4/15/25: Trump Floats US Citizens To El Salvador, Trump Approval Craters, China Cuts Off Boeing

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, guys, Saga and Crystal here.

Speaker 2 (00:01):
Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election,
and we are so excited about what that means for
the future of the show.

Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is the only place where you can find honest
perspectives from the left and the right that simply does
not exist anywhere else.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
So if that is something that's important to you, please
go to Breakingpoints dot com. Become a member today and
you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad free,
and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
We need your help to build the future of independent
news media and we hope to see you at Breakingpoints
dot com. Good morning, everybody, Happy Tuesday. We have an
amazing show for everybody today, extra amazing because Crystal is back.

Speaker 2 (00:39):
Thanks, thank yousing me back here in the chair. We
have a lot of stuff on the show, but actually
before we even get to the show bar and all
the stuff that's going on there, we have some pretty
significant show announcements.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
About things that we are up to.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
So first of all, you guys know we've been doing
this like ad hoc Friday.

Speaker 3 (00:58):
We've been calling it a mini show. Whoever can show up.

Speaker 2 (01:01):
We were able to get all four of us together
last Friday, which were super cool. Saga was able to join.
It's been Me and Ryan, Me and Ryan and Emily
whoever can sort of join. So we have decided, thanks
to you guys as support out there making this happen,
that we are going to officially make a Friday show
a thing. That's right, So going forward, expanding out to
the full five weekdays for Breaking Points to Slash Counterpoints,

(01:25):
and we're also going to do an extra bonus second
half that is going to be gated and exclusive for
premium subscribers. So big deal for us in our expansion here.
And I guess it's kind of the opposite of a
recession in that's right, you know, taking a bit of
a risk at this point.

Speaker 1 (01:40):
As much as we have said about being conservative, we
just see the appetite and we know how much it
means to our premium subscribers and to all of our
audience to officially be five days week. So if you
guys can help us out Breakingpoints dot Com, we are
genuinely taking a financial risk in this, you know, obviously
making Ryan and Emily a bigger part of the entire
not even bigger part of the show. They are, you know,
all four of us together are now really coming together

(02:02):
as a team as an Avengers to make sure that
there's five days a week of coverage. You guys saw
the bro Show yesterday, the mix in the match and
all of that is enabled because of you to be
able to provide that we are going to be going
live on a lot more occasions, and so we do
have the AMA live there in our show bar. That
is something that we do after today's show that we
will wrap. I will have, by the way, a surprise announcement,

(02:25):
just a personal announcement that will drop exclusively in our
AMA and for our premium subscribers early. But more importantly,
this is just about being able to find five days
a week, more opportunities for lives. We're building more opportunities
to get the breaking points, community actually engaged, utilizing our platform,
be able to deliver the show in any possible way

(02:47):
that we can, and so broadly, this is just about
taking a risk at this time when we know that
as financial precarity for all of you and also frankly
for us, but we do still feel that it's really
really important to try and to take this risk right now,
and so that's just something if you could help us
out Breakingpoints dot com as I mentioned. But just finally,
and this is very important because as I just acknowledge

(03:08):
that there's a lot of uncertainty right now for our
free audience. For the people who watch the show free
or who listen right now on Spotify, you are just
as valuable to us. The way that you can help
us if you cannot afford it is to like the show,
to subscribe, to hit the subscribe button on YouTube, subscribe
or follow on Spotify and or Apple. And more importantly,
if you're a podcast listener, take an episode that you

(03:31):
really like and share it with a friend and or
a family. That is the single best and most important
way as a free person that you could be able
to help us out as a show. It's word of mouth. No,
not one dollar of advertising has ever been spent on
this show, which is remarkable, honestly, and you look back
at our future coming up on four years here. To
be able to grow to almost one point four million subscribers,

(03:52):
it's incredible, to hundreds of thousands of downloads and things
that we see on the podcast platform. It is because
of all the people who do also engage for a
free basis, And if that's all you can do for us,
it's totally fine. Please just make sure that you can
help us out by sharing the show.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
Yep, So thank you guys so much for your support.
Onward and upward. Excited about what is to come for
the year for breaking points, and I really enjoy that Friday.

Speaker 3 (04:16):
Shows like the Friday Show.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
I like it too, It's fun.

Speaker 2 (04:18):
It would be with the pace of news, the Monday
show would be just unmanageable.

Speaker 1 (04:23):
Yeah, it would just pretty late, and it would be edited.
And yeah, I mean originally.

Speaker 3 (04:27):
It's a Monday.

Speaker 2 (04:27):
All the stuff that happened on Friday, it's like old
news because thirty five other major things.

Speaker 1 (04:31):
Have happened, So it is inconceivable. And mean when we launched,
you know, just penciling budget and all of that, we
were looking at three days and we're like, oh, maybe
we can make this work. And so to be in
a position where we have you know, not just us,
it's not even just about the four people you guys
see in front of the camera. There's a whole team
of people in the room back over there making sure
this stuff gets cranked out on you know, it's edited.
We have entire novel processes that we've actually developed. You know,

(04:54):
I've spoken with many creators and they are blown away
by our timeline and the team that we have assembled
that is able to export a show, deliver it across
multiple different platforms, and do all of these things. I
mean they're working on a weekly editing basis. Our guys
can turn it around in sometimes twenty two minutes. Yeah,
very often they're editing things on the fly. It's incredible.

(05:15):
And again it's literally all because of the people who
sign up. So thank you they really is a thank
you to enable us to be able.

Speaker 3 (05:20):
Yeah, when the show goes down late, it's not their fault.
It is our fault.

Speaker 1 (05:22):
No, it is right much usually the problem, I promise you. Yeah,
for the thousands of dollars where we have spent on
equipment and all these other things, state of the art
stuff that is running back there, and anything late is
because of our because of us. It is absolutely not
because of them.

Speaker 2 (05:36):
All right, So let me run quickly through the show
bar here. We had Bkelly at the White House yesterday,
Trump announcing that he wants to send US citizens now
to Bekelly's torture Dungeons. So we'll talk about that. Trump
approval rating is down. We've got the latest numbers. He
has announced he maybe backing off some of the auto terrifts.
At the same time, we're getting new retaligation from China.

(05:57):
They've halted all Boeing orders. Dave Smith is going to
join us. Don't know if you guys checked out any
of his debate with Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan's podcast.
Going to get his reaction to that and some other
things as well, especially some of the crackdown on any
dissent visa. The israel I am taking a look at
Trump's tariff war as class war.

Speaker 3 (06:15):
Sager, what should I say about your model?

Speaker 1 (06:17):
I just say it's a surprise. It's a surprise for
everybody who's there just book recommendations. That's on joke, caamjo.
There's something there that I'll you can find out if
you become a premium subscriber.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
You will find out eventually whether you're a premium subscriber
or not. But previous subscribers in that AMA Live will
give you the sneak peek. Okay, let's go ahead and
get to the Oval Office. Yesterday, President of al Salvador
Naiba Kelly was in town. Obviously, this was very significant
for a number of reasons. This administration has sent somewhere
around at this point, about two hundred and fifty migrants

(06:48):
into that prison. We now know that approximately ninety percent
of them, in spite of being told that they were
gang members, and the worst of the worst, ninety percent
have no criminal record. We have learned some of the
details of those individuals, and one of those individuals, in particular,
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the administration admitted that they sent him
there in air. The Supreme Court then came in and said,

(07:10):
you got to try to get this guy back. You
have to facilitate his release. They are just completely stonewalling.
They're pretending like the Supreme Court actually sided with them
and said they don't have to do anything. So a
lot of questions about what the response from Bkelly would be,
how Trump would interact with him, et cetera. But before
any of that occurred, the two of them, Trump and

(07:30):
Bkelly were actually caught on a hot mic with Trump,
and you have to listen carefully, but Trump telling Bukelly
that next he wants to send to his prisons the
quote unquote homegrowns and that bikelly may.

Speaker 3 (07:43):
Need to build five more of those.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
Facilities to house the US citizens that Trump now wants
to send to that notorious Seacott facility. Let's take a
listen to how that went down.

Speaker 3 (07:58):
Yeah, they stood growing next the home runs.

Speaker 4 (08:03):
You get a book about five more places.

Speaker 3 (08:04):
Yeah that's great, all right, it's not big enough. Yeah,
come on, And it wasn't only in this hot mic moment.
Apparently the El Salvador press was there, but the whole
pool wasn't it.

Speaker 2 (08:19):
I don't know where that stream came from, but they
were streaming that live and obviously we are.

Speaker 1 (08:23):
It was the El Salvadoran government. It wasn't even in
Salvador in media. Now, why exactly? Elso, if we're in
government is allowed to live stream straight from the Oval Office,
that's beyond me. That's probably the tertiary amount of concerns
as well as mister outfit that was happening. You're you're
absolutely right. There were a number of comments made there
by President Trump in the Oval Office very defiant on
the Upbrego Garcia case, as well as proposing on multiple

(08:46):
occasions sending US citizens to this prison let's take a listen.

Speaker 2 (08:50):
And sup you said that if the Supreme Court said
someone needed to be returned, that you would abide by that.
You said that on Air Force one just a few
days ago, and they said that it must be facilitating.
And you just say, isn't it wonderful that we're keeping
criminals out of our country?

Speaker 1 (09:04):
Why can't you just say that? Why do you go
over and over and that's why nobody watches you anymore?
You know you have no credibility.

Speaker 4 (09:11):
Please go ahead, promise you if he was your neighbor,
you wouldn't move right away, So you don't plan the
Supreme Court.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
In the Supreme Court, siave, was it nine to nothing?

Speaker 4 (09:21):
Yes, there's a ninety zero in our favor. In our
favor against the district court ruling saying that no district
court has the power to compel the foreign policy function
of the United States. As Pam said, the ruling solely
stated that if this individual at El salvad Or sole
discretion was set back to our country, that we could
deport him a second time.

Speaker 5 (09:42):
How can I model the terrorists into the United States.

Speaker 3 (09:45):
I don't have the power to return him to the
United States.

Speaker 5 (09:48):
So you can release the inside. Yeah, but I'm not
releasing I mean, we're not very fond of releasing terrorists
into our country.

Speaker 3 (09:54):
We just turned the murder capital of the world to
the safest country of the Western Hemisphere.

Speaker 1 (09:57):
And you want us to go back into the releasing
criminals so we can go back to being the murdered
capital of the world.

Speaker 3 (10:03):
Now that's that's not going to be.

Speaker 4 (10:05):
Well, they'd love to have a criminal you know.

Speaker 3 (10:08):
I mean, I mean, there's a fascination.

Speaker 4 (10:09):
They would love it.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
Yeah, they're great facilities, very strong facilities, and.

Speaker 6 (10:16):
They don't play games.

Speaker 1 (10:18):
I'd like to go step further.

Speaker 4 (10:19):
I mean, I say, I said it to Pam.

Speaker 2 (10:21):
I don't know what the laws are. We always have
to obey the laws, but we also have homegrown criminals
that push people into subways.

Speaker 3 (10:28):
I'd like to include them in the group of people
to get them out of the country.

Speaker 1 (10:32):
So you can see they're not only doubling down. But
the most significant comment made from bu Kelly was saying, quote,
I don't what did he say. I don't have the
power to bring back a Breago Garcia. This is where
it is obviously preposterous. Bu Kelly is getting paid six
million dollars from the United States government. Furthermore, he has literal,
unilatal authority over who goes in and out of Seacotts,

(10:53):
so he actually could release him if he could. And
this is one where the government and Stephen Miller is
saying there, oh, it was. I mean, he is correct
in that it's nine to oh by saying it is
nine oh in not ordering it in the same way
the district judge said, you have to go get him back,
but it was very clear about the facilitation of return

(11:14):
and what was it turned it over to the district court,
where there continues to be adjudication over specifically the lengths
and the process through which the United States must return
our Brego Garcia. It is clear cut, it is beyond obvious.
You know, the state, the state admitted in its court
filing a Brago Garcia should not have been sent to

(11:36):
El Salvador, period, end of story. We can talk all
day long about the hold on the deportation order, et cetera,
but it is clear as day he had to hold
for deportation. He was sent there by their own admission.
It was a quote unquote mistake. The Stephen Miller has
now claimed that it was an actual mistake to admit

(11:58):
that it was a mistake, and that is not true.
That fired solicitor general who said that in court filing.
Apparently I was actually reading from a legal expert that
he has a decent enough case for defamation actually against
the government because they're claiming that he basically lied in
a court filing.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
Johnathan Turley, who is a Republican Trump sympathetic Fox News
kind of a guy, who was like, he's got a
case for defamation. Yeah, the dude that they fired because
he admitted in court that this was a mistake, which
also wasn't just admitted in court. It also, Asager said,
was part of this court filing. He's been there for
fifteen years. He served in the same or similar role

(12:36):
under the first Trump administration.

Speaker 3 (12:38):
You know, he has been a.

Speaker 2 (12:39):
Reliable advocate for whatever the government's position has been. So yeah,
Stephen Miller called him a saboteur and a democrat if
he was in there intentionally trying to blow up this case.
I just want to read for everybody because what Stephen
Miller is portraying here and were publicans are trying to
portray the Supreme Court decision as is just total and

(13:00):
complete garbage. Let me read to you the specific language
of this order that came down from the Supreme Court.
They say the rest of the District Court's order remains
in effect, but requires clarification. That's what they're holding their
whole thing on, is this line that requires clarification. The
order properly requires the government to facilitate Abario Garcia is

(13:24):
released from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that
his case is handled as it would have been had
he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended
scope of the term effectuate in the District's court order
is however, unclear and may exceed the District Court's authority.
The District Court should clarify its directive with due regard
for the deference owed to the Executive branch in the

(13:45):
conduct of foreign affairs. So they didn't even say don't
effectuate or that was wrong, and they're saying we want
some clarification from the District Court here, But they said
incredibly clearly that they need the government needs to facilitate
the release, and they also tell the government that it
needs to be prepared to share what it can concerning
the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

(14:07):
The government has completely stonewalled here. They're lying about what
the order actually said, and just think about it, like
taking the legalies out of it from.

Speaker 3 (14:15):
A human perspective. If you fuck up, you try to
fix it.

Speaker 2 (14:19):
This is a fuck up of massive life altered proportions.
We have no idea at this point what the condition
of this man is. He's been sent into this prison
known for human rights abuses, for withholding food.

Speaker 3 (14:31):
We know that an extraordinary number.

Speaker 2 (14:32):
Of detainees there have actually died while they're in custody.
This is a horrible place to be that he has
been wrongly sent to, and not just him, by the
way of the two hundred and thirty original immigrants who
were sent there, as I mentioned, ninety percent no criminal record,
five had felony arrest records.

Speaker 3 (14:51):
Five and we're told these were the worst of the worst.

Speaker 2 (14:55):
So on top of all of that, what we've been
warning about is, hey, if you can throw these people
into this dungeon for life with no due process. This
isn't just about what they can do to immigrants. This
is about what they can do to anyone.

Speaker 3 (15:11):
This is about.

Speaker 2 (15:12):
All of our rights. What could have kept them? Since
their position is once they're a Alsalvador, it's over, it's gone.
We can't do anything. In Bekelly's position is I can't
do anything either. What is to keep them from sending
anyone that they want? And as long as they get
the plane in the air before the court can come
in and say you can't do that, then they can
do whatever they want to people. And so when you

(15:35):
have Trump here, not only on the hot mic, and
he had previously said, hey, maybe I'll send American citizens
there on the hot mic, telling Bakelly, next up is
the homegrowns. You need to build more facilities, and then
confirmed in the questioning and he said he made this
comment that I wanted to get your reaction to, in
particular Soger. He said specifically in response to a reporter

(15:55):
asking if he would deport US citizens.

Speaker 3 (15:57):
Quote what you think they're a special category?

Speaker 1 (16:00):
Yes? Right, yeah, I mean thought right? What thoughts? I mean?
It's just outrageous. And I think what people need to
understand is that the step by step that the government
has taken is one that has revealed itself over the
last several months. I keep resuscitating an old Vietnam term
credibility gap, and the credibility gap is, like you said,

(16:21):
they said that it was the worst of the worst.
Now we know categorically now that that is just simply
not true considering the overall criminal record. They also said
that they were using a tattoo or whatever to identify,
which actually sounds you know, it rings true to a
lot of people. That's very often the gangs use tattoos
to do affiliation. Go look at any prison system in
the United States. It's one of the number one ways

(16:42):
that you do gang classification. Right. So but again, now
we have continued to see there's huge holes in the story,
and there's been a number of these people of a
gay barber for example, being one of them, where it
is just like blatantly obvious that at the very least,
like what they're saying is completely untrue, if not outright false.
Then you take it a step further. For deportation, initially

(17:05):
it was about illegal aliens present in the United States
or people who had applied for asylum. So, okay, you
know this is one where you can't necessarily or it
was still in my opinion, still a jump from there.
To people who are here legally and or who are
here US citizens. But the jump now, and I have
spoken with multiple legal experts, is that this one in

(17:26):
particular is the one that most definitively applies to United
States citizens because the custody, the custody, the custody at
question is specifically about this else that the government position
is taking is that once they are in El Salvador
in custody, there is nothing that you can do for
them that actually does not have any legal limitation. Alien

(17:49):
Enemies Act, believe it or not, actually does whenever it
comes to a US citizen. There are multiple other you know,
you've even seen, for example, many of these Palestinian proactivist
students who are getting or trying to get deported, they're
still going through a due process like you know, deportation order.
Alien Enemies Act was definitely over here. But the specific
question here at hand legally is one that has no

(18:13):
limiting principle whatsoever. And actually, I would point to Ed Whalen,
this is very important for people to see a three
police Let me just Ed Ed, and I need to
contextualize that Ed is one of the most conservative lawyers
and legal minds here in Washington. Ed is a guy
who went to bat harder than anyone I know for
Brett Kavanaugh. That's I'm trying to contextualize who this person is.

(18:37):
I really ideological ground. Unless you're unless you're in the
mold in the DC world, you don't quite understand how
important it is for Ed to speak out on something
like this. So okay, with all that on the on
the table, quote outrageous, misterpresentation of the Supreme Court ruling.
The unanimous Court rule that a district Court order properly
requires the government to facilitate Upbrego Garcia's release from custody

(18:57):
in Nail Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled,
and it would have been had he not been improperly
sent to l Salvador. Yes. The Court also stated that
the intended scope of the term effectuate in the district
Court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the district
court authority, and it told the district courts to clarify
its directive with due regard for the deference owed to
Executive branch and the conduct of foreign affairs. But due
regard does not mean the district Court couldn't give any

(19:19):
teeth to effectuate. In any event, the district court dropped
effectuate from its revised order, so this is all irrelevant.
The duty to facilitate continues. And that's what the government
is saying, is that their only duty to facilitate is
that if Bucell were to release Abrego Garcia from the
what was it from prison, that they would fly him
back to the United States, proceed with a due deportation

(19:40):
through a due process proceeding, and then he would be
sent back to l Salvador. But at the very least
like that is still one which fits within the bounds
of the law. And that is not what we see
right now from the Trump administration. And they have stretched it,
you know, ten times farther than any before. And in fact,
it does appear that they're trying to pick fights with
the courts over their immigration nationality authority specifically, but in

(20:01):
this particular case, as I want to come back to,
the truth is is that everything they have said on
this process and you know, look, this requires me a
help with from people like me. I never, in my
wildest dreams imagined that you would just simply snatch people
up who had nothing to do with I mean, for example,
we have eight to ten million gang members, right, sorry,
eight to ten million illegal immigrants. Is it really implausible

(20:24):
there are two hundred, you know, gang members President of
the United States, I honestly don't think so. I am
relatively familiar with gang proceedings and others in the criminal
justice system, their gang enhancements and others at state by
state level. This is something that cops do every day.
Would it really have entered that wildest dream to think
that you would take somebody and look at their administrative

(20:47):
paperwork and then mistakenly deport that individual and then claim,
you know, without any without really without even walking back
any claims around this, to say that this is somebody
to be deported to tell someone it's also similarly, it's
very different than to go through a deportation proceeding for
being sent back to El Salvador than it is to
facilitate the actual entry into this prison as a behest

(21:10):
of the United States government. That direction also matters. So
if Abrago Garcia went through the normal deportation process and
was sent to Al Salvador and they decided to put
him in prison, okay, that's a different thing. It fundamentally
is because that's not something that was facilitated, paid for,
and done at the behest of the United States government
in this particular case, that is absolutely not what has happened.
And I think it is very clear that the government

(21:32):
is trying to stretch it now to this point and
at this it is a breaking point name of the show.
This is one where you must stand up against what
the current government is doing, specifically because it does apply
to United States citizens. There is not a single limiting
principle that can be held here. And it's not about
Alien Enemies Act, It's not even really about illegal versus legal.

(21:55):
There is nothing under the current logic that would stop
them from doing this to any United States citizen who
would mistakenly be deported. And if we are then to
assume and now look at the obvious credibility gap within
the White House, at their shoddy procedures at not even shoddy,
I mean just outright fake. Basically at this point the

(22:15):
MS thirteen East Coast gang leader and thing that we saw,
no reasonable individual, in my opinion, could have confidence in
the current Department Homeland Security to be able to fundamentally
distinguish and make sure that there is enough of a
coult process that is being put in place there to
ensure that no United States sitting would ever be mistakenly
deported under this current regime, especially in the way that

(22:38):
it has all been implemented at this time. So we
can look step by step at all the processes easily
in hindsight and say this was not true, this was
not true, this was not true, this is being handled differently,
this is now here. And the limiting principle, which is
like an often thing you should look like, especially with
legal and others. As I said, I've spoken with many,
many legal minds, and the only thing stopping them is
their own behest of not being able to do something.

(23:00):
And that's just simply not good enough in my opinion,
you know, I mean, what they're really asking for is trust,
and I just don't think that any reasonable person who
is now looking at this can have any trust whatsoever
in the procedure that they put place or any of
the statements that they have forward on MS thirteen trend
de Agua, especially with the arrests of that so called
East Coast gang leader and then many of the arrests

(23:20):
that have been made now so far. So anyway, that's
my long winded way of just saying I think this
is incredibly dangerous, and I do think that I've seen
fire and numerous or other organizations stand up. I've seen
ed Whalen and others as well, and so that's also
I think that allows for calibration. And I understand a
lot of MAGA is in a place where they don't
want to take you know, they find it annoying that

(23:41):
they call them a Maryland. It's like, okay, fine, we
can talk later about illegal and illegal status, because it's
actually not about that right now now, And that's the
kind of the point I want to get across. This
is not about illegal immigration. This specific case is not
about illegal immigration, period. It really is about courts, and
it is also about principles which would course apply to anybody.
And under that current regime, then no, without any limiting

(24:04):
power on the government, that there is nothing stopping from
a US citizen. It's clear now that Donald Trump, if
he says it, you know, we have to take him
seriously at this point as well. It is now clear
also that many of the guardrails which you know, frankly
I thought would be there, I've obviously fallen apart or
not even fallen apart. It's just that there are willing
participants and they view everything as some sort of like

(24:25):
left right media game, almost like you and I debating
here on this show. And it's like with the tariffs,
it's like with signal Gate, it's like with all of
these other things. It's like, No, this is about real
people's life, like you, people are in the government. This
is not a CNN panel where we're trying to joust
here about who's right and who's wrong.

Speaker 2 (24:43):
These people, they want them to stay in this torture
dungeon for life.

Speaker 3 (24:49):
People who did nothing wrong.

Speaker 2 (24:51):
Nothing, I mean, many of these individuals, the ones that
the media has been able to track down, they went
through the process, like they showed, they got their ap point.
They're going through the asylum process. Now we can have
a lot of conversations about that asylum process. They did
nothing wrong. They were following the process as it was
set out. Ninety percent no criminal record, sentenced to a

(25:14):
life of torture and misery. And the administration knows that,
they know that, they're not fools, they know what they've done.

Speaker 3 (25:22):
It's evil.

Speaker 2 (25:23):
I mean, there's just no other word to sending people
who are innocent, who have committed no crime, done nothing wrong,
to rot in a prison cell known for torture and
human rights abuse for life. That's what we're talking about here.
And you mentioned, you know, a breaking point yesterday. I
had the same reaction of you know, obviously I was

(25:45):
concerned about this administration coming in. I've been deeply concerned
about the actions that have been taken. I you know,
when this initially occurred, I was really deeply concerned about
where not only that action, but where would ultimately lead.
But now you have them in open defiance of the
Supreme Court, I mean, just lying about what the Supreme
Court even said. You have them committing to keep so

(26:08):
when they admitted they messed up by sending down to
this prison, they are dead set on keeping that man
in that prison for his entire life, however long that lasts.
And now on camera multiple times, Trump is out there.

Speaker 3 (26:25):
Next up is American citizens.

Speaker 2 (26:27):
That is a dramatic escalation of authoritarianism. And I'm glad
to see you know yourself, I'm glad to see others.
I'm glad to see Ied Whalen. But I have to say,
not one Republican politician, not.

Speaker 1 (26:40):
One yeah, they can't.

Speaker 3 (26:42):
Not a Ran Paul, not a Thomas Massy.

Speaker 1 (26:44):
Yes they can, well, yes they can't.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
Can but we've seen, i mean on certain issues they
have broken with this president occasionally and to just completely
like these are people who hold them so oh, here's
the constitution, and who've held themselves down as these constitutional conservatives.
The president of the United States plans to completely deny
due process to US citizens and throw them in a

(27:08):
foreign prison. And not one person wants to speak out
about that. That to me is astonishing. And let me
go ahead and put up on the screen. Let's go
to these last pieces, this most recent case that we're
learning about, because the more we're learning about these individuals,
the more you can see like they just anyone they
could grab.

Speaker 3 (27:27):
Who is Venezuelan they grabbed? Put up.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
I believe it's a six guys, This nineteen year old
migrant from Venezuela who had come with his dad. This
is a photo of him with his father. Put the
next piece up on the screen. This was by this
news outlet, it's called Documented. So they were living in
New York. This is the kind of quintessential story. They

(27:52):
got their they came across the border. They got put
on a bus to the infamous Roosevelt Hotel in New York.
They're working at actually unpacking Timu packages by the airport.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
There's a lot going on.

Speaker 2 (28:05):
And so his son is coming back to the apartment
after running some errands and just steps from his home,
ICE agents stop him. They grab him and two other
boys right at the entrance of our building. This is
his father, one said. One of the ICE agents said, no,
he's not the one, like they were looking for someone else.
But the other said, take him anyway. This one no

(28:25):
criminal record, did not even have a tattoo, you know,
not that that's any sort of justification, but they knew this,
this isn't the right guy, and they snatched him up anyways,
And now he is his father's beside himself, and he
is in this prison potentially for life or until you know,
another administration decides they're going to do something.

Speaker 3 (28:44):
In the game that Trump and Bkelly are playing here, Trump.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
Is saying, oh, I couldn't possibly, but I don't have
the power over what's going on in El Salvador, and
but Kelly say, oh, I don't have the power to
get him out of prison. Like both of you do,
you both do you don't think that Trump has power?

Speaker 3 (28:59):
It's El Salvador.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
But Kelly has decided to like completely align himself with Trump.
Yesterday he tweeted out after he left, oh my god,
I miss you already called President she or something like that.

Speaker 3 (29:11):
We are paying them.

Speaker 2 (29:12):
We have a contract, six million dollar contract with them
to keep these people in this prison. If Trump said
yesterday to the Kelly, hey, we need we messed up.

Speaker 3 (29:21):
We need to get that guy back, it would be done.
It would be over.

Speaker 2 (29:24):
But Kelly is running on salved Or under state of exception.
He can do whatever he wants.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
Yeah, true is literally martial law.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
And by the way, there were some of the people
that we had tried to deport to this prison, several
women that were included that though they were like, no,
we're not taking women that they sent back, so they
clearly have the power to send some people back.

Speaker 1 (29:42):
They also apparently rejected people who were also from other
Central American countries to that's.

Speaker 3 (29:47):
Great, because they were worried about.

Speaker 1 (29:49):
The Central American politics.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
Yeah, so you're more worried about that than the United
States of America. I mean, it's just they And to
your point about the guardrails. You know the Supreme Court
did mess up here, because you have to know at
this point, I think John Robbers trying to play this
game and be too cute of let me give them
a little bit, let me give them some wins, let
me give them something that they get. No, if you
don't tell them no, you cannot do. You must get

(30:12):
him back. If you give them even the little tiniest
bit of anything, they will do exactly what they did here.

Speaker 3 (30:19):
Lie about what.

Speaker 2 (30:19):
You said, refuse to do anything whatsoever. And this has
now been kicked back to the district court. They're supposed
to be providing updates every day. They've just basically refused
to do that, certainly in the way that the court
has ordered them to do. And they are certainly inching
up to that district court judge holding them in contempt.

(30:40):
I fully expect that to go back to the Supreme Court.
So there are still things working their way through the
judicial process. But at this point you have to say
that they are openly defined certainly the spirit of the
court order. They are have laid down a marker that
if they can get the plane in the air, then
they can do nothing. Then you know, as long as
they are quick enough, then they can deny people's rights.

(31:02):
They can act completely extra constitutionally, do whatever they want,
and even when they get caught and admit a complete
screw up, they still don't care. They think that these
people should be there for life. It is absolutely outrageous.

Speaker 1 (31:17):
That's why I think that the way that it was
set out is very important to see and see exactly
like you said, at the current thing, there is no
simple limiting principle on the government's action, and that is
genuinely extraordinary. Like we can have conceptual debates about planes
and judges and being able to turn things around about
gang members. Listen, I happily debate anybody all day long

(31:37):
as whether any of these people even should have been
in the United States or we're abusing the process. But
it's one of those where that is actually not what
is on the table right now. Right Like if we
let's think about this just conceptually, if the government had
arrested Obrego Garcia and gone through the standard deportation process,

(31:58):
of which there was a very good so he's getting deported, period,
He's gone, this nineteen year old, and then no one
would even know his name and if then the n Salvadorians,
if they want to throw him in prison, that's their business.
This nineteen year old, by their own admission, this guy
came here because he didn't have enough money in Venezuela.
He's not even pretending that he was fleeing gang violence
or whatever. Same thing. You don't even have a claim

(32:19):
of asylum. You're going home under a standard deportation process, Chris.
So I'll go to bat on that any day of
the week. That's not the same thing as saying temporary
deportation order or temporary deportation hold, then coming around and
being like, oh, we're going to send him there, and
then we actually we're not going to get back because
there's nothing we can do about it. And this is
what I want the MAGA folks to really understand, because

(32:42):
they are conflating the two. They're saying, oh, I break over,
and I'm like, listen, I'm with you, all right. You know,
why is the guy who's been here illegally since twenty
eleven doesn't claim asylum till twenty nineteen. Should he really
be in the United States?

Speaker 2 (32:52):
No?

Speaker 1 (32:53):
Obviously, for me, I think a lot of people agree
with that sentiment. They voted for that. Now, this, this
is not even within the realm of when you're asking
about Maga and all those other folks. They are so
triggered and listen, I emotionally, I understand this. Whenever people,
you know, I see the media, Maryland Father and all
talking about all this, I get it. I totally understand,
because you're basically conveying citizenship effectively on somebody who is

(33:16):
not a citizen. You know, even in a lot of
these other cases, they're going to look exactly like what
I just did and be like, oh my god. You know,
they're claiming this guy is like mother Teresa or whatever,
and it's like, okay, well he didn't even follow basic
preceps of law. It's not about that right now, because
we can't. And in fact, if the government had simply
followed the basic laid out process and had gone through

(33:36):
an ice hoold and a deportation order, of which they
are well within their ability as they continue to do
right now, they could say nothing about nobody except the
ACLU and some open borders lawyers will be talking about this.
You would be on the most winning ground I'm talking
politically now. However, by doing this, you are actually poisoning

(33:58):
the well, just like they did with for any sort
of faith and credibility, even from many people who support
your supposed policy, to be able to believe a word
that you say. And that is where I find myself
looking at this, is that there was and this. You know,
you've talked about this with Glenn in particular. He's like, look,
nothing stops you from doing the deportation to your own

(34:19):
home cut literally nothing, So do that, you know again
with the barber guy, like really, like you know, we're
really going to take the society and claim seriously like
I'm sorry, I don't And you know, fine, we can
argue again about that all day long. Fine, send him
back to Venezuela. But you know, sending somebody to a prison,
or even in this particular case, admitting that you shouldn't

(34:40):
have done so and under no pretense of a process,
and then also no pretense of pretending to bring somebody back,
It's simply not the same debate. And by putting yourself
on this debate, in my opinion, I'm curious what you think.
I actually do think this is a big demarcation point
for the government where a lot of people, yes, Magapolitan,
and all of them may not be talking. There are

(35:02):
a lot of normal conservative MAGA folks and others who
agree with deportation, who are like, yeah, I'm out on
this one, and I think that they have done that
with the tariffs, They've done that with the credibility, a
lot of that with Doe. We'll talk about does too,
won't we about? You know, some of their redefinitions. At
a certain point, you got to get the hood pulled
over from your eyes. You know, you can support a
lot of these things in principle and you can also

(35:23):
criticize I think a lot of the ways that not
even about practicality, but seeing genuinely on the facts of
the matter, they're not the same thing as to what
the government is trying to argue. Because you know, every
time Steven Miller opens his mouth, he's talking to how
I am about, oh, somebody who came here legally. It's like, no,
that's not what we're talking about here. Though you could
have easily deported him again, nobody would have said anything

(35:45):
unless except for the ACLU and a bunch of other
like Catholic charities organizations, and nobody really cares what they
have to say, but that's not what we're talking about here.
You made this into a national case for basically no reason. Well,
actually no, I think we do know the reasons, because
they want the maximum and this is good. They want
last thing. I'm sorry droning on, but the point about
mass deportation is it's actually not happening. It's just the

(36:08):
truth is is that the numbers are not that high,
and it is obvious that the government is either too
incompetent or unable to actually even do what they said
they were going to do, which is start with criminals
and or whatever, and they're diverting immense amount of resources
at the exact same time to these palstain and I mean,
you know, you look at these videos of oz Turk.
You know there's like five people there. What what are

(36:31):
we doing? What are we doing, you know, for to
dedicate all of these resources to this you know, police
state on behalf of a foreign government. And then same
in the uh sheer ineptitude and either ineptitude or callousness,
I don't know which it is for things like this
where oh just grab them anyway, So there's no rhyme,
there's no reason, And yeah, they've lost they have lost

(36:53):
all credibility in the eyes. I think of any you know,
reasonable person who could look at this now at this point,
and you know that's uh that they are going to
validate the immigrant activists more than anybody else on the planet.
And so four or five years from now, if you
lose the White House and they mass legalize everybody, that's

(37:14):
on you at this point, I really, I really believe that.

Speaker 2 (37:16):
Well because they I mean, you're right that they validated
like the worst, the worst fears. I mean literally beyond honestly,
and you guys know, like you could accuse me of
Trump arrangement syndrome, but I was very concerned about this administration.
This is far beyond, far beyond what I what I
could have even come up with. And last thing I'll
say is just, you know, to tie in the piece

(37:37):
that you were talking about of the crackdown on these
student protesters and activists and some people who aren't even activists,
all of this is, you know, they're they're workshopping it
with immigrants. It will not stay with immigrants. We already
obviously already see.

Speaker 3 (37:53):
Him out there.

Speaker 2 (37:54):
The homegrowns are next, okay, And you cannot you should
not expect them to get.

Speaker 3 (37:59):
First of all, no American.

Speaker 2 (38:00):
Citizens should just be shipped, even if you are a criminal,
should be shipped to this foreign dungeon, in my opinion.
But even if you're okay with that, why should you
believe this administration when they say, oh, we're going to
send the worst of the worst, and they're sending some
nineteen year old kid who's done nothing wrong. They're sending
the gay makeup artists who's done nothing wrong. They're sending
ninety percent of the people they sent no criminal record,

(38:23):
ninety percent, only five had felony convictions. Okay, so what
they're testing with the immigrants first is intended for the
whole population. And yes, we already have indications of that
with Israel's well, we already have proof of that with
US citizens who they pressured universities to kick.

Speaker 3 (38:42):
Out of school.

Speaker 1 (38:43):
There.

Speaker 2 (38:45):
They are investigating these pro pales signed protests as terrorism.
What's starting in the immigrant community, because that's like the
lowest hanging fruit, and they can argue, we're elected to
do this, blah blah blah. The plan is to spread
that to everyone. So that's why everyone should be concerned
about what is going on here, even if you don't

(39:06):
care about these particular individuals, you don't care about this
particular cause.

Speaker 3 (39:09):
First all, I would say you should.

Speaker 2 (39:10):
But even if you don't, this does not stay with
these individuals. There is nothing that means that keeps this
infringement on rights among a certain select group of people
within the country.

Speaker 1 (39:22):
Yeah, and that's why it's important. As I said, that
is not hyperbole. That is quite literally true in the
case of the Abrygo Guercy. And that's part of why
it's so deeply concerning. Okay, shall we move on to
Trump and disapproval rating. I think these two things tie in.
I really do. I think there's been a you know,
we talked a lot about that vibe shift from November.
When when do you think the vibe shift peak February?

(39:43):
What do you want to say? I would say February first.
That was before true Doge Idiocy started.

Speaker 3 (39:48):
To say, Okay, I'll give you that, right.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
So it was like it was ten days, nine days
into the first Trump administration. We had the ceasefire in Gaza, right,
so we could peace post. We had Elon was Elon
was around, There were the executive orders, there was the
general vibe like okay, and then you know, buy around
mid feb that's when I think things really started to shift.
Let's go ahead and then talk about Trump's approval rating.

(40:12):
So Trump, as we talked about often in the early days,
the first month or so, he was doing pretty well,
even with the highest ever for him. You know, he
was standing strong on the economy, seemed to be doing
incredibly well on immigration. Things have now taken a pretty
significant turn for him, and in the same trend line
that we saw for Joe Biden after the withdrawal from Afghanistan,
except this one is just a mere eighty some days

(40:34):
into his first term. Let's take a listen to Harry
Anthony breaks a lot of it down.

Speaker 7 (40:38):
I would argue this is the worst set of polling
data that Donald Trump has had in his entire second
term as president, in part because the CBS News You Go,
Paul that came out yesterday has been one of his best.
Let's first take a look at how folks are feeling
about the state of the economy. Think that the economy
is getting worse. What you don't have to be a
mathematical genius to see the tre line on your screen,

(41:01):
and it is getting worse. More folks are feeling the
economy is going southward. Back in November, it was just
forty two percent of Americans who said the economy is
getting worse. You jump forward to February, forty nine percent.
You jump forward to March fifty one percent. Now look
at this number, fifty three percent. The clear majority of
Americans think that the economy is getting worse. Donald Trump

(41:21):
wants to say, don't blame me if you're upset with
the state of the economy, blame the other guy.

Speaker 1 (41:27):
I don't think.

Speaker 7 (41:27):
Americans are buying what he's selling at this particular point,
at least anymore more responsible for the economic state. They
asked about inflation back in March. Look at this, thirty
eight percent, said Joe Biden. Thirty four percent, said Donald Trump.
But look at where we are this month when they
asked about the general state of the economy. Look at
how much higher the Trump number is fifty four percent.

Speaker 1 (41:47):
That Joe Biden percentage drops through the floor at twenty
one percent.

Speaker 7 (41:51):
So this idea that Donald Trump will try to sell
to the American public is trying to sell the American public,
is that it's the other guy.

Speaker 4 (41:59):
It's not me.

Speaker 1 (42:00):
It's that other guy, that old guy, Joe Biden.

Speaker 7 (42:03):
No longer is this being The American public is no
longer buying this set of arguments like they were back
in March.

Speaker 1 (42:11):
So you could see that the turn from blaming Biden
not exactly positive news there for Donald Trump. The more
ownership that he has over the economy, the more negative
that it will be, especially as we see the conflagration
of tariffs, of consumer sentiment and price increases began to cascade.
If they do stick to the current policy, don't forget that.

(42:32):
Let's go and put this up there on the screen.
We saw a similar decline in the overall tracking index
of the approval rating. So what Nate silver flags here
is that the precipitous decline that we saw right now,
a Trump approval is currently at minus five. But that's
quote only. If we used poll since Liberation Day, he
would be at minus eight point five instead. That is
a pretty significant hit over the span of barely more

(42:54):
than a week. He was at minus two point five
on April first, just before Liberation Day. I would also
note in particular that the focus right now, if you're
just thinking about the people who are all paying attention
right to people who are generally looking at the news, etc. Immigration,
despite the entire segment we just did, was still very

(43:15):
strong ground I think for Donald Trump. But go ahead
and put B four up on the screen. This is
very important that tariffs have actually moved ahead of immigration
as a top concern for American voters. From the latest
poll from Echelon Insights, the very concern number at some
seventy percent there, and actually even more concern in the

(43:37):
very concern for the tariffs over immigration, with immigration actually
falling below a fiftieth percentile, with the majority of the
population really focusing in on tariffs, it's just weak ground
for Donald Trump because he doesn't even have the conceptual
fallback that he originally would have had rhetorically on the issue.
Now it's just all about the process, the whipsaw, the seesaw,

(43:58):
the chaos that people can tune in to every day.
And that is a very similar feeling, I think to
the Biden administration, where they felt as if at the
end of the day for inflation, there was no steady
hand on the wheel, there was no plan. That's really
when Biden sank, right, Yeah, it was twenty twenty two.
In my opinion, and we could see that's when the
runaway inflation and all that started to happen. And all

(44:19):
of this is just terrible data for Donald Trump and
for his White House because they want to try and
say face, they want to try and actually do something
after they basically nuked this entire you know, the entire
economic outlook of the country. But they don't know where
to fall. They just don't know what they're doing, right.

Speaker 2 (44:34):
Yeah, Well, and Trump loves the teriffs because he I mean,
he shouldn't be able to do them unilaterally, but.

Speaker 3 (44:40):
He just is.

Speaker 2 (44:40):
Yeah, change, and so it does give him the power
of a monarch. I mean, there is a reason why
tariffs were supposed to be the purview of Congress, so
that you wouldn't have the dynamic of this like CEO,
king dictator figure going and doling out, Oh you get
an exemption, you get an exemption, like and all these
companies and all the countries coming to call this man

(45:02):
has development properties all around the world. You don't think
that these countries are going to be coming to him
greasing the skids, giving him tax and so whatever it.

Speaker 3 (45:10):
Is going to help his business.

Speaker 2 (45:11):
Making sure that you know, Tesla's on a solid ground
whatever it is that Trump wants on, and so he
loves that power.

Speaker 3 (45:18):
But tariffs have actually.

Speaker 2 (45:19):
Always been one of the shakier parts of his plan
of the things that he ran on. It was always
during his campaign when we were looking at the numbers,
it was always sort of like fifty to fifty. People
were not in love with the idea of tariffs. And
it makes sense because at this point you had inflation
as the number one economic concern and people felt like
terrors are probably going to make things even more expensive.

Speaker 3 (45:41):
And they're right about that.

Speaker 2 (45:42):
You know, in some of that CBS News you go polling,
they ask people who do you think is going to
benefit from Trump's trade and tariff policies? Number one answer
seventy four percent, the wealthy. Number two answers seventy one percent.
Large corporations, The next one down fifty percent. So big
is US auto industry, which we'll talk more about in

(46:03):
the next.

Speaker 3 (46:04):
Block, and then it's all the way down.

Speaker 2 (46:06):
The lowest ones are working class, middle class and small businesses.
So people don't feel like this is a plan that
is going to help them, even though it is being
sold in that way. And at a time when inflation
continues to be a massive concern for Americans and for
American consumers. Obviously, they're going to be deeply concerned about
what is going on here.

Speaker 3 (46:26):
And in some ways, even.

Speaker 2 (46:27):
Like obviously he's pulled back some, although I think I
honestly think it's been a little bit oversold how much
he's pulled back. In my whole monologue is about tariffs,
and I dig into a small business owner who imports
her product from China. She actually wanted to import it
from the United Issue, or wanted to produce it in
the United States. It just was literally impossible, and the

(46:47):
one hundred and forty five percent China terrors they will
destroy her business, Like there is no way, no way
that she can survive, and she is one of many.
So But even if Trump rolls back on even more
of the tariffs and makes all these deals and declares
victory art of the deal, whatever, I do think in
a lot of ways, the damage has already been done.

(47:08):
And I do think it is somewhat analogous too. Even
though I still support Biden having gotten out of Afghanistan,
there's just no denying that there was a massive hit
to his approvot he never recovered from. And I do
think it's analogous like the honeymoon is over for Trump,
the vibe shift has vibe shifted again, and the economic
damage that is being done right now in this moment,

(47:31):
with this level of uncertainty and people feeling like business
is feeling like I can't do. I just got to
like hold on to cash and freeze in place and
hope I can survive this totally unnecessary tumult that is
not going to be undone no matter what Trump announces today, tomorrow,
the next day, et cetera.

Speaker 1 (47:47):
What serious person, CEO, even if the administration came out
tomorrow and was like, this is our plan for the
next four years, what serious person would actually invest based
upon that confidence? Serious I said that, Yes, I don't know.
If you caught this, I was, I would short the
stock of anybody.

Speaker 2 (48:01):
Yeah, you were like, I would a fire, I would vote.

Speaker 1 (48:05):
To fire that CEO. I'd be like, no, we're not
doing this. You clearly have no judgment, dude. You need
to keep hoard the cash and do nothing, absolutely nothing.
Don't take too big of a risk. And that's because
there's no confidence, you know. And what drives me nuts
about this too, is that it's clear that people are

(48:26):
not even still paying attention to the tax legislation, which
still has to come out later on this year, and
there is no really positive sign for Donald Trump in
the next I would say nine months. We have the
tariffs that is going to dominate the news elon and
all that does is basically, I mean, it's still around,
but it's not really like the number one concern. So

(48:46):
you've got this immigration stuff, a front page story on
literally every across the paper at every country. Probably the
number one thing that most people hear about if they
are politically engaged, Tariffs is going to be number one,
and or number two that they're generally who are who
they're generally in gaging with. Well, what else is on
the horizon? The only next major thing that we can

(49:06):
predict on the horizon is the tax legislation. We know
from baseline the tax legtion is gonna be crazy unpopular.
There's no there's not even an argument about it's just period,
and most Republicans will admit that with a straight face.
There's really nothing you can do. And also Trump said
I want to cut a trillion dollars, So it's kind
of like with Biden where we can look ahead to

(49:27):
whatever is going to come next. We know no major
piece of legislation in the pass the Senate or the
House of Representatives before this tax bill. We know that
it has to happen in the next several months. So
the next flagship piece of legislation after this whole economy
and tariff situation is going to be a major tax
cut for corporations and a trillion dollar According to them,
it's not my words. They said, I want to cut
one trillion dollars and I want to increase the Pentagon

(49:49):
budget by one hundred and fifty billion dollars, which just
so happens to be the exact amount of money that
Elon now claves that dough has to be saved. So
what are we doing here? You know, what's the net
out effect of this? You would be forgiven to be
pretty pessimistic about that whole situation, wouldn't you.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
Any lune flying about those savings.

Speaker 1 (50:06):
Even at bakes value completely. But I'm saying from an
approval rating standpoint, the TCJA, the tax cuts and job
zack was the lowest single day of Donaldsham's presidency in
the first term. The lowest day. Again, everybody always forgets
that people do pay attention sometimes. I think that will
happen again this time around, and it will be a
Biden like compounding effect of either bailing out the rich,

(50:30):
feeling chaotic, not really having a steady hand at the wheel.
So you can see on approval on approval grounds, on
the economy, and more. The more you lose that, I mean,
you and I have said this. Nobody knows what will
happen at the midterms, okay, And of course nobody knows
what happen in global affairs. Trump could literally I don't know,
there could be a crazy pieced in Ukraine. There could
be this new ceasfire and goudz. There's so many different
things that could affect it. But in terms of what

(50:51):
we can predict, that's what we see on the horizon
as something that is very obvious for his approval rating,
that is not going to go over well.

Speaker 2 (50:58):
Yeah, And the last thing I want to note here
b three up on the screen Trump's approval rating with
young people. People were very excited about Trump performing better
among young people. It's one pole, small sample, who knows, okay,
But look at the way among eighteen to twenty nine
year olds. His approval rating has fallen off a frickin
cliff around the time he got elected. You can see

(51:20):
him in solidly positive territory. You know, there's been a
decline among other age groups except those forty five to
sixty four year olds. Actually they're kind of those gen xers.
They're kind of hanging in there, aren't they. But among
eighteen to twenty nine year olds it has plummeted. Now
at its lowest levels, looks like minus thirty some, oh,
minus twenty nine here among eighteen to twenty nine year olds. So,

(51:42):
you know, all of these hopeful takes about how you
know the young people are going to be they're going
to be shifting right and they're super conservative and they
love Donald Trump, that all seems to be evaporating very
quickly in real time.

Speaker 1 (51:53):
Yeah. I mean, like I said, you never know these
polls and all that ahead to the election. But I
do think instead of looking at the poll, let me
think about the fundamentals. What are young folks tuned into.
What was the whole vibe shift about on TikTok and others.
It was about irreverence, specifically for young men. It was

(52:14):
more of a cultural attitude right now is not a
cultural moment. Right now is one of the rare times
in American history where it's actually a policy moment. It's
about tariffs, it's about immigration. Those are real things, and
it's not really about pronouns and bios or you know,
any of that other stuff right now. I think Richard
Hanania said he's like, it feels indecent to be talking
about wokeness right now, and I was like, you know,

(52:34):
that's actually very belief. That is an absolutely correct observation.

Speaker 3 (52:38):
Well, sorry, god, no, no, that's fine.

Speaker 1 (52:40):
I was just gonna say, it's not they're not in
power anymore. They're gone. We have a different arm. Yeah. Also,
whoever runs for president next, I have relative confidence they're
not going to be having their pronouns in bio. Right,
So we won, all right, congratulations. Yeah. I don't think
trans athletes are gonna end up in the d one
at this point anymore. They probably have learned their lesson.
If they haven't, and they're idiots, but that's their you

(53:01):
know whatever. My point is, just like those fights are over,
so in a certain sense that culture has been won.
Now we're talking about money, future immigration, like actual stuff
and on that. First of all, TikTok and all of
that is not very well equipped in my opinion, to
handle a lot of those issues. And so you know,
even TikTok is elevating some of the most anti TERRFF voices,

(53:23):
which is very bad for Trump ironically because he's trying
to save it. But the vibe right now is not
one where Republicans are best poised to win because outside
of genuine like maga sycophants, can you find a serious
person who is defending the tariffs? No, we got. The
closest we got was Oron and Orange. Yeah, yeah, exactly.

Speaker 2 (53:47):
He just he doesn't want to, you know, completely throw
terrorists under the bus, right.

Speaker 3 (53:51):
But that's all he got very clear. This is not
the way orn Cass would have done.

Speaker 1 (53:55):
No, yeah exactly. So you have no serious when you
have we have nothing like that. Somebody can really articulate
your case all that well, And then this whole trends
and pronoun stuff, it's just so like it almost feels
like a bygone era. You're fighting on very different grounds.

Speaker 3 (54:10):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:10):
Well, and if you think about I mean, millennials are
the most left wing generation like maybe in history, and
you think about what were their formative experiences. It was
the Iraq War, and it was the Great Recession. You know,
it was people coming out of college to an economic
catastrophe and the way that set that set the entire

(54:31):
generation back significantly in terms of being able to achieve
the milestones that their parents had been able to achieve,
you know, family and being able to get married and
being able to buy a house. Those sorts of things
were all pushed into the future because of the economic
calamity that met millennials when they were you know, just
coming into the workforce and graduating from college, et cetera.

(54:53):
And so if you have a similar dynamic with gen Z,
I don't think they're going to be in love with
the party that is in power while all of that
is happening.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
Let's go and shift to terroristor.

Speaker 2 (55:06):
We have some new new news this morning about China's retaliation.
They have halted all gone and put this up on
the screen. They have halted all shipments of Boeing products.
They're ordering Boeing jet delivery to be halted as the
trade war expands. Boeing I saw it was down on
this news and before we jumped to the auto piece saga,

(55:28):
why don't you just go ahead and break down what
you see as significant about this.

Speaker 1 (55:31):
Well advanced aerospace manufacturing and air that was one of
the gold standards where the United States still had somewhat
of a leg up. The Chinese over the last decade
have pumped billions and billions of dollars into being able
to develop their own competitor to Airbus and to Boeing.
They don't want their airline or aerospace industry to be

(55:51):
reliant on US supply chains and design specifically, So the
reduction in Boeing is two things. First of all, as
of twenty twenty five, I quote, China accounts for twenty
to twenty five percent of Boeing's global aircraft deliveries, So
the flagship United States aerospace company just took a twenty
five percent haircut on its overall delivery of corporate jets.

(56:12):
So that's number one. Number two is that the Airbus
stock is soaring right now, which further means that Airbus
the major European competitor and frankly much better safety record.
Can we all admit that in the last decade or
so is one that's going to be the major beneficiary. Meanwhile,
the Chinese are also going to be pumping significant, even
more amounts of the technology development into their industry at home.

(56:35):
So this is an alignment against the United States. This
is part of why I'm so upset about the quote
implementation of all of these tariffs. In an ideal tariff regime,
we want Boeing to thrive. Boeing should be the flagship
of America's industry in the way that it was in
the nineteen forties and all the way through the nineteen seventies,
before deregulation and combination and stock buybacks and all of

(56:58):
that other it was a goal standard. It was like
something that everyone could aspire to from a jobs perspective
and producing and this is the best thing, the most
important in the best products. Already we've moved away from that,
but despite legacy, of course, they're still able to develop
and to pump out quite a few to be cut
off in the interim. There is no plan by the
government today to save Boeing. And look, I get it.

(57:20):
You know, people are animist towards Boeing. We've talked about
the whistleblowers, et cetera. We can still reform. It's still
very important. We need an aerospace company. Can we all
admit that we need to fly people. You know, we
can't be reliant on the Europeans and on the Brazilians
to be shipping US jets that are flying us all
over our country. Not possible in terms of any sort
of defense industrial base. So this is the exact scenario

(57:41):
where Boeing flagship American advanced manufacturing, the exact type of
industry is taking a haircut as a result of the tariff,
with no plan to actually help Boeing do anything in
the future.

Speaker 3 (57:51):
And it's awesome.

Speaker 1 (57:51):
That's the problem that we have.

Speaker 2 (57:53):
And China gets kind of kills you birds with one
stone here because not only do they hobble a critical
industry for us, but they also bolster the Europeans at
a time when you know, again, if you were going
to do this intelligently and you were going to try
to go directly at China, you would want to have
the world on your side. You would rather than being
out there insulting people and throwing tarras all around at

(58:13):
everybody across the board, et cetera. And so this is
an opportunity also for China to give the Europeans something
that is beneficial for them as well. At the same time,
the tariff roller coaster is far from over. President Trump now,
in addition to the exemptions of various high tech things
that benefit like Apple and Nvidia, now he's also considering

(58:34):
some possible exemptions with regard to the auto terrists.

Speaker 3 (58:38):
Let's go ahead and listen to that.

Speaker 5 (58:40):
So President Trump says that car makers might need a
little bit more time. When he was asked about any
potential exemptions coming in the future, he added that he's
looking at something to help the car companies where they're
switching parts that were made in Canada and Mexico to
the US. Of course, a big push of President Trump's
terrrist plan is to reshore production. But that's been particularly
difficult four car makers were, particularly when we're looking at

(59:02):
the USMCA Complyiant Goods North America trade between Canada and Mexico,
considering that car parts passed between the border so many times.
So one, we have the current Canada and Mexico tariffs
that are in place, but also those auto specific sector
tariffs that went into place last month under Section two
thirty two, where we saw a twenty five percent auto

(59:23):
tariff across the board. So it does appear that President
Trump is opening up a little leeway here potentially for
negotiations to get underway. We know that the Big three
auto makers in particular, have been lobbying this White House
for months. You'll a call during President Trump State of
the Union address in February. He had said that they
were in his office and they called him. That's when
he announced that initial reprieve, but then ended up putting

(59:44):
those tariffs on.

Speaker 2 (59:46):
And so again this shows you the way this works.
The Big three automakers, they're able to get him on
the phone. They're able to say, hey, this is going
to be a freaking disaster for us because these parts
across the border multiple times. The cost of a vehicle
is going to skyrocket like tens of thousands of dollars
if these actually go into place. And so he hears
them out and is potentially walking back temporarily some of

(01:00:08):
the Oh but they're not exemption Soccer, don't worry some
of the auto tariffs.

Speaker 1 (01:00:12):
Yeah, this is again you know what what's happening. The
tariffs are on, they're off, they're twenty percent, they're twenty
five percent. Now they're exempted, and maybe they're not exempted.
There's the USMCA. They're spent in all time. Nobody has
any idea and what most people are doing, and I'm
telling you this is obvious. They're just stopping all shipping
anything coming to America. They're like, hold it over there

(01:00:35):
and we'll figure it out. Go ahead and put C
three please up on the screen so you guys can
see this. This is the week over week drop in
ocean bookings fifty percent. Overall US imports down sixty four percent,
Overall US exports down thirty percent, US imports from China
down sixty four percent, US exports from to China down
thirty six percent. That's just in a week. Okay, it
could fall to one hundred inventory. Does anybody remember this

(01:00:57):
little term called just in time delivery that we all
learned about during COVID? Did anything change? Does anyone want
to tell me did anything change in the last five years? No,
it didn't. It actually got worse. And so what does
that mean? It means that we don't have like, we
don't have stockpiles. We talked yesterday a lot about rare
earth minerals, still a very important conversation. What did we

(01:01:17):
learn from the rare earth mineral discussion is that American companies,
basically because they run on a cash on a stock basis,
refuse to stock up. We don't have a supply chain,
we have no refining ability, we have no ability basically
to make up for this in the overnight way that
China has cut us off from it. It will obviously
have cascading effects throughout our supply chain. A lot of
this stuff matters, especially for cars, for batteries. It's a

(01:01:40):
full court press the Chinese. Again, I have to respect
them and their competence. They know exactly where to hit
us hard. The number one industry we care the most
about is aerospace advanced manufacturing. That's like gold standard for
the defense industrial base. So what do you do? Screw
you Boeing? Before that, semiconductors, make sure you cut off
all the minerals that you need. There. Hope the South
Koreans and the Japanese can bail us out. From who

(01:02:02):
people I've spoken to, they have stock poles of their own,
but they don't necessarily want to sell it to us. Now,
what do you do? Semiconductors and then cars? That was
the final one for magnets and other things that are necessary.
That is a direct attack by the way, at Tesla
stock because they need those to be able to build
all of the cars that they do here in America.
All three of the things are targeting the growth industries,
the manufacturing industries, and the exact type of things that

(01:02:24):
we can point to and say, this is how tariffs
could be working and could be saving, and that's what
they're attacking, and we have no policy right now to
actually help any of it on the back end.

Speaker 3 (01:02:32):
That's exactly right. So Interestingly, Sean Faint, who's.

Speaker 2 (01:02:34):
The head of the United Auto Workers, he has been
defending the tariffs. You know, he'll say, I'm not just
with regard I think he tries to make it like
just with regards to the auto industry. He recently went
on MSNBC. It was one of these panel shows where
you've got like AlSi Menandez Simone Sanders and Michael Steele

(01:02:56):
I think, and they're all trying to spar with him
over his position with regard to these tariffs. Let's go
ahead and take a listen, guys, this is C two
to a little bit of how that went down.

Speaker 6 (01:03:05):
You know, let's talk about the realities of what you know.
And this is the thing, you know, I've been reading
a lot of this lately. Going back in nineteen ninety two,
I voted.

Speaker 1 (01:03:12):
For Ross Pero.

Speaker 6 (01:03:13):
You know why I voted for Ross PuO for one
reason because he was the only candidate that talked about
how devastating NAFTA would be to American jobs and to
our manufacturing base. And he talked about that giant sucking sound.
You know, I've read this book here in the last week.
You know, save your job, save our country. Why NAFTA
must be stopped.

Speaker 4 (01:03:32):
Now.

Speaker 6 (01:03:32):
You know what's interesting since then, Ross pro has become
a prophet. Since NAFTA was inception in nineteen ninety three,
we've lost ninety thousand manufacturing facilities in this country, millions
of jobs. And these weren't, you know, low end jobs.
These were jobs that paid decent wages, had good benefits.

Speaker 3 (01:03:50):
Retirement secualized. I agree with.

Speaker 1 (01:03:53):
You, communities, but here's my thing.

Speaker 3 (01:03:55):
But here's NAFTA was after was thirty years.

Speaker 8 (01:03:57):
Ago the situation that we are dealing with now, and
I agree with you. I'm on the side of the
folks that said they this did the American workers wrong. Absolutely,
But right now we are dealing with the situation where
it's not these are blanket tariffs. We are dealing with
situation where manufacturing is not going to come back in
two weeks. So what how I'm just I'm really struggling

(01:04:22):
to figure out to understand how UAW has aligned itself
with Trump on this.

Speaker 6 (01:04:27):
So, first off, NAFTA is still causing us to lose
jobs in this country. Our broken trade system is still
causing us to lose jobs in this country, and no
one from either party has been willing to even address
the issue for thirty plus years.

Speaker 1 (01:04:42):
That's the first thing.

Speaker 6 (01:04:44):
And we support tariffs as a tool, a tool in
the toolbox, not the end all be all. We got
to fix the broken trade system, but tariffs are a
motivator to make these companies do the right thing. When
we're talking auto, I can't speak for you know, penguins
and all this other crazy stuff going on, but I'll
speak to what I know, and you know, when we

(01:05:04):
talk about parts, there's an exclusion for parts sector right now.
The reason there's this exclusion is because we've been talking
with the administration about how to make these tariffs work,
and they've been working with us on that.

Speaker 2 (01:05:16):
It's frustrating to me watching this exchange. I would love
if Sean Fayn would come on the show. I'd love
to have a conversation with that. I'm sympathetic. There's nothing
that he says, though, that is incorrect about NATA and
about its impacts specifically on the auto industry, about the
fact that these terrible trade deals continue to harm American workers.
All of that is completely accurate. The question is, then,
what are you going to do about it? And if
you're just doing this chaotic terrorist are on, they're off,

(01:05:39):
They're across the board, They're not across the board.

Speaker 3 (01:05:40):
One hundred and forty five percent for.

Speaker 2 (01:05:42):
China, yes auto, no auto, et cetera. It's only going
to make the situation for American workers worse across the board,
and the auto industry is one where you know, if
Trump was just targeting, like, Okay, we're going to restore
the auto industry, here's how we're going to do it,
and it was intelligent and coupled with industrial policy as
we've talked about it. I supported Trump's tariffs on the
first term. I supported Biden's tariffs in his term. I

(01:06:03):
would support something like that that is not what we're
talking about. So I don't think you can afford in
this time to ignore the rest of what is going
on with these tariffs, because they are going to hurt
that they are going to be a regressive tax on
working class people. They're going to hurt workers much more
than they help workers. And the other thing is, you know,

(01:06:25):
if you listen to Trump talk and I get into
some of this day in my monologue, like he doesn't
want to restore the nineteen fifties height of postwar manufacturing.
And at that time you had about fifty percent unionization
in terms of factory workers, so you had a lot
of labor power, you had an expanding social safety net,
you had a post war global economy where the US

(01:06:45):
was kind of the only game in town because so
many other countries had been completely devastated.

Speaker 3 (01:06:50):
But that's not what he's looking to restore.

Speaker 2 (01:06:52):
And you can tell that by the fact that he's
a union buster, and by that doge is gutting the
government so that it can't regulate big business. He wants
to go back, and he talks about this to the
guilded age. He wants to go back to the time
before there were labor regulations, before there were child labor regulations.
When you know there it was before the progressive era,
when you really have a large union movement and labor power,
and before there was an income tax.

Speaker 3 (01:07:14):
That's what he wants to go back to.

Speaker 2 (01:07:16):
And you know, these sort of like you know, sweatshop jobs,
because there's nothing inherent about factory jobs that make them
good jobs. It was the particular moment in time, and
also the fact that we had this very large union movement.

Speaker 3 (01:07:28):
You have to have all of.

Speaker 2 (01:07:29):
Those pieces if you're actually going to restore something good
for American workers. Trump has no interest in any of that.
He wants to go in the complete opposite direction. So
while listen, I get where Sean Fin's coming from, Like
I you know, I've seen him be very critical of
Trump in other areas. I understand his mindset, but this
from Trump is going to completely go in the opposite

(01:07:51):
direction of what you would want from American workers. And
we already know because we've seen Stalantis already do layoffs
as a consequence of this.

Speaker 1 (01:07:57):
The difficulty for him is he has to support tariffs conceptually,
and look, I get it, like you said, in the
position that he's in a MSNBC people who are totally
against tariffs, and he's like, no, that's not what I'm saying.
What I'm calling for is X, Y and Z tariff
combined with this policy. The difficulty that you run into
is that with the chaos of the Trump administration now
at this point, you never know whether a tariff is

(01:08:18):
on or not. You literally And the funny thing is
even the automakers don't know. They have to call their
lawyers and be like, what's the guidance from the White
House today? And then the next day Trump comes out like,
actually there's no exceptions, and you're like, oh, okay, I mean,
how can we do business?

Speaker 3 (01:08:31):
How is it?

Speaker 1 (01:08:31):
Or employee people?

Speaker 2 (01:08:32):
How is the domestic auto market going to be if
we're in a recession? Right, so how's that going to
be for you know, workers and layoffs?

Speaker 3 (01:08:39):
And you know what.

Speaker 2 (01:08:41):
Level of investment in the US do you think that
you typically get during a recession, which is what he
is actively courting and what we may already be tipping
into based on some of the estimates.

Speaker 1 (01:08:51):
Yeah, I mean O nine killed GM and still they
destroyed the Oh it really never came back. Ford. Ford,
you got to hand it to him. They they were
able to climb out, and they never took any government money.
I remember reading a really good book about how they
were able to handle it. But they're the exception and
they're not the role. The US auto industry really never
recovered from that. And then there was that whole cash
for clunkers thing. They had destroyed these car market. It

(01:09:14):
was a disaster.

Speaker 3 (01:09:15):
Yeah, all bad.

Speaker 2 (01:09:16):
The bail out was very unpopular at the time, but
then it ended up being like, was one of those
things that the Obama administration kind of took a risk
on because when it was being right, when it was
being proposed, it was actually really profoundly unpopular, but they
did it anyway to save those jobs. And it ended
up being obviously the right call.

Speaker 1 (01:09:33):
Yeah, I don't know, I still think there should have been.
I don't know, just if you look at the net
effect GM and Stilantis, like Ford has minutes of actual cheap,
decent success, GM is Stilantis. Yes, they paid the money
back and all that, but like in terms of saving
the jobs in the industrial base and all, that didn't
really happen. I mean, they did close a lot of plants,
they closed them in the interim. But you know, in

(01:09:53):
a five year overall period, a lot of those jobs
did get eventually outsourced. A lot of them went to
Mexico and or to China. Glow mobilization just ate away
at it and at the and the worst part is
they don't create the good products like they just their
products are bad even today. And you can see, if
you know, with respect to all these other car manufacturers

(01:10:13):
around the world, like they laugh at them.

Speaker 3 (01:10:15):
So it's not about been such a calamity for Michigan.

Speaker 1 (01:10:17):
I'm not disagreed. I think it was right to save
the job, but there should have been a much more
conservative effort to make sure that they're globally competitive, and
it just didn't happen. And now we are where we
are today, some fifteen years later, where you have by
d Shaomi, you all these other people GM, and still
they can't they can't make an electric car that's decent.
To save their life. They've make it for like ninety
thousand dollars a piece of shit. You know, nobody would

(01:10:39):
ben to buy it. And so yeah, we're in a
tough spot here in our in our car industry. It's
not good

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}4/15/25: Trump Floats US Citizens To El Salvador, Trump Approval Craters, China Cuts Off Boeing

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

4/15/25: Trump Floats US Citizens To El Salvador, Trump Approval Craters, China Cuts Off Boeing

On Purpose with Jay Shetty