June 22, 2025 • 28 mins
Newt discusses the recent ICE raids and protests in Los Angeles with Joshua Treviño, Senior Fellow for the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Their conversation explores the symbolic and political implications of Mexican flags during the unrest, the historical context of leftist mobilization in the U.S., and the influence of Mexican cartels and the Mexican government on immigration and violence. Treviño argues that the protests are part of a broader strategy to undermine American sovereignty and law enforcement, supported by the Mexican regime. Their discussion also covers the operational challenges of mass deportation, the role of employers in immigration enforcement, and the potential for conflict with the Mexican government. Treviño emphasizes the need for decisive action against cartels and suggests that the U.S. must address these issues proactively to avoid a more severe confrontation in the future.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:04):
On this episode of Newsworld, I wanted to discuss the
recent ice raids and the protest in Los Angeles, what
they mean and what I think needs to be done
to move forward with immigration policy. So I'm really pleased
to welcome my guests Joshua Travino. He is the Senior
Fellow for the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First
(00:25):
Policy Institute and a good friend. Joshua, Thank you, and
welcome back to Newsworld.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Thank you, Speaker Gingrich, pleased to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
I'm curious in the wake of the recent unrest in California,
many Americans were surprised to see Mexican flags waved as
cars burned. Did you think this was merely symbolic or
was it part of a deeper, coordinated political message, as is.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
So often the case in human events. The answer is both,
but it's more one than the other. A use of
the Mexican flag that is symbolic in certain quarters, although
I should note that as a Mexican American myself, you
don't see it much in my native South Texas. It's
not the case in California, and it's because you have
a different and differently politicized population there. The challenge for
(01:22):
the United States at large comes in the reality that
the existence of these flags and their deployment in civil
unrest is not mere organic expressions of what I would
describe as legitimate cultural pride. There are specific political messages,
There are specific attacks on American sovereignty coming from within
the United States, and I think most consequentially for US,
(01:46):
those attacks upon sovereignty are actively supported by the Mexican
regime itself. And we can talk about the rhetoric that
they've deployed as this unrest has gone on, but it's
something that we need to notice and understand.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
What do you think has the protest in Los Angeles
and the way they spread quickly to places like Seattle,
New York and Chicago.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
The left has spent almost a generation now. I don't
think it really came to the four until the protests
against the Iraq War and the George W. Bush administration
really alerted the mainstream American left to the reality that
they had a mass mobilization potential that could slide into
violence pretty easily. And so you saw this develop over
essentially the past twenty years, moving into the Occupy Wall
(02:30):
Street movement and then really taking off in Barack Obama's
second term with the unrested Ferguson and in other places,
and I think culminating in what was to my mind
genuinely an insurrection in summer twenty twenty in which the
violent apparatus at the left was brought to bear against
I wouldn't even say conservative governance, but simple American constitutional
(02:51):
governance at large. It is a movement that has really
brought back unfortunately, political assassination to American civics has really
made us in the street violence. And So to your question,
what we're seeing, what we've seen in Los Angeles, what
we saw in other cities is at a fundamental level,
a reactivation of that network of violence, a resort by
a movement that cannot win through persuasion, cannot win at
(03:14):
the ballot box, to the fundamental pre political force, which
is force it self. And that's what we're seeing. In
the case of LA You've got third party foreign state
involvement as well.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Now what do you mean by that?
Speaker 2 (03:26):
What I mean is that their underlying motives for the
violence in Los Angeles, in particular, talking about seeing the
deployment of Mexican flags and so on, and it's something
that we have to understand because it's not mere humanitarian impulse. Right,
it's not sorrow for the migrants, and it's not sorrow
for those being deported. What ice Wood President Trump is,
i think correctly striking at and enacting these deportations, and
(03:48):
specifically in the precipitating events in Los Angeles where they
were going after apparently a human trafficking hub, is they're
striking at a profit model that benefits both the cartels
and their partners the Mexican regime. That's important to understand.
The business model for the cartel's visa v. Human trafficking,
which characterizes one hundred percent of a legal migration these
(04:09):
days and has for some time, can really be thought
of as sort of an evil subscription service. They extort
the trafficked people on their way to the border, but
once the border is crossed, the expectation and it's enforced,
is that these individuals will go to jobs in the
United States. Frequently they're already set up, and they will
continue to fund the cartels and their partners in the
(04:29):
Mexican state, in particular with remittances that come back. This
is why, for example, you saw the President of Mexico
essentially threaten protests and demonstrations in the United States if
remittances were taxed. This is a big deal for them.
It's billions of dollars in revenue. It's no wonder that
violence resulted when that model was attacked, But of course,
for us, the answer is that we should keep attacking it.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
From your perspective, do you think their effort is designed
to try to make it so difficult for ICE to
operate that the whole deportation system eventually just collapses.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Oh, without question, Without question, they want to raise the
price tag of deportations. They want to raise the price
tag of enforcement actions and make it not worthwhile, because,
of course, the theory of action is that if every
time you conduct a workplace raid, or you conduct a deportation,
or it's a surprise apprehension that a mob's going to gather,
(05:26):
then the operational calculus changes, and frankly, it will if
taken to its logical extreme. It's an environment in which
two things happen. One is that deportations can't occur, but
that's not the real goal. The real goal is that
it becomes an environment in which law ordered governance can't occur,
and that's the ultimate end state of the other side.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
The Democratic leader in the House made a comment the
other day that ICE agents should not wear a mask
because eventually you're going to figure out who you are.
And I thought, thinking back, for example, to the Italian
tradition trying to deal with the mafia, in fact, you
put their wives and their families and their children at
risk if they become known. And I think people don't
(06:07):
realize how elaborate and how intense the opposition can become.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
I think you're completely right, and I guess two observations
on that. One is the exactly to your point. This
is something that characterizes law enforcement in places that are
stricken with organized crime, Italy being one example, Mexico being another. Actually,
there's a reason that when you see anti cartel operations,
really anti cartel operations, the agents the military law enforcement
(06:34):
are masked, and it's because people do go after families.
But there's something else that's even more portentous for us
as Americans buried in that, and it's that this Democratic
comment indicates a fracturing of what used to be sort
of a criminal code. I don't want to ascribe honor
to thieves. But it is the reality that rewinding back
to the nineteen forties is a very famous incident in
(06:55):
which there was a member of one of the Five
Families in New York and the New York City mafia
wanted to kill Thomas and you probably know about this,
so he proposed it, and in response, the other mafioso
has killed him because that was a line that wasn't crossed.
You didn't go after law enforcement, certainly not their families.
If that's changed in modern day America, then it's a
very very dark passage for us, and it's one to
(07:15):
which we should spare no effort to reverse.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
To what extent are we seeing behaviors that have been
relatively normal in Mexico as the cartels fight to take
control of the country. To what extent have we seen
them starting to come across the border and also begin
to be part of the operating reality we have to
deal with in the US.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
That's a great question. Those of us who followed the
cartels and the breakdown of Mexican civics and the Mexican
state partnership with the cartels over many years have known
for some time that a lot of the features of
Mexican cartel violence have been present in the United States
for a while. I was in Laredo, Texas, my father's
hometown actually about a year ago, and we talked with
some security personnel, and there's kidnap houses in Laredo where
(07:59):
people or kidnapp they're tied up. The only thing that
doesn't happen in the United States is the murder. They're
taken across the river and then killed these victims. But
you go to a place like Phoenix and they do
have operational sites where people are killed. The personnel, the methodologies,
the expertise is all present in the United States. The
only thing that we have yet to see is mass
(08:20):
attacks on law enforcement. I would say, prior to two
weeks ago, mass attacks on law enforcement, actual seizure of territory.
Those would be the two phenomenon in Mexico that we
haven't seen in the US yet. But again, going back
to la you can argue that both of these are
increasingly in evidence. I think the seal is broken and
we need to look for more of this. Unfortunately, as
one goes on, because that expertise is not here in
(08:42):
the United States. Just to enjoy the weather, it's here
for a purpose to what he said.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
With us almost inevitably draw us into fighting the cartels
in Mexico itself.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
That's a great question. It depends on which section of
the executive apparatus you talk to. There is I think
it's fair to say, and most of it's occurring in public,
some of it's behind the scenes. But there's a debate
underway within the Trump administration as to how much to do.
I'll be circumspect in naming who, but there is a
cohort that genuinely believes that the path forward is as
(09:15):
much cooperation as we can get with the regime, with
this cartel affiliated regime. I happen to disagree with that,
but it's a real position, and it's one that is
going to point toward and what they see is the
superseding interest in trade between Mexico and the United States.
And there's another cohort from public reporting you can characterize
as based more around the Defense and National Security apparatus
that really does believe that American hard power needs to
(09:38):
be brought to bear and that we need to be
willing to do things that the Mexican state itself will
not No surprise. That's where I'm aligned. I think that
happens to be a correct analysis of the nature of
the Mexican state. But the debate is unfolding, and I'll
tell you, Speaker Gingrich, that we're going to see who wins.
The debate is in the conversations on reauthorizing USMCA, which
are opening this fall and need to be completed by
(10:01):
July first, twenty twenty six. If you see US asking
for security concessions from the Mexican's real ones, then you'll
know that the security side one. But if you see
it just tracked on the trade and commerce lines, you'll
know that something else has happened.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
I mean, it's reported that Stephen Miller issued it directed
from the White House, that I should make a minimum
of three thousand arrests a day. Is that kind of
mathematically oriented model a sustainable approach to deportation.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
It's impossible to evaluate on my end because I don't
know the rationale behind it, and I also don't know
the timeframe behind what's been reported on the three thousand
a day. How I interpret the number which I can't
read Stephen Miller's mind, And I think this is probably
correct given his public record, I interpret the number is
really sort of along the lines of build the wall,
which is not going to be a physical wall in
every single spot on the border, but it's demand for
(11:09):
meaningful action, and I think that's right. So if the
numbers three thousand, if it's five thousand, if it's two thousands,
what he's asking for is more, and he's asking for
a meaningful dent in the illegal population, which again I'm
of the school that it's in the tens of millions
and not in the single digit millions, and so the
need for haste is evident. And I think that accentuates
(11:30):
if you think I'm not saying Stephen Miller thinks this,
because he probably doesn't, But if you think that the
midterms next year will go poorly for the Republicans, when.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
You think about deportation, in your mind, what scale is
sustainable and necessary.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Part of this is a prudential question as to what
the apparatus at hand is. I don't think there's much
more important in American governance right now than mass deportation.
That's not a position I would have held a decade
ago in full candor on the South Tech and we're
accustomed to cross border movement. But as conservatives, we follow
prudence in reality, and one of the realities is that
the nature of crossing has changed. It's trafficking, it's cartels,
(12:09):
it's got state backing. So rooting that out is almost
existentially important at this point. I'll say this too. In
the past six to eight weeks, we have seen not
one but two incredible examples of strategic blows landed at
both the Russians and then the Iranians by what all
describe archly is alien populations within. And that's not a
(12:33):
complaint about American diversity. I'm Mexican American. My sons are Chinese,
so we're beneficiaries this catholicity of American identity that we have.
But we also have a duty to secure ourselves and
to secure our homeland and our way of life. And
an illegal population in the tens of millions is by
its nature a threat, because it takes a sliver of
one percent of that population to be antagonistic toward us
(12:56):
to constitute a true strategic threat to the United States.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Numbers seventeen million. How would you go about finding and
deporting seventeen million people?
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Oh gosh, I can give guidelines to it, which I'm
sure has already been thought of by mister Miller and
the folks at DHS. You know that they cluster in
particular sectors. You know that they cluster in particular communities.
You know that they cluster in particular geographies. This is
where in the United States it gets a bit complicated, because,
of course we have nothing like a national ID card.
The closest we have to it is kind of an
(13:30):
ad mixture of Social Security numbers and driver's licenses, neither
of which are totally secure. But you've got to have
an apparatus that's capable of discerning and adjudicating at that scale.
It's not clear to me that we have everything that
we need. I think our friends at DHS would agree
that they could do with more resources, So we ought
to properly resource it to that end.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Don't you all only need some kind of administrative procedure
that somehow identifies and checks each person.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Probably, yeah, you probably do. And there's attempts at that
HE verify being one, normal employment verification, whether it's a
ten ninety nine or a W two being another, and
so that just needs to be enforced. Probably too, there
needs to be I'll venture into a little bit of
an area of ignorance for myself which will make me
like every other public commentator on all topics, which is
(14:16):
that there probably needs to be more employer's side enforcement
as well.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
In your mind, is that done with the active cooperation
of the employers or is it done by operating raids.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
It's got to be both. You can't assume a single
prong approach for this kind of thing. I guess, no,
it's more than a guess. I think the truth is
that most American employers will want to cooperate. There will
be a subset who don't. Those are the ones that
you maintain the capacity and practice of raids.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
For One of the groups have been called dreamers, and
they've been identified several different times by Obama and by Trump.
Do you carve them out or just deport them?
Speaker 2 (14:55):
The category of dreamers, it's unfortunate because it's such a
tough one from a perceptual stand point, But we have
to understand why these categories exist. The category of the
dreamer was specifically created to make from a communicative perspective,
a cohort of what i'll put in quotes acceptable illegal
aliens in the United States, the conservatives and also rule
(15:19):
of law oriented liberals and Democrats, of whom there are
many would find it politically impossible to deport, and then
having established that precedent, then you could move outward because then,
of course the point is conceded that you can't deport everybody.
It's tough, but you have to have the law of
the law, not in a mindless fashion, but in a
fashion that displays the prudential wisdom of understanding why it
(15:39):
is that the other side created this category to start with.
So no, I wouldn't create a carp for dreamers. I
would establish the same standard for each Here's the thing, though,
that you know, for those wanting a prudential individual level
applications of the law and justice and individual cases, you
can actually do that once you've cleared out the tens
of millions who've come in. You can actually do that
(16:00):
once you've solved the major problem. Tactical solutions become possible
only when the strategic challenge has been met, And we
still have to meet the strategic challenge.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
How many million do you think you have to be
deported to have met the strategic challenge?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
That depends upon your theory of how many are here,
which nobody really knows. I am of the school of
thought that it's between twenty and thirty million, which is
a titanic number. I've heard Obviously, either are those who
go much lower than that the high end that I've heard.
I don't adhere to this, but I have heard of
incredible peoples that it's in the thirty to fifty million range.
I find that strange mycadriulity, but it could be the case.
You have to deport enough. We can't get into macnamara solutions.
(16:39):
There's not a body count of the day that's going
to be adequate. We have to look to change behaviors.
We should deport enough to break the business model that
facilitated the deportations period full stop. That could be five million,
that could be two guys. We don't know, and it's
the unknowability that militates toward us having to apply all
efforts to get to it. I think we'll know when
(17:00):
we see, and until then we keep it going full speed.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
One of the side problems here is the White House
on February first, issued a fact she that says, quote,
the Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with
the government of Mexico, and the Mexican President, Claudia Scheinbaum,
strongly opposed designating the cartels as foreign terrorists. Has she
(17:28):
largely been not helpful?
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Oh, that depends on who you ask. The State Department
will tell you that she's been the most helpful person
of all time.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Of course, that could be a very limited description.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Indeed, it could. Yeah, yeah, that's right, that's right. No,
but unfortunately they really are cooperating and selling her and
her regime as a genuine partner, which they're not. First
of all, the Mexican state is in partnership with its cartels.
There is a Mexican state cartel alliance. It has existed
for years. And what changed in twenty eighteen the arrival
(18:00):
of the current Mexican regime under the Morena Party, is
that it rose from becoming sort of an opportunistic partnership
to one that really was essential to the advancement of
this leftist Venezuela's style ideology that Morena is using to
transform Mexican society. So it is an existential partnership for them.
They need it and they require it for the maintenance
(18:21):
of their rule. What President Claudia Scheinbaum in Mexico has
done very smartly, I think. I mean, she's a very
intelligent and cunning person, not like her predecessor at all,
who was much more of a blunt instrument. She understands
that so long as she can provide what I'll call
the tactical window dressing to the Americans, sending over individual narcos,
sending over criminals, sending over cartel bosses, that most of
(18:42):
our governing apparatus is going to interpret that as sufficient cooperation.
It's not. And this is something that we've said at
the America First Policy Institute and also at the Texas
Public Policy Foundation for some time now, which is that
real change comes not when the handover cartel members, but
when the handover politicians. When you see political actors, officeholders, governors,
(19:04):
cabinet secretaries, senators, congressmen, and even the former president of
Mexico himself under indictment and handed over to the Americans,
then we'll know that they're serious about breaking the cartel alliance.
But we haven't seen that yet, and I don't think
we're going to and until that happens to a meaningful
degree from within their own party. It is a signal
to us that they are going to maintain that partnership
(19:26):
with their cartels.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
And in March twenty twenty five, Fox News up ed
you wrote that the Mexican state quote establishes Marina Party,
sells throughout the United States, and activates someone desired. What
does that mean?
Speaker 2 (19:58):
We have to understand that the Mexicans, even prior to
Morena's arrival at national power, has always regarded its nationals
abroad and it's illegal migrants abroad as its own. Now,
in a sense, that's not unusual. I mean, we regard
Americans abroad as our own as well. But what's different
about the Mexican regime's attitude toward Mexicans in the United
States is that they're essentially active participants in the corpus
(20:22):
of Mexican civics. So, for example, if you are a
Mexican national in the US, whether you're here illegally or
not is irrelevant to them. In fact, they think it's
virtuous if you're here illegally in some way. Some of
the ideologues will say that. But if you're a Mexican
resident in say California or Texas, or Nebraska or Iowa.
You actually have a congressman representing you in the Mexican Congress.
You actually have a liputado who you can vote for
(20:44):
the Mexican Consulate. You actually have allocated votes for Mexicans
abroad in the presidential races. It's very different than what
you see in the United States. I mean, it's unthinkable
that Americans in France would have electoral votes for themselves,
so but the Mexicans do that. And it's because this
this ideological belief that wherever the Mexican population is, there
too is Mexico. And that goes double for essentially the
(21:06):
southwestern quadrant of the United States, everything from California all
the way over to Texas, which in official Mexican discourse
you see this over and over and over, is still
regarded as fundamentally Mexican land. I'm personally offended by this.
As a descendant of them. Thank God for Zachary Taylor's army.
It's the best thing that happened to my lineage. That's
something that they operationalize. And so to your question about
(21:27):
the Morena party, cells Morena has followed this to the
logical degree, and they do have party sales in the
United States, and these party cells, we've seen them activate
from time to time. I have personally seen Morena posters,
not even election related, but just posters affirming loyalty to
the leader on their s manuel in Laredo, Texas, an
American town, when the New York Times reported accurately on
(21:47):
the Mexican president's ties to the sin Lower cartels and
the fact that he's likely been taking money from them
since two thousand and six, the Morena party sell in
New York City organized a quote unquote spontaneous protest to
pick at the New York Times. Same thing when they
wanted to welcome undrestmen will to Washington, d C. When
he traveled there. I have had conversations in Mexico itself
(22:07):
with senior Mexican officials, advisors to the current president, who
have told me directly. I was astonished to hear this
said that if need be, they will activate the Mexicans
in the United States to defend their country because, in
their words, there's thirty million of them. Look, I'm one
of them, and I'm sure not going to defend the
Mexican regime. But this is sort of a very dangerous
hubris that they have, and I think it is absolutely
(22:27):
unthinkable that that phenomenon is not at play somehow in
Los Angeles, given the rhetoric, and given the interest at
play emanating from Mexico City, and if we had certainly
local and state law enforcement, which you don't in California,
with any responsibility, this would already be investigated.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
From your perspective, are we almost inevitably going to have
some kind of collision with the Mexican government.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
It's going to come sooner or later. And I say
that with tremendous regret as somebody who is fundamentally from Mexico.
The Mexican regime people don't think that of me, but
I actually am. I want Mexico to prosper and flourish
and be the best place it can possibly be. But
right now we have a choice as Americans. We have
a choice from a strategic perspective. We can accept the
confrontation now and demand real cooperation and real partnership that
(23:16):
frankly they owe us. There's no other way to put it,
or we can wait a decade until Mexico is fully
Venezuela ezed and has Venezuelan Cuban Russian Chinese personnel swarming
over it, which is a process that's already begun. Then
we can deal at it from that position, which is
going to be far more fraught and dangerous than before.
(23:36):
I'd rather do it now, and I'd rather do it well.
It can still be handled in the realm of diplomacy,
because the alternative is much worse.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
As you look at this, would you say that Trump
has turned the corner on this.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Issue on Mexico itself? Yes, he's done something very important.
What President Trump has done is introduced reality into it.
The fact that there was a day one executive order
designating the cartels as foreign terror organizations, which, as you
noted before, Mission Speaker, the Mexican President opposed, and the
(24:09):
reason she opposed it is because it can sweep up
the political partners of the cartels as well. The fact
that he did that, the fact that he explicitly reoriented
the national security apparatus the defense of the southern border,
the fact that he talked about an Article one, section
ten constitutional invasion in its proper sense. All of that
is transformative. And so you know, one of the things
(24:30):
that I said to a variety of colleagues the day
after inauguration day was that God forbid, if his presidency
had ended after twenty four hours, he still would have
done more good to this relationship than any president of
the preceding fifty sixty years. And I still think that's true.
As in all things, you know, with governments setting the predicates,
only part of the battle. Execution is the next and
what remains is to execute according to the precedence he set.
(24:55):
I think the jury is still out on that, and
that's not because of the president. It's because of the biocracy,
which is the eternal foe of the American interest, and
we've got to make sure that that bureaucracy carries out
the president's wishes.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
In this respect, I was frankly startled by the speed
with which they closed down the border and the decisiveness.
Do you think that's sustainable?
Speaker 2 (25:17):
We have to understand that there's two reasons the border
is closed down. One is superior enforcement on the American side,
which the President deserves full credit for, as does the
DHS apparatus for at large, as does the DoD And
that is sustainable. I mean, that's a permanent mission for
American governance. But there's another reason that the border was
shut down, and I think that's one that gets missed
is that the Mexicans chose to shut it down. The
(25:40):
Mexican state cartel partnership chose to pause trafficking. And I
want to emphasize pause because it is not permanently solved.
The Mexicans are waiting for two things. They're waiting for
USMCA reauthorization, which, as I mentioned, is due no later
than July first, twenty twenty six. They need that to
sustain their economy. And then the second thing that they're
waiting for is the midterm elections in twenty twenty six.
(26:02):
If USMCA reauthorization is implemented without security concessions, and if
the Democrats take control of the Congress after the midterms
in twenty twenty six, then those long attention spans can
come back in twenty twenty seven. I believe, and we've
said this to many people, that twenty twenty seven will
see a resumption of human trafficking from the Mexican side
(26:23):
in full. So we're not out of the woods yet.
We're at a pause right now. They're trying to wait.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Us out, and in Mexico itself are the cartels gaining
or losing ground vis a vis the Mexican State.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
I guess it depends on the metric that one's interested in.
There are some cartels that are on the wayne. There's
been a civil war in the Sala cartel for the
past several months. I think in sinal Low in particular,
which has been an epicenter. There's a temporary increase in
all described as army control, not state control. But we
have to understand that the army itself is a trafficking
organization in Mexico, and so to say that there's a
(26:56):
dichotomy between state control and cartel controls is to subscribe
to a false premise about the situation. I think what
I would say is that the state is exerting more
control over its cartel partners and more control over the
cartels that are not in partnership with it than it
has previously. But we've seen this cycle before this too.
We're not out of the woods.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
I want to thank you for joining me. This is
clearly going to be an evolving issue, and I hope
that you will come back again as it evolves. Our
listeners can follow the work you're doing at America First
Policy Institute. By visiting your website at America First Policy
dot com, which we will have on our show page.
And I really appreciate you spending time with us.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
It's always a pleasure. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Thank you to my guest Joshua Travino. You can learn
more about America First Policy Institute on our show page
at newsworld dot com. Newsworld is produced by Game of
three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guernsey Sloan.
Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show
was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team
(28:03):
at Ginglishtree sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope
you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with
five stars and give us a review so others can
learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of newts
World concern up for my three freeweekly columns at ginglistre
sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
This is Newtsworld.
On this episode of Newsworld, I wanted to discuss the
recent ice raids and the protest in Los Angeles, what
they mean and what I think needs to be done
to move forward with immigration policy. So I'm really pleased
to welcome my guests Joshua Travino. He is the Senior
Fellow for the Western Hemisphere Initiative at the America First
(00:25):
Policy Institute and a good friend. Joshua, Thank you, and
welcome back to Newsworld.
Speaker 2 (00:43):
Thank you, Speaker Gingrich, pleased to be here.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
I'm curious in the wake of the recent unrest in California,
many Americans were surprised to see Mexican flags waved as
cars burned. Did you think this was merely symbolic or
was it part of a deeper, coordinated political message, as is.
Speaker 2 (01:02):
So often the case in human events. The answer is both,
but it's more one than the other. A use of
the Mexican flag that is symbolic in certain quarters, although
I should note that as a Mexican American myself, you
don't see it much in my native South Texas. It's
not the case in California, and it's because you have
a different and differently politicized population there. The challenge for
(01:22):
the United States at large comes in the reality that
the existence of these flags and their deployment in civil
unrest is not mere organic expressions of what I would
describe as legitimate cultural pride. There are specific political messages,
There are specific attacks on American sovereignty coming from within
the United States, and I think most consequentially for US,
(01:46):
those attacks upon sovereignty are actively supported by the Mexican
regime itself. And we can talk about the rhetoric that
they've deployed as this unrest has gone on, but it's
something that we need to notice and understand.
Speaker 1 (01:57):
What do you think has the protest in Los Angeles
and the way they spread quickly to places like Seattle,
New York and Chicago.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
The left has spent almost a generation now. I don't
think it really came to the four until the protests
against the Iraq War and the George W. Bush administration
really alerted the mainstream American left to the reality that
they had a mass mobilization potential that could slide into
violence pretty easily. And so you saw this develop over
essentially the past twenty years, moving into the Occupy Wall
(02:30):
Street movement and then really taking off in Barack Obama's
second term with the unrested Ferguson and in other places,
and I think culminating in what was to my mind
genuinely an insurrection in summer twenty twenty in which the
violent apparatus at the left was brought to bear against
I wouldn't even say conservative governance, but simple American constitutional
(02:51):
governance at large. It is a movement that has really
brought back unfortunately, political assassination to American civics has really
made us in the street violence. And So to your question,
what we're seeing, what we've seen in Los Angeles, what
we saw in other cities is at a fundamental level,
a reactivation of that network of violence, a resort by
a movement that cannot win through persuasion, cannot win at
(03:14):
the ballot box, to the fundamental pre political force, which
is force it self. And that's what we're seeing. In
the case of LA You've got third party foreign state
involvement as well.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Now what do you mean by that?
Speaker 2 (03:26):
What I mean is that their underlying motives for the
violence in Los Angeles, in particular, talking about seeing the
deployment of Mexican flags and so on, and it's something
that we have to understand because it's not mere humanitarian impulse. Right,
it's not sorrow for the migrants, and it's not sorrow
for those being deported. What ice Wood President Trump is,
i think correctly striking at and enacting these deportations, and
(03:48):
specifically in the precipitating events in Los Angeles where they
were going after apparently a human trafficking hub, is they're
striking at a profit model that benefits both the cartels
and their partners the Mexican regime. That's important to understand.
The business model for the cartel's visa v. Human trafficking,
which characterizes one hundred percent of a legal migration these
(04:09):
days and has for some time, can really be thought
of as sort of an evil subscription service. They extort
the trafficked people on their way to the border, but
once the border is crossed, the expectation and it's enforced,
is that these individuals will go to jobs in the
United States. Frequently they're already set up, and they will
continue to fund the cartels and their partners in the
(04:29):
Mexican state, in particular with remittances that come back. This
is why, for example, you saw the President of Mexico
essentially threaten protests and demonstrations in the United States if
remittances were taxed. This is a big deal for them.
It's billions of dollars in revenue. It's no wonder that
violence resulted when that model was attacked, But of course,
for us, the answer is that we should keep attacking it.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
From your perspective, do you think their effort is designed
to try to make it so difficult for ICE to
operate that the whole deportation system eventually just collapses.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
Oh, without question, Without question, they want to raise the
price tag of deportations. They want to raise the price
tag of enforcement actions and make it not worthwhile, because,
of course, the theory of action is that if every
time you conduct a workplace raid, or you conduct a deportation,
or it's a surprise apprehension that a mob's going to gather,
(05:26):
then the operational calculus changes, and frankly, it will if
taken to its logical extreme. It's an environment in which
two things happen. One is that deportations can't occur, but
that's not the real goal. The real goal is that
it becomes an environment in which law ordered governance can't occur,
and that's the ultimate end state of the other side.
Speaker 1 (05:44):
The Democratic leader in the House made a comment the
other day that ICE agents should not wear a mask
because eventually you're going to figure out who you are.
And I thought, thinking back, for example, to the Italian
tradition trying to deal with the mafia, in fact, you
put their wives and their families and their children at
risk if they become known. And I think people don't
(06:07):
realize how elaborate and how intense the opposition can become.
Speaker 2 (06:13):
I think you're completely right, and I guess two observations
on that. One is the exactly to your point. This
is something that characterizes law enforcement in places that are
stricken with organized crime, Italy being one example, Mexico being another. Actually,
there's a reason that when you see anti cartel operations,
really anti cartel operations, the agents the military law enforcement
(06:34):
are masked, and it's because people do go after families.
But there's something else that's even more portentous for us
as Americans buried in that, and it's that this Democratic
comment indicates a fracturing of what used to be sort
of a criminal code. I don't want to ascribe honor
to thieves. But it is the reality that rewinding back
to the nineteen forties is a very famous incident in
(06:55):
which there was a member of one of the Five
Families in New York and the New York City mafia
wanted to kill Thomas and you probably know about this,
so he proposed it, and in response, the other mafioso
has killed him because that was a line that wasn't crossed.
You didn't go after law enforcement, certainly not their families.
If that's changed in modern day America, then it's a
very very dark passage for us, and it's one to
(07:15):
which we should spare no effort to reverse.
Speaker 1 (07:18):
To what extent are we seeing behaviors that have been
relatively normal in Mexico as the cartels fight to take
control of the country. To what extent have we seen
them starting to come across the border and also begin
to be part of the operating reality we have to
deal with in the US.
Speaker 2 (07:37):
That's a great question. Those of us who followed the
cartels and the breakdown of Mexican civics and the Mexican
state partnership with the cartels over many years have known
for some time that a lot of the features of
Mexican cartel violence have been present in the United States
for a while. I was in Laredo, Texas, my father's
hometown actually about a year ago, and we talked with
some security personnel, and there's kidnap houses in Laredo where
(07:59):
people or kidnapp they're tied up. The only thing that
doesn't happen in the United States is the murder. They're
taken across the river and then killed these victims. But
you go to a place like Phoenix and they do
have operational sites where people are killed. The personnel, the methodologies,
the expertise is all present in the United States. The
only thing that we have yet to see is mass
(08:20):
attacks on law enforcement. I would say, prior to two
weeks ago, mass attacks on law enforcement, actual seizure of territory.
Those would be the two phenomenon in Mexico that we
haven't seen in the US yet. But again, going back
to la you can argue that both of these are
increasingly in evidence. I think the seal is broken and
we need to look for more of this. Unfortunately, as
one goes on, because that expertise is not here in
(08:42):
the United States. Just to enjoy the weather, it's here
for a purpose to what he said.
Speaker 1 (08:46):
With us almost inevitably draw us into fighting the cartels
in Mexico itself.
Speaker 2 (08:53):
That's a great question. It depends on which section of
the executive apparatus you talk to. There is I think
it's fair to say, and most of it's occurring in public,
some of it's behind the scenes. But there's a debate
underway within the Trump administration as to how much to do.
I'll be circumspect in naming who, but there is a
cohort that genuinely believes that the path forward is as
(09:15):
much cooperation as we can get with the regime, with
this cartel affiliated regime. I happen to disagree with that,
but it's a real position, and it's one that is
going to point toward and what they see is the
superseding interest in trade between Mexico and the United States.
And there's another cohort from public reporting you can characterize
as based more around the Defense and National Security apparatus
that really does believe that American hard power needs to
(09:38):
be brought to bear and that we need to be
willing to do things that the Mexican state itself will
not No surprise. That's where I'm aligned. I think that
happens to be a correct analysis of the nature of
the Mexican state. But the debate is unfolding, and I'll
tell you, Speaker Gingrich, that we're going to see who wins.
The debate is in the conversations on reauthorizing USMCA, which
are opening this fall and need to be completed by
(10:01):
July first, twenty twenty six. If you see US asking
for security concessions from the Mexican's real ones, then you'll
know that the security side one. But if you see
it just tracked on the trade and commerce lines, you'll
know that something else has happened.
Speaker 1 (10:30):
I mean, it's reported that Stephen Miller issued it directed
from the White House, that I should make a minimum
of three thousand arrests a day. Is that kind of
mathematically oriented model a sustainable approach to deportation.
Speaker 2 (10:49):
It's impossible to evaluate on my end because I don't
know the rationale behind it, and I also don't know
the timeframe behind what's been reported on the three thousand
a day. How I interpret the number which I can't
read Stephen Miller's mind, And I think this is probably
correct given his public record, I interpret the number is
really sort of along the lines of build the wall,
which is not going to be a physical wall in
every single spot on the border, but it's demand for
(11:09):
meaningful action, and I think that's right. So if the
numbers three thousand, if it's five thousand, if it's two thousands,
what he's asking for is more, and he's asking for
a meaningful dent in the illegal population, which again I'm
of the school that it's in the tens of millions
and not in the single digit millions, and so the
need for haste is evident. And I think that accentuates
(11:30):
if you think I'm not saying Stephen Miller thinks this,
because he probably doesn't, But if you think that the
midterms next year will go poorly for the Republicans, when.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
You think about deportation, in your mind, what scale is
sustainable and necessary.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Part of this is a prudential question as to what
the apparatus at hand is. I don't think there's much
more important in American governance right now than mass deportation.
That's not a position I would have held a decade
ago in full candor on the South Tech and we're
accustomed to cross border movement. But as conservatives, we follow
prudence in reality, and one of the realities is that
the nature of crossing has changed. It's trafficking, it's cartels,
(12:09):
it's got state backing. So rooting that out is almost
existentially important at this point. I'll say this too. In
the past six to eight weeks, we have seen not
one but two incredible examples of strategic blows landed at
both the Russians and then the Iranians by what all
describe archly is alien populations within. And that's not a
(12:33):
complaint about American diversity. I'm Mexican American. My sons are Chinese,
so we're beneficiaries this catholicity of American identity that we have.
But we also have a duty to secure ourselves and
to secure our homeland and our way of life. And
an illegal population in the tens of millions is by
its nature a threat, because it takes a sliver of
one percent of that population to be antagonistic toward us
(12:56):
to constitute a true strategic threat to the United States.
Speaker 1 (13:00):
Numbers seventeen million. How would you go about finding and
deporting seventeen million people?
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Oh gosh, I can give guidelines to it, which I'm
sure has already been thought of by mister Miller and
the folks at DHS. You know that they cluster in
particular sectors. You know that they cluster in particular communities.
You know that they cluster in particular geographies. This is
where in the United States it gets a bit complicated, because,
of course we have nothing like a national ID card.
The closest we have to it is kind of an
(13:30):
ad mixture of Social Security numbers and driver's licenses, neither
of which are totally secure. But you've got to have
an apparatus that's capable of discerning and adjudicating at that scale.
It's not clear to me that we have everything that
we need. I think our friends at DHS would agree
that they could do with more resources, So we ought
to properly resource it to that end.
Speaker 1 (13:48):
Don't you all only need some kind of administrative procedure
that somehow identifies and checks each person.
Speaker 2 (13:56):
Probably, yeah, you probably do. And there's attempts at that
HE verify being one, normal employment verification, whether it's a
ten ninety nine or a W two being another, and
so that just needs to be enforced. Probably too, there
needs to be I'll venture into a little bit of
an area of ignorance for myself which will make me
like every other public commentator on all topics, which is
(14:16):
that there probably needs to be more employer's side enforcement
as well.
Speaker 1 (14:20):
In your mind, is that done with the active cooperation
of the employers or is it done by operating raids.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
It's got to be both. You can't assume a single
prong approach for this kind of thing. I guess, no,
it's more than a guess. I think the truth is
that most American employers will want to cooperate. There will
be a subset who don't. Those are the ones that
you maintain the capacity and practice of raids.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
For One of the groups have been called dreamers, and
they've been identified several different times by Obama and by Trump.
Do you carve them out or just deport them?
Speaker 2 (14:55):
The category of dreamers, it's unfortunate because it's such a
tough one from a perceptual stand point, But we have
to understand why these categories exist. The category of the
dreamer was specifically created to make from a communicative perspective,
a cohort of what i'll put in quotes acceptable illegal
aliens in the United States, the conservatives and also rule
(15:19):
of law oriented liberals and Democrats, of whom there are
many would find it politically impossible to deport, and then
having established that precedent, then you could move outward because then,
of course the point is conceded that you can't deport everybody.
It's tough, but you have to have the law of
the law, not in a mindless fashion, but in a
fashion that displays the prudential wisdom of understanding why it
(15:39):
is that the other side created this category to start with.
So no, I wouldn't create a carp for dreamers. I
would establish the same standard for each Here's the thing, though,
that you know, for those wanting a prudential individual level
applications of the law and justice and individual cases, you
can actually do that once you've cleared out the tens
of millions who've come in. You can actually do that
(16:00):
once you've solved the major problem. Tactical solutions become possible
only when the strategic challenge has been met, And we
still have to meet the strategic challenge.
Speaker 1 (16:09):
How many million do you think you have to be
deported to have met the strategic challenge?
Speaker 2 (16:16):
That depends upon your theory of how many are here,
which nobody really knows. I am of the school of
thought that it's between twenty and thirty million, which is
a titanic number. I've heard Obviously, either are those who
go much lower than that the high end that I've heard.
I don't adhere to this, but I have heard of
incredible peoples that it's in the thirty to fifty million range.
I find that strange mycadriulity, but it could be the case.
You have to deport enough. We can't get into macnamara solutions.
(16:39):
There's not a body count of the day that's going
to be adequate. We have to look to change behaviors.
We should deport enough to break the business model that
facilitated the deportations period full stop. That could be five million,
that could be two guys. We don't know, and it's
the unknowability that militates toward us having to apply all
efforts to get to it. I think we'll know when
(17:00):
we see, and until then we keep it going full speed.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
One of the side problems here is the White House
on February first, issued a fact she that says, quote,
the Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with
the government of Mexico, and the Mexican President, Claudia Scheinbaum,
strongly opposed designating the cartels as foreign terrorists. Has she
(17:28):
largely been not helpful?
Speaker 2 (17:31):
Oh, that depends on who you ask. The State Department
will tell you that she's been the most helpful person
of all time.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Of course, that could be a very limited description.
Speaker 2 (17:40):
Indeed, it could. Yeah, yeah, that's right, that's right. No,
but unfortunately they really are cooperating and selling her and
her regime as a genuine partner, which they're not. First
of all, the Mexican state is in partnership with its cartels.
There is a Mexican state cartel alliance. It has existed
for years. And what changed in twenty eighteen the arrival
(18:00):
of the current Mexican regime under the Morena Party, is
that it rose from becoming sort of an opportunistic partnership
to one that really was essential to the advancement of
this leftist Venezuela's style ideology that Morena is using to
transform Mexican society. So it is an existential partnership for them.
They need it and they require it for the maintenance
(18:21):
of their rule. What President Claudia Scheinbaum in Mexico has
done very smartly, I think. I mean, she's a very
intelligent and cunning person, not like her predecessor at all,
who was much more of a blunt instrument. She understands
that so long as she can provide what I'll call
the tactical window dressing to the Americans, sending over individual narcos,
sending over criminals, sending over cartel bosses, that most of
(18:42):
our governing apparatus is going to interpret that as sufficient cooperation.
It's not. And this is something that we've said at
the America First Policy Institute and also at the Texas
Public Policy Foundation for some time now, which is that
real change comes not when the handover cartel members, but
when the handover politicians. When you see political actors, officeholders, governors,
(19:04):
cabinet secretaries, senators, congressmen, and even the former president of
Mexico himself under indictment and handed over to the Americans,
then we'll know that they're serious about breaking the cartel alliance.
But we haven't seen that yet, and I don't think
we're going to and until that happens to a meaningful
degree from within their own party. It is a signal
to us that they are going to maintain that partnership
(19:26):
with their cartels.
Speaker 1 (19:44):
And in March twenty twenty five, Fox News up ed
you wrote that the Mexican state quote establishes Marina Party,
sells throughout the United States, and activates someone desired. What
does that mean?
Speaker 2 (19:58):
We have to understand that the Mexicans, even prior to
Morena's arrival at national power, has always regarded its nationals
abroad and it's illegal migrants abroad as its own. Now,
in a sense, that's not unusual. I mean, we regard
Americans abroad as our own as well. But what's different
about the Mexican regime's attitude toward Mexicans in the United
States is that they're essentially active participants in the corpus
(20:22):
of Mexican civics. So, for example, if you are a
Mexican national in the US, whether you're here illegally or
not is irrelevant to them. In fact, they think it's
virtuous if you're here illegally in some way. Some of
the ideologues will say that. But if you're a Mexican
resident in say California or Texas, or Nebraska or Iowa.
You actually have a congressman representing you in the Mexican Congress.
You actually have a liputado who you can vote for
(20:44):
the Mexican Consulate. You actually have allocated votes for Mexicans
abroad in the presidential races. It's very different than what
you see in the United States. I mean, it's unthinkable
that Americans in France would have electoral votes for themselves,
so but the Mexicans do that. And it's because this
this ideological belief that wherever the Mexican population is, there
too is Mexico. And that goes double for essentially the
(21:06):
southwestern quadrant of the United States, everything from California all
the way over to Texas, which in official Mexican discourse
you see this over and over and over, is still
regarded as fundamentally Mexican land. I'm personally offended by this.
As a descendant of them. Thank God for Zachary Taylor's army.
It's the best thing that happened to my lineage. That's
something that they operationalize. And so to your question about
(21:27):
the Morena party, cells Morena has followed this to the
logical degree, and they do have party sales in the
United States, and these party cells, we've seen them activate
from time to time. I have personally seen Morena posters,
not even election related, but just posters affirming loyalty to
the leader on their s manuel in Laredo, Texas, an
American town, when the New York Times reported accurately on
(21:47):
the Mexican president's ties to the sin Lower cartels and
the fact that he's likely been taking money from them
since two thousand and six, the Morena party sell in
New York City organized a quote unquote spontaneous protest to
pick at the New York Times. Same thing when they
wanted to welcome undrestmen will to Washington, d C. When
he traveled there. I have had conversations in Mexico itself
(22:07):
with senior Mexican officials, advisors to the current president, who
have told me directly. I was astonished to hear this
said that if need be, they will activate the Mexicans
in the United States to defend their country because, in
their words, there's thirty million of them. Look, I'm one
of them, and I'm sure not going to defend the
Mexican regime. But this is sort of a very dangerous
hubris that they have, and I think it is absolutely
(22:27):
unthinkable that that phenomenon is not at play somehow in
Los Angeles, given the rhetoric, and given the interest at
play emanating from Mexico City, and if we had certainly
local and state law enforcement, which you don't in California,
with any responsibility, this would already be investigated.
Speaker 1 (22:43):
From your perspective, are we almost inevitably going to have
some kind of collision with the Mexican government.
Speaker 2 (22:51):
It's going to come sooner or later. And I say
that with tremendous regret as somebody who is fundamentally from Mexico.
The Mexican regime people don't think that of me, but
I actually am. I want Mexico to prosper and flourish
and be the best place it can possibly be. But
right now we have a choice as Americans. We have
a choice from a strategic perspective. We can accept the
confrontation now and demand real cooperation and real partnership that
(23:16):
frankly they owe us. There's no other way to put it,
or we can wait a decade until Mexico is fully
Venezuela ezed and has Venezuelan Cuban Russian Chinese personnel swarming
over it, which is a process that's already begun. Then
we can deal at it from that position, which is
going to be far more fraught and dangerous than before.
(23:36):
I'd rather do it now, and I'd rather do it well.
It can still be handled in the realm of diplomacy,
because the alternative is much worse.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
As you look at this, would you say that Trump
has turned the corner on this.
Speaker 2 (23:49):
Issue on Mexico itself? Yes, he's done something very important.
What President Trump has done is introduced reality into it.
The fact that there was a day one executive order
designating the cartels as foreign terror organizations, which, as you
noted before, Mission Speaker, the Mexican President opposed, and the
(24:09):
reason she opposed it is because it can sweep up
the political partners of the cartels as well. The fact
that he did that, the fact that he explicitly reoriented
the national security apparatus the defense of the southern border,
the fact that he talked about an Article one, section
ten constitutional invasion in its proper sense. All of that
is transformative. And so you know, one of the things
(24:30):
that I said to a variety of colleagues the day
after inauguration day was that God forbid, if his presidency
had ended after twenty four hours, he still would have
done more good to this relationship than any president of
the preceding fifty sixty years. And I still think that's true.
As in all things, you know, with governments setting the predicates,
only part of the battle. Execution is the next and
what remains is to execute according to the precedence he set.
(24:55):
I think the jury is still out on that, and
that's not because of the president. It's because of the biocracy,
which is the eternal foe of the American interest, and
we've got to make sure that that bureaucracy carries out
the president's wishes.
Speaker 1 (25:07):
In this respect, I was frankly startled by the speed
with which they closed down the border and the decisiveness.
Do you think that's sustainable?
Speaker 2 (25:17):
We have to understand that there's two reasons the border
is closed down. One is superior enforcement on the American side,
which the President deserves full credit for, as does the
DHS apparatus for at large, as does the DoD And
that is sustainable. I mean, that's a permanent mission for
American governance. But there's another reason that the border was
shut down, and I think that's one that gets missed
is that the Mexicans chose to shut it down. The
(25:40):
Mexican state cartel partnership chose to pause trafficking. And I
want to emphasize pause because it is not permanently solved.
The Mexicans are waiting for two things. They're waiting for
USMCA reauthorization, which, as I mentioned, is due no later
than July first, twenty twenty six. They need that to
sustain their economy. And then the second thing that they're
waiting for is the midterm elections in twenty twenty six.
(26:02):
If USMCA reauthorization is implemented without security concessions, and if
the Democrats take control of the Congress after the midterms
in twenty twenty six, then those long attention spans can
come back in twenty twenty seven. I believe, and we've
said this to many people, that twenty twenty seven will
see a resumption of human trafficking from the Mexican side
(26:23):
in full. So we're not out of the woods yet.
We're at a pause right now. They're trying to wait.
Speaker 1 (26:26):
Us out, and in Mexico itself are the cartels gaining
or losing ground vis a vis the Mexican State.
Speaker 2 (26:35):
I guess it depends on the metric that one's interested in.
There are some cartels that are on the wayne. There's
been a civil war in the Sala cartel for the
past several months. I think in sinal Low in particular,
which has been an epicenter. There's a temporary increase in
all described as army control, not state control. But we
have to understand that the army itself is a trafficking
organization in Mexico, and so to say that there's a
(26:56):
dichotomy between state control and cartel controls is to subscribe
to a false premise about the situation. I think what
I would say is that the state is exerting more
control over its cartel partners and more control over the
cartels that are not in partnership with it than it
has previously. But we've seen this cycle before this too.
We're not out of the woods.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
I want to thank you for joining me. This is
clearly going to be an evolving issue, and I hope
that you will come back again as it evolves. Our
listeners can follow the work you're doing at America First
Policy Institute. By visiting your website at America First Policy
dot com, which we will have on our show page.
And I really appreciate you spending time with us.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
It's always a pleasure. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1 (27:41):
Thank you to my guest Joshua Travino. You can learn
more about America First Policy Institute on our show page
at newsworld dot com. Newsworld is produced by Game of
three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guernsey Sloan.
Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show
was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team
(28:03):
at Ginglishtree sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope
you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with
five stars and give us a review so others can
learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of newts
World concern up for my three freeweekly columns at ginglistre
sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm Newt Gingrich.
Speaker 2 (28:24):
This is Newtsworld.
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com