Congress Grills NPR, a Filibuster Showdown & Behind the Tariffs Week In Review

And finally, Senator Cruz takes you behind the scenes so you understand exactly what's going on with his colleagues when it comes to the tariff situation. It's the weekend review and it starts right now, which brings us to another aspect of this and that was what happened in Congress last week with MPR CEO and PBSS CEO there in front of Congress having to deal with what DOGE is doing, which is cutting waste, fraud and abuse, and it did

not go very well for those CEOs. It reminded me an awful lot Cenator of when the presidents of the Ivy League schools had to come and answer questions about anti Semitism on college campuses after the attacks on Israel, and people were just in shock how radical they were and how they were not stopping it.

Access Now. She worked for Wikimedia Wikimedia Foundation. She joined the Atlantic Council. She was part of the Department of States, Foreign Affairs Policy Board. She she is a hard leftist. But look, don't take my word for it. Listen to it out of out of, out of her own mouth. And I want you to listen, in particular for this back and forth with Brandon gil Brandon Gill is a freshman House member from Texas. He's a good friend. I campaigned hard for Brandon. I endorsed him in the primary.

Brandon is a rising star in the House. And and just listen to this back and forth as he questions her, and and and and hangs her on her own petard with her own words. Give a listen.

an old series. You ever watch Hogan's Heroes? Yeah, gosh, yes, okay, Well do you remember Sergeant Schultz. Yes, Sergeant Schultz would say I see nothing, I hear nothing. That is that's that is Catherine Marr. She sees nothing, she hears nothing. Uh and and yet this is someone charged with spending millions of taxpayer dollars running what is a left wing propaganda network. You know her statement, I've never called for reparations. I gotta say, Brandon, I think does a fabulous shop.

But it also means that it is a little bit trick really addressed some of the real challenges of where does bad information come from and sort of the influence peddlers who have made a real market economy around it.

this story. But it really sets up the absolute disaster that is NPR today. How Uri Billinner began. You know the stereotype of the NPR lister, an ev driving, wordle playing, tote bag carrying, coastal elite. It doesn't precisely describe me, but it's not far off. I'm Sarah Lawrence, educated, was raised by a lesbian peace activist mother. I drive a super room and Spotify says my listing habits are most similar to people in Berkeley. I fit the NPR mold. I'll cop to that. So when I got a job

here twenty five years ago, I never looked back. As a senior editor on the business desk, where news is always breaking, we've covered up peebles in the workplace, supermarket prices, social media, and AI. It's true NPR always had a liberal bent, but during most of my tenure here, an open minded curious culture prevailed. We were nerdy, not knee

jerk activists or scolding. In recent years, however, that has changed. Today, those who listen to NPR or read its coverage online find something different the distilled worldview of a very small segment of the US population. If you are a conservative, you will read this and say, duh, it's always been this way, but it hasn't.

because they were unguarded and unpredictable. No image generated more pride within NPR than the farmer listening to Morning Edition from his or her tractor at sunrise back in twenty eleven. Although NPR's audience is tilted a bit to the left, it still bore a resemblance to America at large. Twenty six percent of listeners described themselves as conservative, twenty three percent as middle of the road, and thirty seven percent

as liberal. By twenty twenty three, the picture was completely different. Only eleven percent described themselves as very or somewhat conservative, twenty one percent as middle of the road, and sixty seven percent of listeners said they were very or somewhat liberal. We weren't just losing conservatives, we were also losing moderates and traditional liberals. An open minded spirit no longer exists within NPR, and now, predictably, we don't have an audience that reflects America.

tweeted out right before he broke my record. And so I took to Twitter and tweeted out, as Corey Booker approaches my twenty one hour filibuster record, I'm contemplating pulling the fire alarm hat tip Jamal Bowman, and I sent out a picture of Jamal and but Bowman, the Democrat congressman, pulling the fire alarm in the Capitol to avoid a vote.

And and and I will say that that that that tweet went viral, and in fact, Corey ended up at the end of his twenty five hour filibuster reading that tweet on the Senate floor, which which was which I enjoyed it. I actually like Corey, and he and I are friends, and so I'm glad he read it, and I will. In my twenty thirteen filibuster, I read a number of tweets on the Senate floor, and I believe that was the first time in history a tweet had ever been read on the Senate floor, and I read

a whole bunch of them. Now, there is a significant difference between what I was filibustering over and what Corey Booker was philibustering over. What I was filibustering over was Obamacare, and I was doing so because it was right what Obamacare was going into effect, and I was trying to stop it from going into effect because the American people it was having the effect of driving up premiums dramatically

reducing choices. Barack Obama famously said, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, and millions of Americans discovered that was not the case.

and in fact, it energized people across the country. And I'll point to what the effect was in twenty fourteen. The next year, we had an election, and it was a tsunami election. Republicans ended up winning nine Senate seats, we retired Harry Reid as majority leader, and we ended up winning the biggest majority in the House of Representative

since nineteen twenty eight. And if you look at exit polling in that twenty fourteen election, the number one issue in the country, according to the voters that were turning out in massive numbers, was Obamacare, and they were saying, finally, finally, you're fighting. Finally, Republicans are not rolling over. And so that had I think a very significant effect on election day and helped win back both the Senate and House for Republicans. I don't think Corey Bookers is going to

have that same effect. And in fact, listen, I don't know how many people watched it. I suspect like that CNN and MSNBC was probably gushing about it, but I'll confess I didn't turn on cn N or MSNBC, so I don't know one where the other. I don't particularly care. The seven Rabbid partisans who watched those networks probably were quite happy with it. But at the end of the day, look what was Cory Booker talking about, As best I can tell, it was I hate Donald Trump. I'm a Democrat,

Trump bad, Orange Van bad. I'm mad at the voters. Why did the voters elect Trump? Whye did the voters elector Republican Senate? Why did the voters elected Republican House? Gosh, I'm mad at the voters. Gosh, I hate Trump. I'm not sure there's anything new there. I'm not sure was there a person in America who was confused yesterday and didn't know that that that that saidate Democrats hate Donald Trump?

Like like, was there any new information in it? And and and so I've got to say I'm skeptical, uh that that it's going to have a meaningful impact. And I'll point out it's not just me who's who says said that. Take a listen to what Joe Biden's communications director, UH Kate Bettingfield uh said about Corey booker speech.

but I did share a story. So when I did the filibuster in twenty thirteen, I had gotten some advice from Rand Paul. So Rand Paul had done a thirteen hour filibuster and I was planning to do mine and Rand I asked him, Hey, Rand, you got any advice because he'd just done thirteen hours, and he said, yeah.

for for the marathon time. The second bit of advice ran game, I gotta ask you.

It didn't make me give in. My bladder did. And the most common question that that that I would get about the filibuster is okay, what do you do about going to the bathroom? And the real simple answer is you don't. So the rules of a filibuster, you have to stand, you cannot sit, and you have to stay on the Senate floor. If if you sit, or if you leave the Senate floor, you relinquish the floor, and and and so, and that's why comfortable shoes matter, because

you're not allowed. You're technically not even allowed to lean on the desk, although that that rule is not not heavily enforced. You you can lean a little bit.

that's all. I basically would take a little sip just to just to moisten my throat, and and I got to say, look, I've never gone twenty one hours with going to without go to the bathroom, and and uh, you know, I discovered a very simple principle which is nothing in, nothing out. And so it was fine. But that was excellent advice.

as long as you are able to hold it. When I started the filibuster, unfortunately Harry Reid, then the majority leader, the Democrats were in charge had locked in a unanimous consent resolution that the next day there was a vote scheduled I think at noon, and it was locked in, which meant I had an endpoint. I had an endpoint that was a wall because that unanimous consent had been locked in, and so it trumps it is it's effectively a Senate rule. And so when I was north of

twenty one hours, I had plenty of strength. I could have kept going, and I really wanted to break strom Thurman's record, and I actually sent one of my staffers to ask Harry Reid if he would consent. I could have asked unanimous consent to be allowed to complete my speech and if read it aloud and I would have been able to. So I asked my staffer, I'm like, look, do you really want the record for the longest filibuster to be to be held by a segregationist who was

filibustering against the civil rights laws? Like I'd really love to break it? And Harry Reid, being Harry Reid, he just said no, and so I was forced to end. When when I did, Corey Booker that there was not a unanimous consent in place, locking up the time and so Corey was able to go long enough as long as he wanted, and and then and he was able to break the.

Mexico and Canada unlessen until they help US secure the border. Now, using tariffs's leverage for something like that is very effective. The President uses it really well, and particularly using them to push securing the border. I am emphatically in favor of that. Is it has proven successful. It worked incredibly well in the first term. It produced to remain in Mexico agreement with Mexico. It produced the lowest rate of illegal immigration in forty five years, stopping the border invasion

of the last four years. As an acute national security and public safety imperative, it is a mandate from the last election. It is massively important for Texas. So I'm all for using the thread of tariffs's leverage to get good policy that benefits America. But there's a second component, and this is an important thing to understand, which is Donald Trump and much of his administration believes in tariffs

as an economic policy. We've all heard Donald Trump say tariff is the most beautiful word in the English language. And I do think the business community so look, look, we had the stock market plummeted, we saw massive losses in the stock market. We may well see more massive losses than the stock market. I think the business community was shocked by the magnitude of these communities, of these tariffs,

by the breadth of them. Look as we talked about in our earlier podcast on tariffs, what I've urged the President is two things. Number One, focus on China, because delinking our economy from China is emphatically an America's national security interests and economic security interests. And number two, focus

on reciprocity. And the reason I've said focus on reciprocity is the upside scenario I just talked about, which is, by focusing on reciprocity, if you incentivize other countries to lower their tariffs and we lower ours, that's a win win for America. But the thing to understand, I believe the business community has systematically underestimated how much President Trump and the Trump administration views tariffs as an ongoing, permanent

feature of our economic policy. I can tell you virtually every time I talk with the President, I talk with the President frequently, he goes on at length. Have you seen the billions of dollars, the hundreds of billions of dollars, the trillions of dollars we are raising and are going to raise from tariffs? Now, I think a lot of people said, oh, he's going to threaten these tariffs, but he's going to lift them very quickly. If he does that, great.

If he leaves them in place and we just have constant tariffs, that is a massive tax increase on the American people. And I think many people are underestimating that. The President believes and many members of his administration believe that tariffs are just a fabulous feature of the American economy. They harken back to William McKinley when he was president. Now, now look we used to have before the income tax, tariffs were the main source of revenue for the federal government,

and they want to go back to that scenario. And I got to say, we're going to find out because listen, President Trump believes in this. I think in the first term he wanted to impose policies like this, and I think many Republican senators talked him out of it, pressed him back and said, look, their real risk, don't do this. I think of the second term, Trump feels unchained, he feels unburdened. He's like, screw it, let's go, and he believes it.

we do now. But I worry there are voices within the administration that want to see these tariffs continue forever and ever and ever. They don't want a lower of them. They think they're great. And what is particularly I think has has startled some observers. It wasn't just directed at China, it wasn't just directed at bad actors. It was directed against everybody that Yeah, that is the breadth of it is enormous and it carries it carries upside, but it also carries real risk.

stock indexes dropped as much as six percent. On Thursday, stocks lost roughly three point one trillion dollars in market value, their largest one day decline since March twenty twenty. Stock index futures drifted lower Thursday evening in stocks in Japan were hit for a second day as Friday training began. In Thursday's market plunge, the Dow Industrials dropped sixteen one

hundred and seventy nine points, or four percent. The tech heavy NAGS deck, which powered the market higher for years, was down six percent, pulled lower by big declines at Nvidia, Apple, and Amazon dot Com. The S and P five hundred, which fell four point eight percent, and the other benchmark suffered their sharpest decline since the early days of the COVID nineteen pandemic. The dollar meanwhile tumbled, with a Wall Street Journal Dollar Index suffering at sharpest decline since twenty

twenty three. Now those are immediate hits, and understand, look, it's easy to say, okay, fine, you know, that's just rich people. Look at this point, a majority of Americans have money invested in four O one ks and iras, and so that's impacting everyone. And people don't necessarily follow their four a one K on a daily basis. Many people see their four A one K statement when it

comes out at the end of the quarter. A whole lot of people are looking at that and we'll see if that's a temporary one day hit, but if it continues to slide over the next few days, that's not waiting for six months to see the impact. That's freaking people out now. And so the consequences of this are real, and I want to be clear about something. Look, it used to be conventional wisdom in Republican politics that free trade is wonderful and we should just have no tariffs and lower teriffs.

is he's changed the debate on trade fundamentally. And so I believe in free trade, but I also believe in fair trade, and so when I talk about reciprocity, Donald Trump has made a very clear point, and it's a powerful point, which is many countries on Earth have been taking advantage of the United States and have been imposing really high tariffs and barriers to US goods while having free access to the American markets. And that is unfair. And so I love that President Trump is willing to

use leverage to lower tariffs. I think that's great and that really is a change in the debate. Ten years ago there was nobody in the Republican Party making that argument, and that is the direct result of President Trump's leadership. That's a good thing. Saying we should be treated fairly, that is a good thing. That is a very different proposition from saying it doesn't matter if other countries lower

their tariffs. We're going to impose tariffs on everybody because we think r should be the principal vehicle of funding the economy. If the outcome of this is a multi trillion dollar tax increase on American consumers, I think that that is really consequential and really really harmful.

this week. They say, if these stay in effect, the average tariff rate on all imports will rise from two point five percent in twenty twenty four to eighteen point eight percent, the highest average rate since nineteen thirty three, under the tariffs announced for twenty twenty five. The consequence of those tariffs, they will cause imports to fall by slightly more than nine hundred billion dollars in twenty twenty five,

or twenty eight percent. So that's what they're predicting, is that imports drop nine hundred billion dollars twenty eight percent this year. They also say the newly announced tariffs on April second will raise one point eight trillion dollars in revenue over the next decade and will shrink US GDP

by zero point five percent. The April second escalation, they note, comes in addition to the previously announced tariffs, which will raise another one point three trillion dollars in revenue over the next decade and shrink US GDP by zero point three percent. Altogether, Trump's tariffs will raise nearly three point two trillion dollars in revenue over the next decade and

reduce US GDP by zero point eight percent. They further project the tariffs will reduce after tax income by an average of two point one percent, an amount to an average tax increase of more than two one hundred dollars per US household in twenty twenty five. Now, to be clear, that's a prediction. If these tariffs stay in place, If they don't change, if the upside that I described happens, if foreign countries slash their tariffs and Trump in turn

slash these tariffs, none of those numbers hold. Instead, I think we see an enormous economic boom. But if that doesn't happen, if these tariffs stay in place as an ongoing economic policy, we're facing very real and I think very detrimental consequences.