more traditional manufacturing jobs as you discussed, but also jobs in advanced technologies. The President is looking at all of those.
He wants them to come back home.
But iPhones specifically, is that something that he thinks is the kind.
Of technology that can move to the US.
Absolutely, he believes we have the labor, we have the workforce, we have the resources to do it. And as you know, Apple has invested five hundred billion dollars here in the United States. So if Apple didn't think the United States could do it, they probably wouldn't have put up that big chunk of change.
So is this talk of three thousand or thirty thousand dollars iPhones? Is this fear mongering to push back against a decent industrial policy or is this something that needs to be be taken into consideration. Where do you come down on this questions of costs versus the ability to make a living right?
Like your question gets to the heart of this, which is why the President's across the.
Board blanket approach has been terrible.
You cannot use this one tool of tariffs, throw them on everybody and expect you're going to magically at manufacturing in this country. You got to look where there are trade sheets and be tough on enforcing them. And that's communist China around things like steel, for instance. You've got to have the industrial policy. You've got to incentivize manufacturing
in this country. You need real policy from Washington to do it, especially when you've got sectors and companies here that have to compete with foreign competition that's being propped up by their governments.
This is not some equal playing field. And I come back to the.
Fundamental problem of what Trump did, grow in tariffs on everybody friend and foe alike, does not work. You've got to be specific to the sector. You've got to have industrial policy with it. And we're seeing the cost of this right now and the way markets are responded, the way workers are responding.
This isn't it.
And that doesn't mean that you should ignore when a country like China breaks the rules. Tough enforcement includes things like targeted tariffs. I don't think people are comfortable with, say, slave labor making goods that get important to this country. But that is so far afield from what Donald Trump just did. We can't turn the blind eye to getting industrial policy right in this country, and.
If I were to channel a sentiment, I think some of the voters in your district to are still with Donald Trump. I don't know how many it is, but I presume some people just knowing the Republican electorate will probably say to you, Congressman, well, if it's not Donald Trump, then what is it? Is it, Connala Harris, is you know, is my alternative some moderate Republican? Nobody else wants to
take on these problems quite like Donald Trump. And this gets to the point that Ryan was making when we were speaking earlier, that this is I mean, you're almost an outlier in your own party, and it has to be sort of tough to convince other Democrats that there's a nuance that's important to talk about. Right now. We were talking before we went to air that you were on the front page of Politico and an article that's headline, Democrats find Trump's haphazard tariffs are uniting them on trade.
But there's a quote in that piece from Charlotte Climber that says Democrats are pretty uniform.
If not entirely or this is from you.
You say Democrats are pretty uniform, if not entirely uniform, and making the case that.
What's happening right now is really dangerous.
Charlotte Climber says, trying to offer nuance on Trump's disastrous tariffs policy in this moment is like telling someone with alcohol poisoning, you know, red wine and moderation is actually good for heart health. It's missing the point. It's bad messaging. Can I just get you to respond to that, because I think there are probably a lot of Trump fans in your own district who say, well, what is my option? What's the alternative? Maybe this is crazy, but the alternative seems crazy.
To me too.
Well, I think you get to the heart of whether they're saying the other guy's bad is just enough. I don't think it's good policy. I think it's good politics. Right we now have Donald Trump in a second term and the presidency and Democrats have lost the House in the Senate.
I don't think us saying the.
Other guy is bad, which we should say, and I am saying, is a guy from the rust belt. Trade policy right now is reckless and dangerous.
We should say that.
We got to tell the American people what the heck we're going to do if they trust us to govern in two years and four years.
There is never a bad time to say what.
You're doing to protect your people when they're getting hurt, and what you will do if you're trusted to govern.
And I don't shy away from that ever.
To that point, let's put up E three, which is your New York Times article. This ran about a month ago. You know you could see you could see this coming at a time. I'm a rust belt Democrat from a swing district, anti tariff, absolute absolutism is a mistake. And then let's put up E four. Let's play this, this thought, which is what got the likes of Charlotte Clymer and others just absolutely lived at you. It's about it's about a minute, and let's roll that here.
Chris Deluzio here from Western Pennsylvania, proud son of the Rosspelt, and I think are wrong. For decades, can sens us in Washington on free trades been a race to the bottom. It's hollowed out our industrial power, cost us good jobs. The president's tariff announcement, though in his trade strategy, has been chaotic but inconsistence. We should not treat our economic allies like Canada the same as trade cheats like communist China. I do not want to see corporations use the cover
of these tariffs to now price gouge families. Terifts are a powerful tool. They can be used strategically or they can be misused. They've got to be used in sectors that make sense. They've got to be paired with real, meaningful industrial policies, pro worker policies. I'm talking about tax incentives to Jews American manufacturing, get those supply chains back home to go after corporate price gouging and stock buybacks, and better protections for workers, have the freedom.
To form and join a union.
We've got to get a better trade approach in this country.
We've got to put workers in American fas families at the heart of it. For me, from the left, it was kind of depressing to see something that seemed to me to be fairly straightforward and sensical treated as some type of capitulation to Trump. Like like you listen to that, You're like, yeah, that all makes sense? Was that viral response? Do you think not real life and isolated on the internet.
Does that represent a significant faction within the Democratic Party that is genuinely still you know, dug In on you pure free trade and against any industrial policy. How have your colleagues responded to this versus how it was received by the kind of blue sky public. Yeah.
I mean, look, I'll say from where I sit Western Pennsylvania and communities like mine across say the rust belt people want us to have more manufacturing jobs, they want us to have a better trade policy, and overwhelming they think what Donald Trump just did is not it that it is a mistake, and we can chew gum and walk at the same time, we got.
To be able to criticize the other guy and say also what we think and believe.
And I don't know who the heck thinks it is smart policy or politics to tell people that what we shouldn't have manufacturing jobs in America, that we should turn the blind eye to exploited workers and environmental pollution that we all pay for.
That's not the answer.
And we even saw President Biden, I think correctly respond to trade cheats and breaking the rules and chining around steel for instance, to do strategic targeted tariffs there pair it with some incentives here at home that is so far afield from what Donald Trump just did. And yet I think you finally see some Democrats saying, Okay, what he did was wrong. Here's what we think the Democratic Party ought to do to revitalize American manufacturing. And I
serve on the Armed Services Committee. There's a lot of time sped over there worrying about our defense industrial base. If you don't have an industrial base in this country, you are not ever going to be able to mobilize the way you had to and say the Second World War, god forbid, we're in something like that again. You have to have an industrial base in this country for a lot of reasons. In national security. It's a big part of it.
How optimistic are you that Democrats are? Let'ld say, there's a concern that a lot of people have that because of the way that Donald Trump has approached this tariff is now going to become a culture war word that people are going to kind of polarize in elite spaces even further than they already were against tariff's period. And I guess are you optimistic? Joe Biden had an industrial policy.
He kept Trump's first term China tariffs, but that feels almost like a relic of the past of the Democratic Party. And I'm curious if you think that's true, especially as as Democrats have sort of, to paraphrase this political article, unified against the Trump tariffs. Is there a risk that Democrats just sort of become not just anti tariffs, but disinterested in industrial policy, disinterested in balancing some of these genuinely problem matic relationships.
I hope not.
We still have to make stuff in America, and you know, we can't just be focused on the past. We got to make stuff that we can compete and that we need in the economy of tomorrow. I think it would be a mistake for Democrats to walk away from caring about manufacturing jobs. Isle sense that either right. I think
it's fine to criticize the president. I criticize the president here, but I think there are a lot of us, most of us, many of us who want to have strong manufacturing jobs and have that industrial policy with labor alongside.
At the heart of putting those policies together.
That's the Democratic Party coalition that I know that is rock solid in Western Pennsylvania places like it, and it's where.
We go in the future to win.
How is this going to end? Do you have any for people who are scared watching this? Do you are you in touch with the White House at all, Like, what does democratic leadership think about this?
Like this?
How do where do we go from here? Like Walster, it seems to think it's going to back down. I don't think so.
And I don't think you say, the White House man, I don't think there's one one there.
What the heck they're doing? I mean, that's that's the other problem here, and our allies and our adversaries and like see that. And even you talk to business leaders, they don't know how the.
Heck to plan investment if they want to bring manufacturing back when they've got the trade environment changing day to day. You need certainty to even make the kind of investments you'd want to grow American manufacturing. So this is also reckless and nuts and is divorced from any real meaningful industrial policy or strategy that you would actually need to supercharge the kind of jobs we want in this country.
All right, well, thank you so much, is right?
And I say that as a guy from the rest special investimania who wants to see these jobs grow.
It's just nuts.
Yeah, yeah, that's how that's how I feel too. It's like you're given a bad name to the entire idea of trying to do this like the next as you're kind of finding out that the next person that comes forward with ideas about how to revitalize American manufacturing people are gonna be like, that's cool, but are you going to make it so I can't retire again? Because that wasn't fun so sucks. Anyway, thanks for joining us.
Thank you tigers Man.
Hamas, through attorneys in the United Kingdom, has filed suit to have its terror listing delisted. We can put this first element up on the screen. This is reported in drop site News by Jeremy ska Hill this morning. It's a there's a it's a more than a hundred page legal filing that includes several components, one of which we want to go. I want to go just go through here because it is kind of a historic and kind
of fascinating document. One of the one of the founders of Hamas, Musa Abu Marzouk, filed a kind of eleven or twelve page kind of accompanying letter along with it, in which he makes the case for why Hamas should not actually be listed as a terror group.
UH.
The the basis for the case is, uh Hamas has never this is this is the argument that that they make Hamas has never engaged in any attacks, you know, outside of history what they call historic Palestine.
Uh.
They specifically note that despite the UK's role in facilitating the ongoing genocide they have, they have never and will never attack Britain in any way. They said, if if a if a British citizen signs up for the I d F and comes into Gaza, then their fair game. But otherwise they they they, unlike some other Palestinian factions, have never engaged in any terrorism or milton action outside of what they would call historic Palestine or the zionistdentity
or whatever. They also have and we want to go into detail of this because it's because it's I think it's really interesting. They also talk about free speech, the threat that Zionism poses to free speech in the West.
They talk about anti Semitism, and not only do they decry the scourge of anti Semitism, they argue kind of echoing arguments that you've hear on this program that conflating anti Zionism and anti Semitism, conflating anti semitism with criticism of Israel waters down the definition of anti Semitism and actually makes it more likely that you're going to see
more anti Semitism. They Hamas specifically praises Jewish students who have participated in protests around the world and in the US, and even praises Jewish Israelis who have protested against the slaughter of civilians. That I don't think any Hamas official has ever done that before, ever praised an Israeli citizen who's a Jewish Israeli citizen, like I think that, I think that's a they think that as a first. They also talk about what they would see as quote unquote
national liberation. There they do not in this document they do not recognize Israel, say they will never recognize Israel, say that the only solution long term is complete liberation, meaning no Israel, no Israel. That is that's their political line. The very next line, and we can get into this. The very next line says, however, and you know they
always say ignore everything that comes before the butt. So Hamas's butt is, but we are willing to accept a long term truce that is a basically a two state solution along nineteen six the seven lines, and what and the reason they call it a long term truce is that it allows them to maintain their pride of not having to say that they are willing to recognize Israel and accept a two state solution while still accepting it as an objective reality, because they would be saying, well,
this is just a long term truce. Of course, that's all anything is in this world is a long term troops that's all. That's all you get. And then after this long term truce, they there would be negotiations that they could that you do then enter into that that yields an actual you know, so it's two state solution
and actual recognition. But they're not going to not going to do that preemptively, and they think that Arafat doing that preemptively recognizing Israel without getting the recognition of a Palestinian state was a mistake that led to the currency wa endless occupation. I can read some parts from this, but I'm curious if you have any any thoughts in
general on this. The notion of even the notion of Hamas engaging with attorneys can't pay them because they'd be under sanctions if they got paid pro bono, and but engaging with the West in this way suggests kind of a shift in strategy.
I mean, it seems clearly to suggest a shift in strategy, and one that perhaps could be attributed to the West,
especially the United States, shifting perspective on Israel. It's not to say the West is embracing Hamas, although some of the some of the Israel backers would certainly say that's what's happening and gets equated anti Zimism gets equated conflated intentionally with support for Hermas, but because or increasingly skeptical of fully backing Israel, not just on the kind of far left, but we see in opinion pools that creeping more and more into the kind of mainstream public perspective,
especially here in the United States. I actually I'm very careious for your perspective on this, right if that seems to be something that's that's juicing Hamasa's I guess approach to negotiating with the West, as they feel as though now they're in a position where Israel's narrative is slipped a bit, for better or worse in the West and they can now come in and operate like a state.
Yeah, that is that kind of yeah, I think, and I think they have been heartened to see the amount of support from the global public from so many countries joining South Africa's I see JKS for instance.
So support not for Hamas though, because what you just said, people would say, you're saying Hamas is heartened by the support for.
Her, for the support for resistance against Israel.
Yeah.
Yeah, and they a lot of them equate that to some support for Hamas because as like Hamas argues.
Hamas poins that was support for her masque, even though many of the people who are backing.
A support mus Hey and Hamas makes Hamas actually addresses that in this legal filing or or at least in this in this side letter. What they say is, look, a lot of what they say is we understand people are against the genocide, people are against what Israel is doing, and we are the ones that are fighting against that, like literally fighting against it. So therefore you've got to give us some credit for doing that. But the anti there,
the discussion of anti Semitism is truly fascinating. So let's let's roll through some of this and you can put that first element back up on the screen. For some ofime, they'd say they're right, or he writes, we reject any allegations that we are anti Semitic or that we target Jewish peace. And this is a fascinating line. He says, I appreciate that there is a level of controversy surrounding some of the wording of our founding Charter. The Founding
Charter includes explicit antisemitists. Yes, so he explains then or argues, this was drafted without consultation with the senior leadership, who were either in prison or in exile at the time. Hamas has published a series of other documents since then, culminating in our Document of General Principles and Policies of twenty seventeen, all of which expressly distinguished between Jews and Zionists.
I have incorporated parts of that policy within this witness statement as continuing to reflect the positions of the movement. So that is as close as you're going to get, I think, to an apology for the language that the anti Semitic language that was in the original charter documents. And then so then he goes on to say explicitly, our struggle is not against Jewish people because of their religion,
but against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. It is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jewish people and with their own colonial project and illegal entity. We acknowledge and appreciate the solidarity shown to our people and our struggle by many Jewish people around the world, including within quote Israel, whose stance against Zionism exposes the dangerous lies that conflates Judaism with Zionism. And that that's the line
that I was saying. I was talking to Jeremy about this this morning, and he was saying, he thinks that that's kind of an unprecedented statement from a member of Hamas, a founding member of Hamas, even to say to say we acknowledge and appreciate the solidarity shown to our people by many Jewish people, including within Israel. I mean they put it is reel in quotes because that's what they do, because they don't recognize it officially, but that is that
is that is a significant step. Then so they go on, we are particularly appo and this is the part that I said, sounds like they're watching this program. We are particularly appalled by the weaponization of antisemitism to attempt to silence those standing against apartheid, occupation, and genocide. The Zionist entity and its supporters have completely undermined the struggle against genuine anti Semitism by manipulating the term to protect the
Zionist entity from criticism and censure. Over the past year, Zionists have accused numerous officials and institutions of being anti Semitic, including the UN Special Rappertoire, the UN General Secretary UNRA, the ICJ, the ICC, the Government of South Africa, the Irish Dousach Simon Harris, and the President of Ireland Michael Higgins. In the process, Zionists have debased and degraded the important
definition of antisemitism until it means almost nothing. Zionists, many of them not Jewish, have deliberately fashioned an utterly warped definition of anti Semitism, and they consciously wield it to shield Zionism and Israel from entirely legitimate criticism at a time when actual anti Semitism is on the rise. This shameless crying wolf is a staggeringly irresponsible and dangerous policy to pursue. It diminishes our ability to combat anti Semitism
when and where it does actually arise. Where's where's the lie?
I mean, there's plenty of genuine anti Semitism.
That's and that is Hamas's point, which is fascinating. Hamas is calling out the rise, No, no, no, Hamas is saying anti Semitism is on the rise, Genuine anti Semitism is on the rise, and this conflation of Zionism and anti anti Semitism is fueling it, which is true.
And their argument is going to be that they are now the bulwark.
There they are, they are arguing more than the anti Semitism.
Yes, I mean that's I feel like the you know, the galaxy brain meme where it's like the game of forty chess.
The but if you step back, like why is like Hamas's argument is our problem is with the Zionists.
Yeah, I think it's interesting.
Yeah, I'm just like skeptical that it's actually representative of Hamas' leadership's views. It sounds like tactically it's I think tactically it's very clever. I'm just genuinely skeptical that you know that charter was changed what in twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen.
Except well twenty seventeen is when it was codified, Like he was saying, there were many steps taken in that direction right to move away from that anti Semitic language that was that was inserted in the beginning.
Yeah, I mean we could talk about there is a non significant portion of people who are in the godless trip who aren't even in Hamas, who have I would say, like deep bigotry, and it doesn't I'm not saying it doesn't exist on the other side, but have deep bigotry towards Jews. And so I suppose I think it's it's both substantively important and interesting that they're making this tactical
I think you're right, like tactical shift. I also think I'm skeptical of how genuinely that represents their position.
And so they spell they spell this, They go further into the h's really interesting of the history here and make the point, which historically is an accurate point that there was there has been, that there has been far far more anti Semitism in Europe, and if you include Russia and Europe than in the Middle East over the years.
That's just been the case. So here they write the Palestinian people have always stood against oppression and justice and the committing of massacres against civilians, regardless of who commit them, based on our religious and moral values. We clearly stated our rejection to what the Jews were exposed to by
the Nazi Germany. Hamas is of the view that the quote Jewish problem, anti Semitism, and the persecution of the Jews are phenomena fundamentally linked to European history, and not to the history of the Arabs and the Muslims or to their heritage. The Arab and Islamic environment was an example of coexistence, cultural interaction, and religious freedoms. The current conflict is caused by the Zionist aggressive behavior and its
alliance with the Western colonial powers. Therefore, we reject the exploitation of the Jewish suffering in Europe to justify the oppression against our people in Palestine. The Zionist movement, which was able with the help of Western powers to occupy Palestine, is the most dangerous form of settler colonialism. That form has already been defeated and eradicated from much of the world and must similarly be defeated and eradicated from Palestine. So,
and that's an argument. You hear a lot that obviously Nazi Germany was a European that this was that was Europe And you'll often hear people, So what does what did Palestine have do with that? Why did why did Palestine pay for the genuine sins of Europe which flowed
out of their their history of anti Semitism? M hm like what Yeah, the Ottoman Empire, you know, Ottoman Empire compared to Europe, far far better place for I mean, indeed, Jewish people, Jews were fleeing anti semitism in Europe to yeah, and to the Automan Empire and being recruited to go there. Yeah.
No, I mean there's gonna be interesting. So there's this. This is the point I was making. This was back in twenty nineteen, a Hamas officially.
When did's Spain really kick off its real anti Semitic purge when the Muslims left?
This Hamas official back in twenty nineteen, Fatihamad had said, all of you, seven million Palestinians abroad, enough of the warming up. You have Jews everywhere, and we must attack every Jew on theory. This is a twenty nineteen quote from a Hamas official, Fatihamad, who said, all of you, seven million Palastins broad enough of the warming up. You have Jews everywhere. We must attack every Jew in the globe by way of slaughtering, killing, if God permits enough
of the warming up. Well back in twenty nineteen, so before October seventh, obviously he walked that back. The point that you're making, he was clearly under pressure from Hamas's pull up the leadership. You right, and he's a policy and he said in a statement that was posted on Hamas's website, Hamas is consistent adopted policy of limiting its resistance the Zionist occupation that U SERPs Palestine's land and
defies defiles its holy sites. That he said, that's what he supports now, limiting its resistance to the Zionist occupation that he serves Palestine's land. And this is both the point you're making and I think the point that I'm making, which is it's not new for Hamas to start trending in this direction, but this represents a significant tactical shift.
On the other hand, my point is just that I don't think you go from point A to point B if you were Fazi Hamad because you've suddenly had a change of heart and don't think Palestinians everywhere should kill Jews everywhere. I think you do that because you're under political pressure, and so all I'm saying is that I am skeptical that this represents some type of genuine, some type of genuine dissolution of bigotry among the ranks across the board.
Let's say there is anti Semitism and hatred in the hearts of some members of a MOSSU, which I don't doubt for a second. The question is whether that as a policy is suppressed or whether it is encouraged.
Right, No, I agree, Yeah, I think that's a good question.
In the US, for instance, there's there are all kinds of ugly sentiments that some American people have. Whether whether the government and a political movement is celebrating those and exact pouring gasoline on them, versus whether they're telling you and there, through education and through messaging and and through modeling good behavior, are saying no, that's not actually how we as Americans are going to treat immigrants or you.
Know whoever cultural norms.
Yeah, just let's do the British part for a second. Marzook writes the British government's decision to proscribe Hamas as an unjust one that is symptomatic of its unwavering support for Zionism, apartheid, occupation at the cleansing and Palestine for over a century. Hamas does not and never has posed a threat to Britain, despite the latter's ongoing complicity in
the genocide of our people. Is perhaps out of colonial guilt that Britain fears that one day those it oppresses will strike back against the sponsors of the Zionist entity. Britain should have no such fear unquote like, look, guys, we're like our beef and they're like, look, our beef is not with you think it's so.
I mean, I think from like a realist perspective, there's a there's an argument for dealing with Hamas as a state entity that makes negotiating. We saw this with actually Steve Whitkoff and Whitcoff got a ton of flack for actually stepping in when the Biden administration's negotiations with Hamas had stalled for a long time, so that you can't talk to Hamas, you can't deal with mass you can't negotiate with Hamas, and Whitcough came in actually yielded result
to have direct negotiations. I mean, it was going through cutter obviously, but to have more direct negotiations with Hamas. Does that put the world on a better track to some lasting peace. I think, as you know, uncomfortable as it is for the West, it probably does.
And while we're talking about uncomfortable things, let's let's do let's do another one. Here. They have a section on prisoners. So I want people to hear this, whether they agree with it or not. It is a tragic reality that almost every Palestinian household has a family member being detained in an Israeli prison. Well, they forgot to put the quotes around Israeli there. I guess they just recognized Israel. Since nineteen sixty seven, over eight hundred thousand Palestinians, including children,
have been incarcerated by the Zionist military. The thousands of Palestinian political prisoners or prisoners or hostages currently languishing in Zionist prisons, where they are routine routinely tortured, raped, and mistreated, include hundreds of women and children, many of whom are subject to administrative detention, which can be renewed indefinitely. That is true. The release of the Palestinian prisoners is a consensus position. This is where it gets uncomfortable for Western ears.
The release of the Palestinian prisoners is a consensus position among Palestinians, with strong support from all sectors of society. Where appeals to the international community to release our prisoners have fallen on deaf ears, our experience has demonstrated that the most effective method of liberating our prisoners is through the prisoner exchange process. So in case that needs translation for anybody. They are explaining to the public and to
the British government here why they take hostages. That there are thousands of Palestinian prisoners riding away an administrative detention facing, according to human rights groups, torture, sexual assault in a systematic way. The world public has been unable to get them out, so they're going to take them what they have. What they're saying, what they have found is the most successful way to get them out is to take hostages
and then exchange the hostages. And that has that's true, like that you know that that has been and that was the that was the real goal of October seventh, was to take a lot of hostages, right and then exchange them for the thousands of prisoners. They're saying the root cause of their hostage taking is your hostage taking? Like that's the that's the argument that they're that they're making here. Like I said, that's not going to be
a comfortable one for Western years. No, no, no, no, But it's that's what's what people mean when they say history didn't start on October seventh.
Well, it's also the problem with just putting everybody into this like a box that can't be opened or dealt with, is you end up flattening people and not understanding they're like how they see their intentions and intentions and which if you want to quote defeat Hamas or crush Hamas, you have to actually understand Hamas. You can't just dismiss how they see their intentions and motivations. So have to
say those intentions of motivations are right. It is to say it's actually useful to understand their intentions and motivations.
Yeah, a couple other couple other pieces they try to take credit for the Great Marsh Return. This was the twenty eighteen non violent Civil Society led demonstrations that every Friday would kind of march to the fence and Picnick and it was kind of celebratory, and it was the kind of nonviolent resistance that defenders of Israel have always said, this is what the Palestinians should do, This is what we would respect. This is like Gandhi, this is like Mlka.
Do that and we'll give you your liberation. Instead they gave them bullets in their knees and create an entire generation of crippled people in Palestine. Hamas initially kind of resisted the Great March of Return, but because it was so popular in Gaza that eventually endorsed it the way they covered here. As they say, Hamas has a history of both armed and unarmed resistance. The latter was manifested in its support and facility and facilitation of initiatives like
the Great March of Return and Hamas's involvement in parliamentary elections. Unfortunately, such initiatives were only met with further military assaults by the Zionist entity and Gencile sanctions imposed by the Western world. Let's I think we can finish with Let's touch on their their writing of October seventh, because this is also at the center of obviously everything. This is why, eighteen
months later is still being flattened. So he writes on the morning of October seventh, Cassam Brigades executed a military maneuver targeting the Gaza division of Israel's Southern Commands, so very clearly situating it in as a as a military effort, not at civilians. So that's the point he's trying to make.
There much has been said and written about the operation, but there has been little coverage in the English speaking world about the intended nature of the operation, as articulated by the movement itself in its various written statements and interviews over the past seventeen months. I've prepared a separate witness statement focusing on the operation. Suffice to say here that the instructions given to our elite forces, our Nukba, were to kill and capture Zionist soldiers and not to
target women, children, and the elderly. To the extent that any individual crimes were allegedly committed by our soldiers, we have internal mechanisms for investigating and disciplining them. Unlike the Zionist entity, we take justice and accountability very seriously, and to that extent, we remain as always prepared to cooperate with any international investigations and inquiries into the operation, even
if Israel refuses to do so. As we know, hundreds of civilians were killed, particularly those attending UH their festivals, as well as people who were in the in theki in the kibbut seem uh this so this is there, This is their effort to say that that was not their policy, that they regret it, and that they're open to investigations. I don't know what investigations they have now.
Their claim they're sort of claiming here that they would have carried out some internal investigations and found people who committed these war crimes and brought them to justice. I haven't seen any evidence that that has happened. Doesn't mean it has, hasn't, has or hasn't, but I haven't seen any evidence. A lot of those soldiers would have been killed, like never actually made it back to Gaza to face that alleged inquiry. But anyway, how do you, how do you?
How do you? How do you read that writing of October seventh?
I mean, I don't find it surprising, it's a it's all, this is the the report here overall is just a I think indicative of something changing, and that's why it's not entirely surprising. But it does seem new.
I don't know, it's it's it's it's it's it's something new. Yeah, it's it's trying to meet it. It's trying to acknowledge it. Actually it is what it is. And they use the word alleged, but what they're doing is acknowledging that war crimes were committed, Yeah, and that there should be an investigation into those, into those war crimes. The the the the fact that the rave was happening there has changed
history in such a profound way. And we've been working on investigation and we'll have out soon a drop sight I hope about why that rave was given an extra night, Like do you know the story here, Like it was not supposed to even be there on Saturday, and by Friday there were all sorts of intel warnings that something was happening, and they applied for an extra night and they're like a mile from the fence and were granted it.
What were they doing there in the first place when there was there's like so much area in the desert where they could be Like what if they had not been there, the number of civilian casualties would have been met many hundreds less and the number of passages many significantly less. That does not forgive or excuse the decision by the Bilitins there to teraris there to kill innocent people or just their celiberty. Doesn't forgive that. For a second, last last piece, I'll just so I can because I
went over this, but I'll just read it. This is This is their proposed sixty seven solution. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances, and the pressures, and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea. So there is there's
the peace that devendors of visuals say. See, I told you they all they want is the eradication of Israel, complete total genocide of Israel. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity, and without relinquishing any Palestinian rites. And this is where their compromise comes when they say
they're not compromising. Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, along the cease fire line of the fourth of June nineteen sixty seven, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled to be a formula of national consensus. Hamas on numerous occasions for over two decades, proposed to hudnah or long
term truce on this basis. It's goodwill has been abused by Desionists who have assassinated members of its leadership to undermine such efforts. So that's a reference to there have been internal there are internal fight schisms within Hamas over this question. There are people who support this basically what is a two state endgame within Hamas, and then there
are those who do not. And Israel has systematically assassinated all of the ones who are in the moderate camp in order to elevate the extremist camp and then to point to the extremists as the reason that you need to do you to do endless war. And notice how what they call they don't say they support it. What they say they consider it a formula of national consensus because they're really being pulled to it, yeah, kind of
being forced. They're like, they're like, we understand that outstanding a national consensus is that this would be an acceptable outcome and we're not going to get in the way of that. So anyway, that's so, anyway, that's well, the rest of the Arab world and the right of return, that's like the Israelis will also say, well, they're they're they're calling for the return of hostages to their homes, which makes it impossible because you'd have to uproot people
who are in there currently in their homes. But that's where you negotiate, what is that? What is it? What do you do with that right? Like you have that right, but is that right? Can that right then be assigned to a different home, Like you're not you're not going to actually physically remove people from their homes like settlers do in the West Bank on a regular basis.
More great reporting from drops It Ryan. Thank you.
Yeah, interesting stuff, that's for sure.
Truly. Speaking of very interesting stuff, let's move on to your interview with Naomi Klein. Maybe you can set this up because you had you had a great conversation. She
was name checked in a Compact Magazine SUBSEAC article. But Jeff Stollenberger, who's a really interesting writer and was reflecting on his own memories of what the left was like at the end of the nineties and in the early aughts, when the No Logo movement that Naomi Klein obviously gave name to but was inspired by and then became a part of through the work of No Logo, was reflectingcy this was a real push against globalization. And I went
back and watched a documentary that Naomi Clem did. I think she tells you in this interview that it was back in two thousand, where there's a clip of her talking about globalization's impact. Much of the documentary is focused on globalization's impact on spoatshop labors, and they'll be very familiar to people who remember these these days, but a lot of it also was focused on what happened to
American workers. And there was the slice of the interview about a minute long where she sounded back in two thousand a lot of the same notes that people on the right are sounding now in defense of Trump's tariff policy overall, if not the particular tactics, but of the policy.
Right. Yeah, and credit to you for suggesting this interview. We wanted to have her on the show this morning, which she lives on the West coast of Canada. So it's like way too early for that. So I interviewed her yesterday afternoon. Well let's roll some of that, all right, joining us now to talk more about this global collapse of the New World Order or whatever we want to call it.
I think they call it a great reset, right.
The Great reset? This is the Great Reset. Is none other than Naomi Klein, who, relevant to this conversation, is the author of many books, but in particular No Logo, published in nineteen ninety nine, which kind of drew inspiration from and also provided inspiration to the burgeoning anti globalization movement at the time. I don't know if I told you this. I got my kind of radical political awakening, you know, from that and from the from Seattle, and
then I ended up going. You know, Seattle was end of nineteen ninety nine. I was in college on the East coast, so I was not about to go to Seattle, but I did go to They called it A sixteen.
This was the Yes, it was IMF World Bank in Washington, d C.
Yeah, April twenty twenty, this like two or three day protest. One day was beautiful, another day it was like forty degrees in raining, and I remember just getting drenched the entire day and then they finish it off by pepper spraying everybody, tear gassing. Were you at the did you go to the Washington One?
I was at the Washington One. Yeah, yeah, I actually wasn't in Seattle. I was no logo, was at the printer i and you know, I was writing about it, but I couldn't convince anyone to send me because at that point you couldn't you couldn't convince sort of mainstream editors that this there was a possible story to be told because the movement had yet to sort of write first onto the world stage.
As Seattle was kind of the yeah, the introduction of that movement to the world. Then they understad okay, okay, there is something going on here, which and then it and then and I'll put this piece up real quick because they talk about this, this phenomenon, this this compact magazine piece that has a very funny headline, what did
y'all think post neoliberalism meant? Vibes? Papers essays the strange career of anti globalization politics and this is a reference to you know, obviously this famous kind of I guess it was a tweet on October seventh. What did y'all think, you know, post colonialism or decolonialism? You know, meant so it's a it's a kind of satirical riff on this.
But they mentioned that after September twenty September eleventh attacks, the energy around the anti globalization movement really moved into anti war politics, trying to stop the looming invasion of a racks unsuccessfully trying to stop that, and you know, obviously failed to do so and didn't really bubble back
until twenty ten. And so now here we are more than twenty five years later, and the biggest wrecking ball that's brought to the system of global free trade is brought by Donald Trump and brought in a way that is I don't want to put any words in your mouth, what's been so I'm just curious, like, what's been your reaction to seeing the arc from Seattle to Trump.
I mean, I have to say that quite a few of the think pieces I'll put that in air quotes a little bit, including the one that you just put up there, are based on a bunch of really wrong assumptions about what that movement was in the first place. Not to say that there weren't protectionist elements to it. It was always a kind of an awkward coalition of more nationalists, trade unions and internationalists, human rights activists, environmentalists.
You know.
The slogan in Seattle was Teamsters and turtles together again, which was a reference to the fact that there was this coalition between big unions like the Teamsters that were more interested in just protecting American jobs and environmentalists who were looking at how environmental deregulation or a race to the bottom was impacting in this case, turtles who are being caught up in fishing. The point is we spent a ton of time back in the day actively correcting
the record that we were not opposed to trade. We were opposed to the phrase we used that the time was corporate rule, you know. And there was huge teachings in Seattle and Washington that were all about the fact that this thing that was just calling itself, you know, this kind of anodyne you know, free trade was not free. That it was a wish list for multinational corporations overwhelming the US corporations to just maximize their profits. And we
are very very far into that successful revolution. What we were naming at the time, was that what this particular set of trade rules that were all about deregulation and pushing privatization and economic austerity would deliver would be a race to the bottom globally on labor, on environmental standards. And you know, I think anybody who thinks that Trump represents an end to corporate rule and that you know, no, he is the fulfillment of it. Musk is the fulfillment
of it. Definitely, there are riffs inside their strange and awkward coalition about exactly how to go about this, but I would say the race to the bottom has been successful. And I think the reason why there is even the prospect of reassuring some production in the United States is because unions have been so successfully weakened over these thirty years because they're counting on a huge amount of automation, so they're not planning on paying any workers for most
of this on shore production. And they've been saying this openly, right, like, we're going to be bringing like the iPhone assembly jobs back, but it's not going to be humans who are going to be assembling them, right, And the other piece of this, and it's kind of driving me mad that people aren't connecting the dots. Is where doge fits in with all of this, right, because here is Musk and the boys
who are decimating the regulatory state. So if there is to an extent that there will be so on shoring under this new new regime, like bringing jobs back to the US, it's going to be precisely under the conditions of that race to the bottom that we were trying to stop in the first place. Right, So this is this is not an end to neoliberalism in many ways, it's it's it's sort of logical culmination. And yeah, we tried to stop it, so you know, Sue us, we did try.
Yeah, and so my colleague Emily who couldn't join us for this, So I found this clip from many years ago. Maybe you can tell us when when exactly this was wanted to get your I'll play this for you the the much younger Naomi kleinb and then get your get your reaction to it now, how you would have how you would say it now.
But the significance of for a company like Nike is that building these kind of utopian branded world costs much more than just advertising a product. So you often hear companies openly saying that we have made a choice. We
have decided to build our brand. But that choice has consequences, and one of the consequences is that when that decision is made, it is often accompanied by a decision to sell off factories and to embrace the Nike model, the company that owns all this intellectual property but doesn't own any factories. When a company decides to embrace this model,
that obviously immediately affects their workforces. In North America and Europe, people who had steady unionized jobs were paid enough to support a family lose those jobs, cutting.
Six thousand jobs now unemployed, lost another forty two.
Thousand jobs, cutting eleven and a half thousand over their.
Jobs from factories across the South to plants overseas where labor is cheaper.
The communities that were built around a factory that depended on these factories are often gutted, and the jobs that often come to replace these manufacturing jobs are these new economy jobs that are often service sector jobs.
I would guess that you still agree with I agree with that, Annalys. When was that from, by the way, do you.
Think probably two thousand?
Yeah?
I think yeah. I was trying. I was describing a business model that a lot of a lot of the reporting on offshoring at the time was described as companies closing factories in one location and opening factories in another location. So when I was what I was articulating in that clip, and it remains true in most sectors. There are some sectors that never fully embrace this model. But I'll just
put an asterisk there. But this idea that really owning your own factories is is kind of a loser's game, right that that that if you're smart, you keep it light, you own your intellectual property, you lloy you know, designers and marketers, but you are going to produce through a
web of global outsourcing. The exception to this was the are the auto companies, like the really heavy manufacturing that tended to continue to own their assembly plants, right, but everything that they could outsource to this web of contractors where you'd have some plausible deniability, they did. And that remains true. And this is you know, one of the people who really represents this very very powerfully is Donald Trump, right.
I mean, he is a quintessential sort of hollow brand that, particularly after the Apprentice realized that he could make more money not opening his own hotels and buildings, but leasing out the Trump brand to whoever wanted to slap it onto their development and so on. And so when you talk about the US companies bringing the jobs home, it's completely anacrotistic to how most of these companies actually function.
They don't want to own the kinds of factory at the level that they used to because they it's much much more profitable to outsource all of that to a web of contractors. So some of them will will come to the US, but they'll still continue to use the leverage of being able to pit different contractors and subcontractors against each other for who can deliver you know, the pieces of the of the assembly line at the at the lowest price. None of that is changing.
So let's say that the Trump administration, you know, watched that clip and said, wow, this this author really diagnosed the problem. Well, come on in, like, tell us how we can fix this for for American workers, and we can like, what what should they be doing if they were.
Serious zooms that that Donald Trump and Elon Musk of any interest in actually and genuinely helping American workers if they wanted to do that that you know, the surest way that they that they would do that is support labor rights instead of trying to undercut.
Them, destroy the NLRB, destroy.
The MLRB, you know, fight unionization and in your own plants, as Elon Musk has done. So, you know, I think that this is really the cover story for their US, you know, and I think unfortunately, we have got a lot of labor leaders who are willing to play along with it. And you know, maybe there will be some some marginal gains, but but that remains to be seen. I mean, I think it's a very big gamble for for for big unions like the the u A W
to support this terraff regime. And you know, I think the global impact of this, you know, I'm talking to you from Canada, and you know, the way we, you know, many of us understand the impact of these terrorists is like, this is not the US returning to protectionism, as Trump says again and again, it's about leverage, right, if you listen to what he's actually saying, He's saying Canada is
being unfair. Why are they being unfair because they're not letting our banks in in the you know, they're not, you know, and the US healthcare sector desperately wants in. So you know, there are a few protections that remained in place under the neoliberal trading regime. And you know, I think that there's a calculation now and there isn't agreement you know, across the board among US corporations that now the US has the leverage to to to get
even more right to knock down the remaining barriers. So you know, I don't believe he really is a protectionist in the way that he wants to market himself to to US manufacturing workers, for whom he represents a kind of a you know, I called it toxic nostalgia in the past, like this idea that you're going to return to some you know, manufacturing heyday that has passed and
it isn't going to happen. And you know where I think you really see the lie of it is around AI because you know, some of his like the centerpiece of the biggest investments that he has announced so far as president, have been with the big tech companies around massive data centers that you know, are unleashing technologies that will decimate American jobs. So this idea that he would bring me in to figure out how to help American workers is absurd. I reject the point premise. I don't know.
I think he's a marketer and and you know part of how he's marketing himself as the champion of American workers, who he has screwed his entire life.
Now, last question for you. One thing you've been really good at throughout your writing career has been seeing where things are going next, seeing around the corner that's that that others couldn't quite see around. Do you still have that vision? Like do you and do you see like where do you see this going? Like where where is this? Where is the United States headed? Where's the where's where's this world system headed?
Yeah?
Well, I mean this is where I think that these articles, these you know, these takes around. Okay, this really is This is what the left always wanted, the end of neoliberalism, as opposed to understanding that this is a new stage of deregulated capitalism. You are really dangerous because where I see it going and here this is not like some
prophetic power. This is like actually listening to Peter Tiel, to Elon Musk, to the people who are underwriting the Trump administration who it's if you listen to what they say and also where they have put their money in what they're doing. What you see is they no longer believe in the nation state at all. You know, they're excited about things like Freedom City. They're excited about places like Prospera in Honduras where they manage to create like
a sort of a corporate city state. They're very excited by the possibilities or what AI can can accomplish, you know, in this kind of corporate secessionist movement. And so I think this really is a fulfillment of the corporate rule dream beyond the nation state. So they still see a role for the nation state at this phase, but I think beyond it they want to shed. They want to shed it. So yeah, I think that's where we're headed.
And I think acting as if this has been a like a wish fulfillment for the left, is it a really dangerous.
Distraction from no logo to no state next.
And once again you can find leftists who will make that same argument.
This is not what they meant, right, Yes, that's not what we meant. That's not the withering that we meant. Naomi Klein thank you so much for joining me. Very much appreciing and good luck in Canada. Sorry that we're all of a sudden enemies.
I don't quite we're going to gang up on you with the rest of the world. All right, take care, all.
Right, I'd say it, all right, Emily, what did you think?
You know?
This is what's interesting. It's sort of like you're faced with either She's completely right about Elon Musk and Trump is such an interesting point or such an interesting case study in this incredible argument she makes about the brandification of American companies that they've Nike, for example, owns intellectual property and then has other factories that they buy from.
But it's the Nike IP that Nike is based around.
It's not making Nike, it's it's buying for people who make Nike, and then it's branding it with the IP. Trump truly is that, like everything Trump steaks, I mean.
Just unbelievable. How Donald Trump.
But that's what's so almost Shakespearean about this is that Trump as that man that the man who is her case in point is also now the person who is pissing off all of the multinational corporate corporations, all of the investors. He is the one who is like giving the middle finger that I think, you know people who were lobbing Molotov cocktails at the wto or Seattle in nineteen ninety, like that is what if it were coming from one of them, or Bernie Sanders, he'd be like, I am watching.
This burn and it's feeling great now.
That might not be a substantive teak of Naomi. I just I thought it was really interesting to hear her reflect on that, and it is so Shakespeare and that Donald Trump is the guy who represents everything she was arguing exists rightfully arguing exists. But on the other hand, I think there's something to be said for like Trump may embody all of those bad things, but the alternative, there's no alternative. There's Bernie. But other than that, like
Bernie doesn't control the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party has said no to Bernie over and over again, and Republicans did that. They said no to their populists over and over again, and they got Trump. And now it's like who if it's not him, who And if it's not the only way you get it with Trump is this insane process. And I just don't think the jury's fully out on whether or not what Trump does. I'm not
saying it's a big possibility. I have said this all show, but there is a possibility that he does actually restructure global trade in a way to do that's what restricts your global trade in a way that is ultimately productive.
Not saying it's a.
Ninety percent chance, but there's a chance. Maybe I'm too hopeful.
And the analogy I was thinking of, and I'm not saying that Trump is Hitler, but like let's say in the nineteen twenties, Rose Luxembourg is out there and the German communists and socialists are out there saying, like, look, another world as possible. If I'm a republic terrible, we want to get rid of it and replace it with something different. And then the national socialists end up winning
and replacing it with something different. You wouldn't be like, oh, well, I guess you're happy, then right, you got something different. It's like, no, it's worse. Yeah, it can always be worse, it's my point. Yeah, and just because you were against something doesn't mean you're necessarily for the thing that replaces that thing.
Now, I think that was a really good point to hear from both you and Naomi, like, I do agree with this, and I'm probably I don't want to ascribe this to her because I don't know that it's essentially true, but I do think that there's sometimes just this, because Trump is such a polarizing and bizarre figure, sometimes there's
just this. It's like a I don't know what, a cultural barrier that people on the left are still like really icked out about ever transgressing and ever saying we wanted radical politics, and here's the radical politics of Donald Trump. It's like when Susan Sarandon, one of my favorite moments.
Long time viewers of the show will know, I was talking to Chris Hayes and got, you know, just massive viral attention for saying that that maybe by not voting for Hillary, if Trump wins, he will bring the revolutions. And Chris Haynes was like, you mean in a Leninist way, It's just yep. Sometimes it's just to me, some of these leftist politics are so and I think fascinatingly radical. I feel like that's the world that you were steeped in.
And it's like the Schallenberger headline that you talked about what did y'all think post nibilism meant vibes?
Papers essays.
It's pretty funny. I'll give them on that.
It is.
It is, so I'll give him that that was a great interview. I'm really like, I thought it was fascinating and I was really appreciative that she had sat down and you did such a great job.
So yeah, thank you, Nailmi. We really appreciate it, and thank you for the idea.
Oh anytime, I'm full of ideas.
There you go. All right, Well, so we'll be back I assume on Friday we'll be down another ten percent by then we'll see headed towards zero.
Ryan's the one who's community noting David Sachs just every hour it's correcting him.
Good luck out there, people.
Yeah, thanks for tuning in, and we will see you back here with Crystal. Maybe Soger. Maybe we can pull Soger into one of my Friday sessions. He's very busy right now, but maybe we.
Can pull the time conflict, but maybe we can get him this Friday. We'll try, all right, see you then,