Welcome in his verdict with Sentater Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you and Senator you are back in Washington, d C. It's twenty twenty five. Everything seems to be going in the right direction. That terrifies me at the same time, and it's getting so good that even Facebook says we're gonna let conservatives hang out on our platform without us, you know, like actually shutting them down every time they say something we don't like.
Welcome to Trump twenty twenty five, universe.
Well, it's been big news this week. And the week started with Congress coming back and certifying Donald Trump as the winner of the twenty twenty four election. Donald Trump will be the new president on January twentieth. I will say it was really it was remarkable. Poor Kamala Harris had to preside over that had to announce the results. I will say I was sitting on the floor of the House along with the rest of Congress in a joint session and Congress as they read each state's result.
Every Republican chaired for the states that that that that Trump won, every Democrat cheered for the states that Kamala won. Uh and then at the end when she said, and and the result in the winner is Donald Trump. All the Republicans cheered. I will say, even though you and I were strongly supporting President Trump, I did feel for Kamala's standing there as we're all cheering her getting her ass kicked that that that I'm sure was not easy to stand up and do it, and I'll give her credit.
She kept an absolute poker face the entire time as she was reading the results. I was sitting next to Eric Schmidt, UH, senator from Missouri. I turned as they were kind of like uh in in the d's of the States. I turned him and said, hey, I wonder how it's gonna end. Who's gonna win?
Uh? I will tell you.
By the way, I also was was joking with with uh uh several several senators. UH. JD Vance was was earlier this week on some pain killers and I asked him how I was doing easy. He said he was fine, and I.
Said, well, JD.
Look, we're gonna know if if you're high, if we go into the certification and you stand up and object your own election.
He laughed.
Thankfully he did not. He was not in fact high, and he did not object.
By the way, you got a little side bet going with him right now. Let's let's just let's let people know what's happening this week. His side BET's gotten a lot of Twitter attention, and and you challenge him to a bet because his buck guys are playing your your team in the National Championship playoff.
Well for the semi finals.
The Cotton Bowl is on Friday, and and UT is playing Ohio State. Ohio State is favored. I think they're up about five and a half six points on the line.
Uh.
But but I challenged him and said, look, let's let let's have a friendly wager on this. The loser has to provide food and beer from your home state. And here's the kicker. You got to show up and deliver it in the jersey of the winning team. And I'll tell you that's kind of my standard sports bet. I've made those bets a lot in various World Series games and other National Championships games.
I will say, I want.
To make sure everybody knows the menu, because the Texas menu is stellar, and I don't know if Ohio can you keep up with what you're bringing to the table. If in fact, there's some crazy reason that you lose this bet.
Yeah.
Look what I said is if I lose, I'll provide Texas barbecue and Bluebell ice cream and Shiner Bock beer. But I also said, doesn't matter because I ain't gonna lose. The Horns are gonna win Texas by five. So that's my prediction, Texas by five. And we'll see. I'll tell you, Particularly in the World Series. I've made these bets every time the Strows have been in the World Series, and I want them and lost of winning them is fun.
Twenty seventeen, when the Stros beat the Dodgers. Actually I made the bet with Kamala Harris, and Kamala showed up in my office. She had seized chocolate uh and and California red wine that she brought, but she was wearing Astros gear and she actually Facebook live streamed it as she went to deliver it.
Uh.
And then I had a wager with with Tim Kaine when the Stros played the Gnats.
Uh.
That really sucked when I showed up and had to pay off to to Tim and and I also had a wager with John oss Off when when the Stros played played the Braves in the World Series. That sucked and I paid off to him. But I had a wager with Pat Toomey when the Stros paid the Phillies, and I was quite happy to accept. Pat came by and brought some Philadelphia pretzels and and some I don't even remember some kind of Philly beer uh in Astro's gear. And so between the two, I got to say, winnings
better than losing. So hopefully it's JD showing up, uh saying ghost ros?
Yeah, and what is JD's What does he bring? Do they what beer to even have up there?
That's what I want.
I you know, Ohio, I beats the heck out of me, like like.
He's bringing you I know that, it's like what is it? What do you even bring?
You know, in Cincinnati they claim they make chili. I'm not sure about that, but but but I'm told that's that's something they talk about. So so I don't I don't know what he'll bring, but I look forward to finding out.
You'll be eating it.
It may you may wish you're getting the barbecue in that moment, and we'll see what happens there. So we've got this big news of Facebook, uh that is it has come out, But there's also a lot of chatter, and I know you wanted to keep previewing for people. We're going to cover two other things in this podcast today as well.
Yeah.
Look, number one, Facebook has announced a brand new set of policies and it says it is now going to stop censoring conservatives. That's a big, big deal. We're going to talk about it. We're going to talk about what specifically they announced, what it means, uh and and and what it what, what what to expect, how it's likely to impact the free speech and then the world of online conversation. We're also going to talk about Donald Trump's press conference in mar A Lago. It was quite the
tour to force. He covered a lot of things, but in particular, we're going to talk about Greenland and Panama and Canada.
All of that is coming up in this pod.
Yeah, it's gonna be a fun one.
I want to talk to you real quick about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews and the new year is a time of reflection on the past year and also hope for the year to come. Last year was an incredibly turbulent time for Israel and the Jewish people, with the devastating and ongoing multi front war and unprecedented rise in global anti Semitism and the loss of many Jewish lives.
On top of that, well, we've.
Also seen an uprising of love and support from you, the listeners, and through the partnership with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, we had an incredible impact for the people that are hurting in Israel in twenty twenty four. Your support of IFCJ has saved lives, it's answered prayers, and thanks to the generosity of so many of you, we have actually been able to put in bomb shelters that have been built and placed where they are needed the most.
We've been able to give life saving food and emergency supplies that have provided for evacuees and those in critical need, and we've also provided protective gear and medical equipment, including armored ambulances. Bulletproof ambulances have been used to evacuate and save the lives of many who have been hurt in Israel. This is exactly why I'm asking you to stay involved.
There's still more work to be done, and that's why I want you to join the movement of those who have raised their voices to support Israel.
And the Jewish people.
I want to ask you to continue to pray for the people in Israel, and also about supporting IFCJ. You can go to SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word, support IFCJ dot org. That support IFCJ. All right, center rarely to you and I Nazie eye to eye on issues, and I am going to be a pessimist on the Facebook part.
Here is my argument.
You say this is a big moment, I would agree, but I also think this is just crap and this is temporary and as soon as Democrats get back in charge, they're going to undo everything that Zuckerberg vows to restore free speech, which by the way, is also him admitting that they were censoring and silencing people with free speech. And I go back to this. Let me remind you
of what Zuckerberg allowed to happen. They allowed a sitting president of the United States of America to be taken off the platform while he was the President of the United States of America. They gave over information to the FEDS when they came knocking looking for different intel on conservatives. They also silenced and censored information about COVID nineteen, and they took orders from the government the Biden heirs administration on people to shut down, to silence and to make
sure that their post did and see the light of day. I, by the way, was one of them. So when I see this, I am not like, oh, this is an amazing day to me. It's like they read the tea leaves. Donald Trump's in charge. Republicans have power in the Senate, they have power in the House. They are the majority, and they realize they got to make a business decision. And so that's why all of a sudden he comes out. He's like, I'm in favor of free speech. That's my take.
Your reaction, well, look, I think every word you said is accurate. Facebook has been a very bad actor. They have engaged in rampant censorship of conservatives, and you're right.
They engaged in censorship when it came to COVID. They engage in censorship when it came to making the argument that COVID originated in China and the Wuhana Institute of Virology, which minds you, this podcast did right at the beginning of the pandemic, when when very few other people were laying out those facts, they actively and aggressively suppressed news on the Hunter Biden laptop in the twenty twenty election, they targeted and suppressed posts from conservatives. So their behavior
on free speech has been quite terrible. That being said, look, look there's several broader dynamics, and I want to talk about the context and why I've got some degree of hope here, and then I want to talk about the specifics of what they announced. But let's look at the context. Number one, you said they're kissing up to Trump. That's clearly true, and we're seeing all across corporate America, corporate America freaking out recognizing that Trump is coming back in
the White House. There's a Republican Senate, a Republican House, and we're seeing corporate America at least saying their changing paths. We're seeing companies announcing that they're abandoning their DEI policies. It's fairly dramatic. I think that is a real driver here that Facebook suddenly realized that that that that that there was a new sheriff in town, and that they were on the wrong side of things. I think that's
one piece. I think secondly, there is a dynamic in big tech that that that that is flowing from elon Musk's buying Twitter. That was you and I have talked about multiple times. I think the most important step for free speech in decades. And Twitter has now become the public square because Elon stopped censoring and began allowing people to speak. The pressure it is put on Facebook and other platforms is enormous. And I think this is also the consequence of competition from X via Elon Musk.
And and and Look.
One of the ways this manifested was last week Meta, Facebook's new name and parent company, Meta announced that they're old head of policy globally, guy named Nick Clegg was on his way out. And Nick Clegg, I've met him and visited with him. He's a nice enough guy. But he was a liberal British politician. He was a member of Parliament. He was a liberal and he was the one in charge of global policy. Well, last week Facebook announced Dick Clegg was gone and they were elevating two people.
They were elevating Joel Caplan and Kevin Martin. Now who are Joel Kaplan and Kevin Martin. Well, they're both Republicans. Joel Caplan was the deputy head of OMB under George W. Bush and he was the Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House under George W.
Bush.
Joel Caplan was also before that, a law clerk to Justice Scalia. Who's Kevin Martin. Kevin Martin was George W. Bush's chairman of the FCC, the Federal Communication Commission. Now, I'll tell you both Joel and Kevin have been friends of mine for twenty five years. And in fact, Joel and Kevin were both with me and with Heidi on the two thousand Bush campaign. We were on the campaign together. I know both of them really well.
Now.
When Meta was making this announcement that they actually reached out and they asked me, hey, would you be willing to say something positive about this announcement? And it's interesting, man, I actually had a debate internally with my staff, and a lot of my staff were skeptical. They said, you shouldn't that Facebook's been a bad actor. Don't say anything positive. And when I ended up telling my team, I said, look,
I hear you. I agree with everything you're saying. At the same time, Joel and Kevin and I go back a long way. So I decided I put out a tweet and I said, listen, I'm going to make it personal just given our own history. But I'm also going to make it aspiration. I'm going to say this is what I hope it means. I don't know that it does, but this, this is what I hope their promotion means.
So here's what I tweeted. Congratulations. Both Joel and Kevin have been friends of mine for twenty five years, and I am hopeful that their promotion signals a renewed commitment to free speech online. For the past decade, big tech has been far too eager to censor in silence. I hope that Meta will now join x in fighting to protect free speech for everyone. Now I sent that, and then I'll tell you yesterday, I started the day by having a call with both Joel and Kevin where they
previewed what Meta was going to do. It was before their public announcement, and they asked to set up a call and lay out their steps. And I'll tell you what I told them. I said, listen, I like what you're saying. I think it's positive. I am glad that you are making efforts to move in the direction of free speech. I said, given Facebook's history, you will forgive me if I'm skeptical and In fact, I told both of them, you will not be surprised. My attitude is
going to be borrowed from Ronald Reagan. Trust, but verify. I like what you're saying. The steps you're laying out are positive, but the proof is going to be the pudding. The proof is going to be do you allow real free speech or are you suppressing and silencing conservatives? If they follow the lead of X and genuinely defend free speech, that is a massive, massive victory and something we've been fighting a long time. So I'm going to welcome them
that they're at least saying the right thing. At the same time, we are going to watch very closely to see if their actions match up with what they're saying they intend to do.
All right, So let me play Devil's advocate for everybody that is angry like I am. I spoke out against Facebook for censoring and silencing conservatives.
As f I many times, and I.
Got on a point after making that speech at spack down and Florida during COVID, I landed to my entire account being shut down. They went back five years to find things to ding me on so they could then shut it down, and it completely changed everything that I was doing in the radio space. So many other concertis had that. So the worry now is, well, they saw the writing on the wall. So they're hoping that Donald Trump and Republicans will move on from holding them.
Accountable for their actions.
And we're getting played by a company that has no intent to really do this as soon as Democrats get back power, So they're hoping for a free pass with this new Congress when there could be real regulations on Facebook, Meta, Instagram, etc.
Your response to that.
Yeah, Look, their behavior, as I said, has been despicable. And I'll tell you I've spent a fair amount of time with Mark Zuckerberg, and look, Zuckerberg is very clever at positioning Facebook so that there are other juicier targets around him. So so previously you have number one Google, which is massive and is the most dangerous and horrific. Uh, I think country company on the planet and the most dangerous company in the.
World for free speech. Uh.
You had Twitter when Jack Dorsey was CEO. That was just malevolent. That that that they I mean Dorsey looked like a troll under a bridge with a beard down to his knees. That that would almost cackle at censoring the views of conservatives, and and Zuckerberg was very good at saying, look, we're not as big and bad as as Google, and we're not as malevolent as as Twitter.
And by the way, TikTok, they're Chinese. And you know that combination was pretty good, but that that Facebook managed to be to point at others.
Are they trying to do some of that here?
Sure?
But you know what, I will accept a change in behavior if, if, if their behavior actually changes. So do not misunderstand me, Ben, I'm not saying I'm just going to take their empty words at face value. I'm going
to expect real action. And one of the things I made clear to them as of today, actually, I am now the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and the Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over forty percent of the US economy, including big tech, including the Internet, and it is going to be a major priority of the Commerce Committee to defend free speech online. And I told them, well, you could expect hearings on this. You're going to have the
opportunity to explain what you're doing. You're going to have the opportunity to demonstrate transparency. In the past Facebook has been terrible in responding to requests from me for information, and so I fully expect to keep pressing them for greater transparency. But all of that being said, listen, anouncement is significant, and listen, there were six different elements that they said that they were doing that they announced. Number one, Facebook is eliminating fact checks.
That's huge, by the way, because that's how they shut down conservatives. Just so people understand how it works, You get strikes against you, they say that something you post is partially false, and then they give you the quote opportunity to appeal the decision. I've never want to appeal my entire time on Facebook. So then they say you
are punished and you are reduced in your reach. So you can have five million followers and maybe five hundred will see your post once they put you in jail, which is how they limit you before elections.
You're right, and they were relying on quote fact checking organizations that were wildly biased left wing organizations. PolitiFact is a hardcore left wing, dishonest editorial operation. I've talked to I think in multiple books I've written just how dishonest
PolitiFact is. And so they're eliminating it. They're no longer going to do fact checks, and they're going to replace it with community notes, which they said they're explicitly borrowing from X, so that if there are significant counterfacts, rather than suppress something, they'll place a community note. I think community notes on X are actually quite helpful and it's a good good way to provide balance. It is actually
reminiscent of the approach you know. John Stuart Mill said the best cure for bad speech is more speech, and so look, if people say things that are factually inaccurate, I think community note is a good way to provide counterfacts to it. But eliminating the fact checks that that is a meaningful step. Secondly, they said they're changing their content policies specifically on gender and immigration and so previously if you posted there are only two genders, man and women,
this book would suppress that. They told me they will not suppress that anymore, that they will allow statements like that to be made to be discussed. Now people can disagree with it, they can say no, no, no, they're forty seven genders. If they want to do that, they can have debate. But they said they're going to stop censoring statements like that. The third thing they said is they're going to focus content filters on finding illegal content, not
low level policy violations. And a significant component of that is they said, right now they rely on AI and algorithms to find and suppress posts, and they said, there's a significant error rate that the algorithms, the AI gets it wrong and suppresses posts accidentally. And they said they're going to stop using AI, and they're going to rely on people focusing on things like child porn, like selling drugs, like promoting terrorism, on clearly illegal conduct, rather than an
algorithm that also certainly seems positive on its face. Beyond that, they're going to return political content into their algorithm. So several years ago, Facebook made a decision to de emphasize politics, and they just phased it out of their algorithm because they wanted people to post on Facebook, you know, happy, go like Lucky, I like m and M's Bluesmrcer Great, rather than actually talking about the issues that of public
policy and democracy of the day. They're going to return it back and they said, the algorithm is if you engage on Facebook, ben if you click on political content, their algorithm is going to show you more political content. So for people that demonstrate an interest by engaging with political content, they'll get more of it.
That's a significant shift.
Facebook used to be much much more important for politics than it's been recently because they've de emphasized political content. They're also moving their content review teams from California to Texas, and they said they're not going to have people in Silicon Valley engaged in content review because Silicon Valley has such a significant political bias. Each of those steps, look, they ain't nothing now. Yeah, if they don't follow through on it, you and I are going to be the
very first to call them to task. If they abandon them in the future, you and I will call them to task as well.
But but those are real.
Meaningful steps, and and and so, so I want to I want to take the chance to just celebrate that they're they're at least promising to do things that are good. I go back to Reagan, Trust but verify and I and trust may be strong, listen, but verify maybe maybe more.
My approach to this final question on this is does there still need to be legislation while the Republicans are control, yes and empower when it comes to regulating big tech In general because of their abuse a pairing the past. I understand trust, yes, yes, yes, but what would that look like now? And does any of that change with them voluntarily doing this, I would argue preemptively.
Well, I fully expect again the Commerce Committee to take up and have hearings on exactly what legislation would look like I've talked about. I think one of the most important things is Section two thirty, the Communications Decency Act, gives an immunity from liability to big tech companies that
has shielded a lot of bad behavior. And at the time it was passed, it was passed under an assumption that that big tech companies would be neutral, they would be the town square, they would not be putting a finger on the scale. Big tech made a decision to behave very, very differently, and so I've long supported legislation that would say you do not get Section two thirty immunity if you engage in political censorship. That censorship vitiates
your immunity. I still think that's important. I can't promise we'll get that passed because many, if not most, if not all, Democrats will oppose it. Uh, but you can be sure we are going to have hearings, and we're going to examine and I'm going to push for legislation to address that. Uh. And I think that's important to do.
But I also think Facebook joining with X, particularly if they're real, if they're genuine, if they follow through on this, that's going to put real pressure on on on the granddaddy of them all, Google, and they own YouTube and and and both Google and Search and and and YouTube
engage in rampant censorship and suppression of conservative speech. And and It's one thing to have X alone, but having now Facebook join that, and also Facebook owns Instagram, and so having Instagram, if they follow through, listen, X has done a remarkable job opening it up to free space each Now, Elon is is I think a true believer in free speech. Zuckerberg clearly is not, because he has been far too willing to censor for him to be
a true believer. That being said, what he's articulating right now is that he wants to change his conduct, and I want to encourage him to do that because Facebook changing their conduct and Instagram changing their conduct is very very good for free speech and very very good for democracy in America. If if they follow through and actually do what they're claiming they're going to do.
Bonus question here because it's in the same realm TikTok. You look at TikTok right now. TikTok is banned in China but owned by them. Can't use it there if you're the living there. There is these moves to force the sell of TikTok in the US so that.
It won't be run by China.
We know how these algorithms have worked, and they've been harmful to kids.
You've talked about that.
Do you I think we are going to see a day now where it's there's a chance that free speech is live and well on Facebook obviously the leaders X, but TikTok will also go in the hands of Americans and not in the hands of Chinese anymore.
So I hope.
So Congress has passed legislation I voted for it that would ban TikTok unless they are sold by China, unless they are no longer under Chinese ownership or control. That legislation is effective on January nineteenth, so we are very close to that legislation going into effect. Now there's litigation ongoing, so it's possible the courts could stay the effect of that legislation. But if the Court Stone issue an injunction,
TikTok shuts down. On January nineteenth, and I'll tell you as you know, I spent New Year's Eve at mar Lago Heidi and the girls that I went by the way. It was an amazing time, just a wild party. At my table, one of the people I was sitting with was don Ki King, the legendary boxing promoter ninety three years old now, and you know, Don King loves Trump,
and it was very cool. He actually gave me he had a photograph of himself as a young man with that white hair sticking straight up, along with Muhammad Ali when he was a young man, the two of them together, and Don King gave me a signed photo of that, which is really cool. I'm gonna frame and put up just because holy crap, that's Don King.
Yeah, that's incredible.
So that was cool.
But I'll tell you Catherine, our fourteen year old she had told me her intention at the party was to lobby Donald Trump not to ban TikTok. And look, she's in eighth grade. And if you're a fourteen year old girl in eighth grade, every eighth grader is addicted to TikTok, and they're all doing these dance videos back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. I will
tell you Catherine is one hell of a lobbyist. She visited a little bit with Trump, but she didn't really get the chance to lobby its.
She just hello, and she said she said.
Hello to Milania and Elon too, but she didn't get the chance to do the lobbying she wanted to do. There is a very real possibility, however, that TikTok is banned on January twentieth, and Trump undoes the ban on a TikTok's ban on January nineteenth, and Trump undoes it on January twentieth.
It is not clear.
He has not been explicit about what he's going to do, and I don't know what he's going to do on that. I hope the purpose of the ban is not to ban TikTok. It is to force China to sell TikTok. I hope that's the outcome, but I genuinely don't know what happens here.
It's going to be interesting. We'll keep covering it.
I want to move to the other big news, and that is I never thought I'd be saying these three things together. Greenland, Canada, and the Panama Canal all have something in common.
Right now, they are.
The focal point of a grand debate and conversation about moving forward on big issues with Donald Trump. Trump has talked about, hey, Canada, we can lower your taxes. We'll give you safety and protection from Russia. You guys aren't doing that great right now. Maybe you should become part of America. He also has made these conversations about Greenland. Maybe we should, you know, have Greenland come into America
and we could work a deal. And then Donald Trump also called out Panama as he described it, for selling out to China and then still asking the US for money for repairs Centater. I love these conversations. I think this is exactly what a president should do. Start grand debates on issues that have been, you know, off, Oh, you can't touch these issues for years.
They've been saying that like, oh, you can't do that, you.
Can't talk about this, you can't call out other countries for taking advantage of us. And when you find out that Panama's charging more for our boats to come through than other countries, that obviously seems incredibly unfair.
I love this.
Well, listen, I agree.
I think these are incredibly important topics and I don't think they're all the same. So in my view, Canada, Panama, and Greenland all exist on a continuum, and I think his comments about the three are are very very different and should be under understood differently. Let's start with Canada.
Canada.
I think he's just trolling Canada. I think is Canada going to become a state?
No?
I do not believe that is going to happen. But he said this initially when he was having dinner with Justin Trudeau down at mar A Lago, and he basically he said, you know what, why didn't Canada become a state? You could become a governor. And I think he was just trolling the guy. I would have paid money to be sitting at that table. When Trump said that, the expression on Trudeau's face, I mean he basically looks at him and goes, why are you even a country?
Like like, why are you possibly here?
You know, it reminded me, you know, way back in the twenty sixteen presidential debates where we were all standing on stage and he looks over at Ran Paul and He's like, why the hell are you even on this stage. You don't belong on this stage, and it was Look, it's classic Trump. It was just trolling. And to be clear, this may be the most consequential troll in history. His comment and public ridicule of Trudeau and saying that Canada
should become a state. It literally toppled justin Trudeau. He announced this week he is resigning as Prime minister, and it is entirely Trump. Look, he was already in a weak position, and he was already unpopular, but Trump just utterly humiliating him, literally knocked him out of his role as the head of the government of Canada. That is an epic troll.
It also, by the way, inspired I think the people in Canada to say, we can do better than this guy. We don't have to be stuck with him, and we can get servatives back in charge and hold the left accountable for what they did did.
A lot of this started with the truckers.
Movement, yes, and the overreach there, and then him basically saying if you don't do what I tell you to do, I'm gonna come arrest you and vote emergency powers. That is all coming back to haunt the liberals, not just Trudeau, but the liberals that are in the government.
Well and listen, Trudeau has been rampantly oppressive. The Trucker convoy was an amazing and powerful moment, and Trudeau responded just with brute force. Trudeau has been an absolute totalitarian when it comes to free speech, going after Jordan Peterson and others, being willing to just use government power to silence anyone he disagrees with. And I think this is those chickens coming home to roost. But in terms of the comments, I think the Canada comments are a troll.
I think the Greenland comments are something very different. I think the United States acquiring Greenland is a very very good idea. To be clear, Trump talked about this his first term in office, and at the time a lot of people, particularly in the media, dismissed it. They said, oh, it's Trump talking, It's just some crazy idea. But I'll tell you, acquiring Greenland has enormous advantages to the United States. Number One, Greenland's location on the Arctic is incredibly important
from a national security and defense perspective. If you look at the Arctic, if god forbid, we ever get in a shooting war with Russia or China. ICBMs from Russia or China will come over the Arctic and right over where Greenland is. Greenland is situated in an incredibly important location to defend the United States of America. We also see the Arctic, particularly with some snow melt, we're seeing possible trade routes that are opening up of the Arctic, and
again Greenland is ideally located for that. In addition, Greenland has very significant reserves of critical minerals, critical minerals that are vitally important for semiconductors, for for high tech, for electronics, for defense equipments, and and and so the United States acquiring Greenland, making Greenland an American territory would have very important benefits for America from both the national security perspective. Control of the Arctic is going to be incredibly important,
and Greenland has a really pivotal location. Uh and and I think there is also a real potential that that that that is beneficial to the people of Greenland uh to be in an American territory. UH that brings a lot of benefits. They are right now governed by Denmark. Uh and and many Greenlanders are not happy with Denmark and and so, uh, you know, it is.
A significant.
Is there a real opportunity for this to actually become a reality.
And by the way, you look at the history of America. You look at the Louisiana purchase where America bought almost half the country from France. It was a purchase. You look at Manhattan where the settlers purchased Manhattan. You look at Alaska. Alaska was what we bought Alaska, and it was dismissed at the time as Seward's folly. It proved enormously consequential buying Alaska. So I would put it in that broader history. And I think, now, will it definitely happen?
Of course not. We don't know that.
You know, is Denmark? Will there be some resistance? There absolutely will the Greenlanders ultimately want to do this.
I don't know.
Is this one of those things that would come down to a vote and they would vote on it?
How does this actually work? I mean, is there a purchase price?
Is?
I mean, explain to people the reality if this moves forward, what it looks.
So in all likelihood there would be a purchase price paid to Denmark, because Denmark has controlled Denmark governs Greenland right now, and and so it would be a purchase price like the Louisiana purchase, like buying Alaska. And there's a long history of countries buying territories one from the other, and and so that you'd have to go and negotiate it.
We saw this week, uh, Donald Trump Junior flew to Greenland and and went there and and and reported back, reported back that that he had a tremendous reception, that people were cheering him on, that they were wearing Maga hats. You know, I've heard multiple reports that the locals can't stand Denmark, that that they're treated as second class citizens by the Danes, and and and that you know, if if you're a young Greenlander the opportunity to become an American,
that's a big deal in terms of your future. If Greenland becomes an American territory, the investment from the United States that goes into Greenland is suddenly very significant. And so that could well be appealing. Now now, I would think there would be a real likelihood that you'd probably have a referendum of Greenlanders if they want to do it. It's not clear that you would, but I think there's a reasonable chance of that, and so you'd have both
Denmark and Greenland to contend with. But I will say from America's perspective, there would be enormous advantages to Greenland becoming an American territory. And I will say just this week, interestingly enough, John Fetterman, Democrat senator from Pennsylvania, he was on Fox News and and he was he brought up Greenland. It's very interesting. I want you want you to listen to what John Fetterman had to say on this topic.
Like, there's a lot of talk about Greenland, for example, now, and I know a lot of there's a lot of freak outs, you know, and of course I would never support taking it by force, but I do think it's I do think it's a responsible conversation if they were open to acquiring it, and you know, whether they're just buying it out right, I mean, if anyone think that's bonkers, it's like, well, well remember the Louisiana purchase. I think Alaska was pretty pretty a great deal too, fifty million dollars,
I think it was. It was recorded, it was it was referred to as as Seward's folly. And now that was Alaska. Now, so I mean, you know, open having all kinds of conversations as well. And now I don't think we it's not helpful to freak out. But some things might work out, some may not. But that's part
of ongoing dialogue. But he hasn't even take office in two weeks, and you know, we really need to pace ourselves if we're going to freak out over every least tweet or every less conversation or press conference.
But I love this demeanor there. It's like, well, should be having this conversation. There's nothing wrong with it. Now the conversation, A lot of people listening are going to say, a Center, what are we thirty five trillion in debt? How can we afford to buy Greenland? So how does the economics of that work?
Well, look, I don't know what a purchase price would be. We'd have to see, but I do think the mineral reserves there are significant, and the national security and geopolitical advantages are significant, and so we invest in policies that make a difference, that make America safer and make America more prosperous. And it is certainly possible, and in fact even likely, that Greenland would do that now. Again, I don't know what the price would be. It's something that
would have to be pursued. But it's interesting since Trump started talking about this, you've seen Greenlanders talking about wanting independence, wanting to be their own country. And from Denmark's perspective, they may be sitting there going, well, wait a second, America could buy Greenland from US and we could get a crap ton of money, or Greenland could just declare their independence and they leave US and we get nothing.
And so the incentives for Denmark may have changed because Trump is bringing this up and bringing it up in a context that it's driving real conversation. But I think we should lean in and pursue this, pursue this with Denmark and Greenland, because I think there are major advantages to the United States if we were to succeed in this. And I think this is a this is a serious possibility.
It's a serious possibility, all right. So with that serious possibility, let's move to the third. You know, Panama, big story, Panama, the Panama Canal. Donald Trump making it very clear we're being taken advantage of.
Well, that's right, and look you look at Panama and the Panama Canal. Jimmy Carter Number one, America built the Panama Canal. We lost many American lives building it. We invested major money building the Panama Canal, Teddy Roosevelt is one of the most significant things he did as president. Jimmy Carter gave it away, gave it to Panama, and it was egregious of you know, this week is Jimmy Carter's funeral, and when we did did our remembrance of
Jimmy Carter. I tried to find positive things to say about him, not to speak ill of someone who had just passed, but I will say, Jimmy Carter is giving away the Panama Canal was one of the most egregious foreign policy mistakes in the history of our country.
It was horrific.
It undermined the safety and security and economic vitality of America.
It made no sense. Now, can it be undone? I don't know.
I think the likelihood of us getting the Panama Canal back is significantly lower than the likelihood of US acquiring Greenland. It's not nearly as low as the likelihood of Canada joining America. As I said, I don't think that is at all possible. I think that was purely a troll. I think Greenland is quite possible, and I put Panama
somewhere in the middle. And Trump's argument is important this which is which is that when when when Jimmy Carter gave it away, Panama entered into an agreement with the United States, a legal agreement, and and and I could tell you I and my team right now are examining the contours of that agreement to see exactly what Panama
committed to. But Trump's argument is that Panama has has broken the terms of that agreement, that they are not living up to, they are violating that agreement, and in particular that they have have have essentially sold significant parts of the Panama Canal to China. That Chinese companies now control both ends of the Panama Canal, and they've seeded
control to China. That's incredibly harmful. And Trump is also arguing that that that that Panama charges American ships egregious prices, and and and look, we we we need to dig in more to the facts behind that. But that is a legal argument. I'll tell you what I think Trump is really doing is negotiating on price. And I think the outcome of this is going to be that America gets much more favorable prices, and it may also be a significant diminution of China's involvement in the Panama Canal.
Both of those are very likely. But I want you to listen to what Trump had to say about Panama and mar Lago earlier day.
The deal was that, you know, they have to treat us fairly. They don't treat us fairly. They charge more for our ships and they charge for ships of other countries. They charge more for our navy than they charge for navies of other countries. They laugh at us because they think we're stupid, but we're not stupid anymore. So the Panama Canal is under discussion with them right now. They violated every aspect of the agreement, and.
It's they morally violated it also, and they want our help because it's leaking and not in good repair, and they want us to give three billion dollars to help fix it.
I said, well, why don't you get the money from China, because China's basically taking it over. China's at both ends of the Panama Canal. China's running the Panama Canal.
China's running the Panama Canal.
And and he says, they laugh at us because they think we're stupid. We're not stupid anymore when you hear the basics. They're charging us more in our navy more than others. Now they want us to give them a bunch of money to fix the thing. He's got points that aren't political, they're just.
No, those are serious and and and I think we we're going to see a significant change, I believe in the conduct of Panama concerning the Panama Canal. Will it result in the canal coming back to America. I don't know, uh that that that is a difficult hurdle to clear, but I am very glad President Trump is leading in on this issue. It's incredibly important. And China's growing influence over the Panama Canal is just stupid.
It is unacceptable. And and and and.
That's that's leadership that frankly, can you imagine in a billion years Joe Biden or Kamala Harris making the East Points you can at all? Because they don't defend America. They're they're celebrating, uh and I'm sure they cheered on when it happened. Jimmy Carter is giving it away to begin with and and and and it's it's the opposite of America first. Where where where Biden and Harris are? It's America last. And I'm very glad we're going to have a president that again puts our country first.
Don't forget.
We do this show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Hit that subscribe and auto DOWO button. We also do that week in review things you may have missed the week on Saturdays for recap for you and on those in between days grab my podcast as well, the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and I'll keep you up today on the latest breaking news. It's going to be a fun twenty twenty five and we hope that you're with us the entire year.