May 11, 2025 • 28 mins
President Trump teases a groundbreaking announcement related to the Middle East, speculated to involve the expansion of the Abraham Accords with Saudi Arabia. This segment highlights the potential geopolitical impact and economic benefits of such a deal, including a possible trillion-dollar investment from Saudi Arabia into the U.S. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul on holding Fauci accountable, the gain-of-function ban, the Trump tariffs and more.
Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton show podcast wherever you get your podcasts! ihr.fm/3InlkL8
For the latest updates from Clay & Buck, visit our website https://www.clayandbuck.com/
Connect with Clay Travis and Buck Sexton:
FB - https://www.facebook.com/ClayandBuck/
IG - https://www.instagram.com/clayandbuck/
YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ClayandBuck
TikTok - https://www.tiktok.com/@clayandbuck
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Making the American Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Hot off the presses, so to speak, clips of President
Trump from the Oval Office addressing some of the most
important news of the day. Let's start with the huge announcement.
Probably some people are saying the biggest announcement of all announcements.
We don't yet know much other than well, here's the
(00:33):
President saying it. Listen to him.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
We'll have maybe before we want to as you know,
the released in Saudi Arabia. We're going to Yuei and Qatar,
and that'll be I guess Monday night. Some of you
are coming with us. I think before then, we're gonna
have a.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
Very very big announcement to make, like as big as
it gets. And I won't tell you on what, but
it's gonna be and it's very positive. And also I
tell you if it was negative a positive, we can't
keep that.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
It is really really positive.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
And that announcement will be made either Thursday or Friday
or Monday before we leave, but it'll be one of
the most important announcements that have been made in many years.
About a certain subject, very important subject, so you'll all
be here.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
I'm guessing it's got to be the Abraham Accords with
Saudi Arabia coming on board.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yes, does that make sense to see? That makes the
most sense to me too. I don't think it's a
breakthrough with Iran. We would have gotten some whispers about
that beforehand. And plus I just don't think Iron's ever
going to say, you know what, we're not gonna get nukes.
So I think that Saudi. It might be in agreement
with Saudi that is an extension of the Abraham Accords
and also a commitment from Saudi to invest you know,
(01:49):
a trillion dollars in the US over the next twenty
years or something, I don't know whatever, trillion dollars a
lot of money, not so much to Saudi. I feel
like they'll pay that for a soccer team these days.
But yeah, yeah, that's something that I think is a
likely possibility. I would love to think that it would be,
you know, turning all the hostages from israel I from
a Hamas to Israel. But I think that that is
(02:12):
now going into a different phase of the Israelis are
doing the final push in that operation as they well should,
and that's going to change some dynamics in the Middle
East too.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
I also think it has to be someone that you
have good relations with in order to be confident that
that deal is going to be able to be announced.
Does that make sense? Like Iran is constantly shifting. They
may say something on Wednesday that's different than what they
said on Monday. You can't really rely on them Hamas,
you can't rely on anything related to what they might
(02:48):
say publicly. So I think it would have to be
someone that the government would have a good relationship with
that you could rely on being reasonable. I don't think
you could say, for instance, with Vladimir Putin and Russia,
that you feel comfortable enough in them to even forecast
something like this. So that's why I think the idea
(03:10):
of the Abraham Accords being expanded, which is hugely important
long range in the Middle East. By the way, this
is something that is significant that I saw. Also, there's
a report that Trump, I don't know if if he
said this or if this is an official report, that
India has basically agreed to zero tariffs on American products
(03:33):
inside of their country. That could be utterly transformative in
the decades ahead, because India is now the biggest country
in the world, and unlike China, which is collapsing in
population and I think has already peaked. I think India
is going to become the second biggest economy in the
world in the next fifty years.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
And this, then, I think, is a good moment for
us to take a look at what is being said
now from some very infant, very astute places about the
Trump tariffs conversation. Glenn Youngkin one of the I would
say top five, maybe top ten, top five governors in
(04:18):
America right now in Virginia doing a great job, and
also a former very senior level executive, and he was
the CEO of the Carlisle Group, which is one of
the largest private equity firms in the world. This is
the governor of Virginia, and like I said, a guy
who also understands private industry saying that, well, I'll let
(04:38):
you hear it from him. This has cut three.
Speaker 5 (04:40):
I expect that long term we will have an accelerated
growth and I'm very optimistic. I think in the near term,
as the President resets these imbalanced trade relationships and restores
fiscal responsibility into Washington we're going to see this location.
It's just a reality. But what I do firmly expect
is in investment from companies around the world to accelerate.
(05:02):
I expect job growth to accelerate.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
I think you're already beginning to see some of that.
The jobs numbers. This is Scott Besson. This has cut
one in the first one hundred days. You need to
hear about these jobs. Remember, it's not all government, you know,
make believe jobs, or at least low show jobs. It's
jobs in the actual economy. This is from the Treasury
Secretary Play One.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
The core components of the Trump economic agenda are trade,
tax cuts, and deregulation. These are not standalone policies. They
are interlocking parts of an engine designed to drive economic
growth and domestic manufacturing. Tax Cuts and cost savings from
deregulation raise real incomes for families and businesses. TIFFs create
(05:47):
an incentive for reshoring jobs and fair trade. And deregulation
complements tariffs by making it easier to invest in energy
and manufacturing projects. Already, this agenda is bearing fruit. In
the first one hundred days the new administration, four hundred
and sixty four thousand new jobs were added to the economy.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Clay, that people just need to give this some time.
And I think what you're seeing here is, first of all,
I just fifteen years in conservative media. All in the
beginning of this. When I got into this, we would
always hear we need private industry minds in government. We
need people who understand how jobs are created in the economy,
(06:34):
not by siphoning money from tax payers to people who
don't actually necessarily do anything or add anything with some
of these government with some of this government bloat. We
have this now in a way we not only on
the advisors, but Trump himself, right, somebody who understands the
private sector. You look at even Scott Bessant, you compare
him to Biden's Treasury secretary Janet Yellen. Yellen is an
(07:00):
an academic economist. Okay, that's who was running the Treasury before.
Bessen is a guy who had to place multi billion
dollar bets and be right about the trajectory of economic growth,
about what was actually going to happen in the global economy.
We have doers and practitioners now, Clay, not theorists and
(07:23):
faculty lounge layabouts.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, and again I think that's why you know, the
caller from San Diego's fired up. I think people sometimes
have unrealistic expectations of what is capable of doing with
the ship of state. And I've had this analogy made
to me a lot over the years. You know, in
(07:48):
the world of sports, the smaller the team, the quicker
you can adjust the direction. So if you're a basketball coach,
it's like a speedboat. You can change a couple of players.
You can turn it around football teams, an aircraft carrier.
The United States is the largest floatable ship on the planet.
(08:08):
It's very hard to turn it in any particular direction. Now,
sometimes that can be good because if people make really
poor choices, then the degree to which they can shift
the direction of the country is limited. But you've made
the argument for years here, and it's a pessimistic one,
but I think there's some truth to it that the
president doesn't largely matter because the apparatus surrounding the president
(08:33):
is such that they're going to direct the ship in
the way they see best.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
And you made that argus. But Biden was a test
of my theory. Yes, right, Biden was a real world
experiment of is it the machinery and not the man
with Trump. That's obviously not the case, but I'm just
saying it can be what we just.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Saw well, and this is why I think Elon Musk
has been so frustrated. And look, I love that Elon
Musk and Scott Bessant and Howard Ludnik and all of
these guys that are super successful outside of government are
in government trying to do their best. Trump is a
great example of that too, but in sports, and I've
(09:15):
never seen it applied in politics, but I love the
concept and it's such an interesting one. There's something called
win over replacement value, and it's a I think you
can apply it to all of your life. It's such
an interesting concept. You know, there's basically a war, you know,
win above replacement for every player. And I mentioned Aaron
Judge is the best player in baseball right now statistically
(09:38):
across the board. His stats a New York Yankee player
are off the charts. He is worth multiple wins compared
to someone that might be replacing him at a position.
I think you can apply it to politics. How much
better is Trump not only than any other Republican but
than Kamala I think massively right, because over every day,
(10:01):
every decision. The trajectory of the USS aircraft carrier is
very different based on the judgments Trump is making versus
what Kama is making versus what Biden did. But within
the constraints, I would argue that it is impossible for
any president to move faster and break more things than
(10:23):
Trump has done in the first hundred days. And therefore,
when you call in and say, and I understand people
get frustrated, But I think it's important to understand the
larger construct. There are people out there who will tell you, oh,
the president can do whatever he wants, and he can
take forty eight thousand different actions. And the reality is
(10:45):
Trump is moving faster and breaking more things than anything
I have ever seen from any president in the history
of our country. And if you are out there saying
he needs to move faster and he needs to break
more things, I respect it. I would just point out
that historically, no one has moved at the pace that
(11:06):
Trump has ever in the history of the United States government.
I really think that's true. And they're trying to make
government move more like a business. And if you have
ever run a business, one of the great things about
sitting at the head of the table if you own
the businesses, for better or worse, you make a decision
and buck. One of the management lessons that I think
I've learned is it's better to make a wrong decision
(11:28):
than not do anything. And some people think that's crazy,
but actually it's important because it's a wrong decision.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
One of the things that at the CIA farm, this
is our training facility that they would always talk about
in the context of counter ambush, somebody's trying to take
you out. They would just and I know this military
talks about this too, but they would say get off
the X, and they drilled into our brain when you
(11:57):
are under threat, the worst thing you can do is nothing.
The worst thing you can do is I don't want
to make the wrong decision, so I make no decision.
Yes that you can pay with your life or that one.
There there's a broader lesson, there's a broader principle there.
You got to just do sometimes because sitting around and
(12:18):
especially given the time constraints. I think the Trump administration
is under with the midterms. As we've discussed that moving
as fast as possible, Moving as fast as possible is
its own advantage in a system which we've already seen
for all of our adult for all of our lives.
That can always fall back on inaction as its preferred plan.
(12:41):
And the Democrats were hoping that there would be inertia
even with Trump coming in. The inertia of government would
be a protection for what they want, which is the
status quo. Yes, no, he's smashing that by moving so
fast in so many places.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
And I would argue again, this is me being a
hit history nerd. Probably the person who's moved the government
the fastest in the lives of anyone out there that
is listening to us right now, certainly the adult lives
of anyone that's listening is Lyndon Johnson. And Lindon Johnson
was able to move the government so rapidly in his
one term after one term plus change when he took
(13:19):
over for JFK, because he was a genius of Senate procedure,
and so he was able to move Congress at a
speed in the Senate in particular that it had never
moved at before because he knew the inner workings of
procedure in the Senate, having spent time there better than
almost anyone. Corrollary to that was Charlie Wilson's War where
(13:40):
I for Doc whatever his name is, I forget now.
But the member of Congress who was like on the
you know, the Finance Spending Committee, whatever it was at
the time, and Charlie Wilson knew, if I just got
this guy in my pocket, I got whoever I need
in my pocket to get the things through that I
need to get through. So understanding that system is critical.
Trump has come in not just with the right team
(14:01):
to decide, but with people like Steven Miller and others
who know how the system functions. And this is part
of what I think Clay has driven Democrats so insane
because first time around Trump great ideas first term, not
an understanding of the system. So yes, a huge, huge
difference this time around. You're listening to Team forty seven
(14:24):
with Clay and Buck. We're joined now by Senator Ran Paul,
a great State of Kentucky and Senat Paul. I know
there's a ton of things we're going to get into
with you, but I want to start with this Anthony Fauci.
The evidence continues to mount that he lied about gain
a function research. You, uniquely, I think in the entire
(14:45):
political class, have continued to hold his feet to the fire.
What is the latest about that that you can tell us.
Speaker 7 (14:52):
We've been trying to get records on the deliberation of
who made the call to send the money to Wuhan,
the research, the lab, the league, who funded it. We
know the NIH did it. If we're going to know
who met about it, who discussed it, and who made
the final approval, we think that's Anthony Fauci, and we're
getting closer to that. The Biden administration refused to give
us any documents. They basically refused for years to give
(15:15):
any Robert Kennedy has opened up the books to us.
Jay Battachari and NIH is also helping us, and we're
sorting through it and we're going to begin interviewing everybody
who's part of the process. So there's a committee over
there that discussed it. When Fauci said, everybody told him
that it wasn't gain a function, it's interesting though, that
the committee has documents, and in the documents they have
(15:39):
EcoHealth Alliance. This is a group that got the money
that took it to Wuhan. They have EcoHealth Alliance sending
notes back to the NIAH saying thank you for lifting
our gain of function. Pause so they were paused. The
government quits funding gain of function between fourteen and twenty sixteen.
They thanked them for lifting their pause on the same
(15:59):
research that she said was never gain function. So how
do you lift a pause in funding for a project
that was never gained a function if it was never
again a function. So we've got evidence like that. But ultimately,
once we've interviewed everybody, we will get to Anthony Fauci.
That will be within a month or two, and we'll
be having him come in and testify.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
In terms of that testimony, what are you hoping to
be able to get final answers from Fauci on and
given the Senator Paul, given the preemptive pardon that he
was given, which is still pretty remarkable when I say
that out loud, that that even happened, what are you
hoping the final disposition of this whole situation will be?
Speaker 7 (16:42):
You know, you realize with a preemptive pardon where they
don't even list your crime, that he's pardoned for anything
stealing in a larceny, grand larceny, assault, you name it.
He's pardoned for anything he could have done over a
ten year period. It's the craziest thing I've ever heard.
I've never ever heard of a pardon. It's preemptive and
also include any possible crime he committed over a ten
(17:02):
year period. I don't have high hopes that he's going
to be ultimately held criminally responsible, but I think it's
important that history judges him accurately and harshly. He made
a decision that led to the million, millions of people dying,
basically a decision to fund a lab that was not
up to safety standards and fund research that was incredibly dangerous.
(17:26):
We also were concerned that this kind of research still
goes on. So the President came out in the last
day or so with a pause once again on gain
to function research, importantly, not just in our country, but
a pause on all funding we do around the world,
because of course, you know, Uncle Sam funds everybody's research
lab everywhere in the world. And some of this, some
(17:47):
people conjecture Anthony Fauci farmed out because he wanted less scrutiny.
So if he wanted, you know, for example, some of
the most gruesome stuff that was done on beagles was
done in Tunisia. They did in Tunisia hoping that their
sensibility is about sewing their eyelids open and infecting them
with sand fleas and then cutting their larynx out so
you couldn't hear the dogs cry. That there'd be less
(18:09):
sensibility for that somewhere else other than the United States.
But same way with the gain of function, we think
some of it was farmed out. We need to know
the degree of this, and we need to get to
the bottom of it. We're also very concerned with a
couple of labs near Fort Dietrich. Kennedy closed one down
and the media reported he was anti science. I heard
of the accurate story from Jay Batachari. The accurate story
(18:31):
is someone's hasmat suit was purposely cut in one of
the areas dealing with ebola in different very dangerous viruses.
So getting that kind of disease out of a lab,
if he were to have gotten infected, is incredibly dangerous.
And so next to that lab is an niht a
DHS lab Department of Homeland Security that we now have
(18:55):
reports are doing experiments aerosolizing ebola. We think that somebody,
you know, somebody representing the taxpayer and the citizens of
the country ought to be able to take a look
at these labs and find out what experiments are doing
and really should we be doing some of this.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
I think both all of this you just said is
really important because I think it answers two questions. One,
it is backward looking in the context of Fauci should
be seen as a villain of history and his full
trajectory of stories and lies should be analyzed for years
to come. That's backwards looking prospectively. As you just laid out,
the reason why this matters is if China created COVID,
(19:34):
which I think it's quite clear that they did, partly
based on having gain a function access to American taxpayer dollars,
we should be massively concerned about. As you just laid out,
whatever the next iteration of the virus that could be
created is because it could end up far more deadly
than anything that we dealt with with COVID. I think
(19:55):
that's kind of a synthesis of all of this For
people out there who would say, Okay, why are we
still talking about COVID.
Speaker 7 (20:01):
Well, you know, the next virus could be avian flu.
Avian flu has a fifty percent death rate. Coronavirus or
COVID was less than one percent, so avian flu. Currently
can a human can get it from chickens or from birds,
but doesn't go human to human. But there are experiments
trying to get it to go human to human, mammal
to mammal through the air. These have been funded by NIH.
(20:24):
This is the kind of stuff that has to be discussed.
Is it a death wish for humanity for someone to
try to get Avian flu and make it more transmissible
among humans? I think it is. We should be shouting
this from the rooftop. This kind of research should not occur,
and the taxpayer shouldn't pay for it. But I don't
know that we've actually gotten to that point yet. The
(20:44):
Trump administration's ban or at least temporary or maybe longer
on this as a good step. I have legislation that
would do this, and we actually have gotten bipartisan support.
I've passed it out unanimously out of committee last Congress.
I'm going to do it again in the next month
or so, and then we're hoping it can be included
in some kind of legislation that's going to pass soon.
(21:05):
But this would actually let President Trump appoint a panel
of scientists, and importantly, these scientists would not be ones
who get NIH grants, so they can't be bribed to
have an opinion. They will be independent voices, but experts
in their field, and they will examine all government research,
have access to all classified and unclassified documents, and they
(21:26):
will give their opinion on whether it should be funded,
and they will have the ability to stop funding. It
will be a powerful committee, but it won't be a
total ban. It would be we're going to look at
case by case. The reason you need that is if
you just ban it and then the next people come
in and say, well, that's not gain to function. That's
what Anthony Fauci did is oh, yeah, we were had
special safety for gain to function, but this wasn't gain
(21:47):
to function. Anthony Fauci to this day still argues that
the research and WU on that led to the death
of six to ten million people. He said that wasn't
gain a function, which nobody else he's other than Anthony
Fauci speaking.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
The Senator ran Paul Kentucky Senator on President Trump today.
He spoke about the houthis. I think he said there's
a deal that they have now. Essentially it's please stop
bombing us and we'll stop blowing up ships. But the
Houthis are an extension and allied with Iran. There's a
lot of talk right now about one of the kind
of I think you could say a rare disconnect or
(22:23):
disagreement at the senior levels of some of the Trump personnel,
and it has to do with Iran and what we
should do about Iran and its nuclear ambitions going forward.
How do you see that? Where do you think Trump
is on this and where would you like to see
this go?
Speaker 7 (22:41):
You know, I'm encouraged by the announcement today and Trump
shows great strength and they back down. So I think
that is a good thing. And my hope is that
we can get to a point where international shipping is
safe to go around the bend there and up to
the sus with regard to Iran, my hope is that
we can move forward. Is where Trump is different than
(23:01):
some of the neo conservatives. The new Conservatives never want
to get to the next step of negotiation. So Trump
goes in with a firm hand. But he does get
to the next step of negotiation. He did it with
North Korea. Didn't necessarily work out, but most of the neocons,
from Hillary Clinton to Bill Crystal would have never talked
to North Korea, they would never talk to an Iran. Ultimately,
(23:23):
getting to the point where we talk to them is
good because really the only realistic way of stopping them
from getting a new Colear weapon isn't all likely who
are likely hid through diplomacy. I don't think you can
bomb away their nuclear knowledge. I don't think once they
haven't rich unuranium. You know, a cupful of uranium enriched
to ninety five or ninety eight percent is probably enough
for a bomb. You know, once you get six or
(23:45):
eight or ten cupfuls of the uranium, you're mitched to
that point. You have the rest of the technical knowledge
to do it. You know, you can hide that thousands
of feet below the ground where no bomb can get to. So,
you know, I don't want that to happen, and we
want to top it. But ultimately it has to be
both stick and carrot. And so ultimately you have to
talk to people and you have to This is the
(24:07):
same thing we should be doing with Russia. You know,
they're wanting to put more more sanctions on Russia. The
Lindsey Graham Bill wants to put a five hundred percent
tariff on everybody who buys oil from Russia. You know
what that is. That's about forty or fifty countries by
oil and gas and from Russia. That five percent tariff
(24:27):
would be a shutdown of basically all all commerce in
the world. That mean, it's a terrible idea. What we
should be doing instead is going to Russia and say
you want to get back in the banking system, you
want to get rid of some sanctions, salming of Venezuela,
and let's have a ceasefire and peace stalks. I think
we have the ability to offer stuff, but I think
it's I think you we have so many sanctions already
(24:48):
on these countries that really to get to diplomacy and
get to peace, the peace should be offering to remove
sanctions and allow Russia back into the banking world. But
they have to do something real. It has to be
real seafire and has to really ultimately be a peace plan.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
All right, I know it's a complicated topic, but I
want to give you an opportunity to weigh in on
tariffs and analyze this. Reports today that India might be
willing to go to zero tariffs for American goods. It
seems to me that there is dual arguments here. One
is you hear it from a lot of Trump people, Hey,
we want to actually eliminate many of the tariffs and
(25:25):
have more free trade. The other argument is we need
to have more protectionist trade, potentially with China other countries.
How do you analyze this, what should we do? And
bigger picture, how does it impact the big beautiful bill.
I know that's a big question, but the tax cut
bill that's currently making its way along with border security
(25:47):
through Congress right now.
Speaker 7 (25:49):
There's two camps on tariffs. They're all pro tariff and
the Trump administration, but two camps, one of the Neanderthal camp.
The Neanderthal camp says that we keep tariffs on until
there's no more trade sits, Well, you think we're ever
going to get to the point where Bangladesh buys as
much from us as we five from them, the same
with Vietnam. We're a very, very rich country, and part
(26:10):
of a trade deficit is when you're richer, you buy
more stuff from other people than they buy from you.
So it's just that's a ridiculous ne and with all
sort of argument. The other camp says, well, we want
reciprocal agreements, we want fairness, but we'll you know, we'd
like to see lower tariffs. That's a more reasonable camp.
And I've actually said, well, I'm not for the tariffs,
and I think tariff's from this guided. If Trump is
(26:31):
able to use as a negotiating technique the ability of
lower terraffs with India and they get to a much
lower level than when we started, I'll be the first
to compliment him on that. But realize that the tariff
bill or the sanctioned bill that Lindsay is proposing on
Russia actually would tariff because India is an India and
China the two biggest purchasers of oil and gas from Russia,
(26:53):
and if you put a five hundred percent tariff, that's
going the opposite way. So I don't think we're going
to zero if we pass this new rights sanctioned bill
that puts a five hundred percent. A five hundred percent
tiff is an embargo. It's it's almost like a declaration
of war basically, So it's a it's a really really
really foolish notion. But if you know, they come up
(27:13):
with a deal with India, I will be the first
to compliment the President and say, bay job you know,
if he gets if he gets lower tariffs, we'll see
what happens. But I think that should be the goal
really with every country, and I would say even including China,
because I think the moment that we have no trade
with China is the moment that they become less predictable
(27:35):
and potentially more militaristic.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Senator one more for you only got about a minute,
but I just wanted to hear you weigh in on
this because I know government spending and are unsustainable debt
is something you've been talking about for a long time.
The doose cuts, I'm hearing there's been some cuts, actually
made a lot of cuts. Advise, what do you think
where are we on that?
Speaker 7 (27:55):
None of them actually count until they come back to Congress.
So if you say you've cut spending and UNUSS it's
actually booked by Congress, and Congress boats on it, it
doesn't really it hasn't been transmitted or accounted for. There's
supposedly a recision package. It can be voted on by
a simple majority. That's coming back to us of only
nine billion. That's a pittance. That's a rounding era. I'm
(28:15):
for it, but I'll think send us more please, we'll see.
But right now we've been hearing about that for two
weeks and haven't seen that. And if that gets over
here and the weak need Republicans won't go over that,
then I say, Katie, bar the door. You might as
well plan on a full scale bankruptcy in the country.
It's the Congress canting cut nine billion.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
On that note, Senator ra and Paul, thank you for
being with us. As always Strow, we appreciate it.
Speaker 7 (28:39):
Thank you,
The Team forty seven podcast is sponsored by Good Ranchers.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Making the American Farm Strong Again.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Team forty seven with Clay and Buck starts now.
Speaker 2 (00:13):
Hot off the presses, so to speak, clips of President
Trump from the Oval Office addressing some of the most
important news of the day. Let's start with the huge announcement.
Probably some people are saying the biggest announcement of all announcements.
We don't yet know much other than well, here's the
(00:33):
President saying it. Listen to him.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
We'll have maybe before we want to as you know,
the released in Saudi Arabia. We're going to Yuei and Qatar,
and that'll be I guess Monday night. Some of you
are coming with us. I think before then, we're gonna
have a.
Speaker 4 (00:49):
Very very big announcement to make, like as big as
it gets. And I won't tell you on what, but
it's gonna be and it's very positive. And also I
tell you if it was negative a positive, we can't
keep that.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
It is really really positive.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
And that announcement will be made either Thursday or Friday
or Monday before we leave, but it'll be one of
the most important announcements that have been made in many years.
About a certain subject, very important subject, so you'll all
be here.
Speaker 1 (01:20):
I'm guessing it's got to be the Abraham Accords with
Saudi Arabia coming on board.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
Yes, does that make sense to see? That makes the
most sense to me too. I don't think it's a
breakthrough with Iran. We would have gotten some whispers about
that beforehand. And plus I just don't think Iron's ever
going to say, you know what, we're not gonna get nukes.
So I think that Saudi. It might be in agreement
with Saudi that is an extension of the Abraham Accords
and also a commitment from Saudi to invest you know,
(01:49):
a trillion dollars in the US over the next twenty
years or something, I don't know whatever, trillion dollars a
lot of money, not so much to Saudi. I feel
like they'll pay that for a soccer team these days.
But yeah, yeah, that's something that I think is a
likely possibility. I would love to think that it would be,
you know, turning all the hostages from israel I from
a Hamas to Israel. But I think that that is
(02:12):
now going into a different phase of the Israelis are
doing the final push in that operation as they well should,
and that's going to change some dynamics in the Middle
East too.
Speaker 1 (02:25):
I also think it has to be someone that you
have good relations with in order to be confident that
that deal is going to be able to be announced.
Does that make sense? Like Iran is constantly shifting. They
may say something on Wednesday that's different than what they
said on Monday. You can't really rely on them Hamas,
you can't rely on anything related to what they might
(02:48):
say publicly. So I think it would have to be
someone that the government would have a good relationship with
that you could rely on being reasonable. I don't think
you could say, for instance, with Vladimir Putin and Russia,
that you feel comfortable enough in them to even forecast
something like this. So that's why I think the idea
(03:10):
of the Abraham Accords being expanded, which is hugely important
long range in the Middle East. By the way, this
is something that is significant that I saw. Also, there's
a report that Trump, I don't know if if he
said this or if this is an official report, that
India has basically agreed to zero tariffs on American products
(03:33):
inside of their country. That could be utterly transformative in
the decades ahead, because India is now the biggest country
in the world, and unlike China, which is collapsing in
population and I think has already peaked. I think India
is going to become the second biggest economy in the
world in the next fifty years.
Speaker 2 (03:56):
And this, then, I think, is a good moment for
us to take a look at what is being said
now from some very infant, very astute places about the
Trump tariffs conversation. Glenn Youngkin one of the I would
say top five, maybe top ten, top five governors in
(04:18):
America right now in Virginia doing a great job, and
also a former very senior level executive, and he was
the CEO of the Carlisle Group, which is one of
the largest private equity firms in the world. This is
the governor of Virginia, and like I said, a guy
who also understands private industry saying that, well, I'll let
(04:38):
you hear it from him. This has cut three.
Speaker 5 (04:40):
I expect that long term we will have an accelerated
growth and I'm very optimistic. I think in the near term,
as the President resets these imbalanced trade relationships and restores
fiscal responsibility into Washington we're going to see this location.
It's just a reality. But what I do firmly expect
is in investment from companies around the world to accelerate.
(05:02):
I expect job growth to accelerate.
Speaker 2 (05:05):
I think you're already beginning to see some of that.
The jobs numbers. This is Scott Besson. This has cut
one in the first one hundred days. You need to
hear about these jobs. Remember, it's not all government, you know,
make believe jobs, or at least low show jobs. It's
jobs in the actual economy. This is from the Treasury
Secretary Play One.
Speaker 6 (05:25):
The core components of the Trump economic agenda are trade,
tax cuts, and deregulation. These are not standalone policies. They
are interlocking parts of an engine designed to drive economic
growth and domestic manufacturing. Tax Cuts and cost savings from
deregulation raise real incomes for families and businesses. TIFFs create
(05:47):
an incentive for reshoring jobs and fair trade. And deregulation
complements tariffs by making it easier to invest in energy
and manufacturing projects. Already, this agenda is bearing fruit. In
the first one hundred days the new administration, four hundred
and sixty four thousand new jobs were added to the economy.
Speaker 2 (06:09):
Clay, that people just need to give this some time.
And I think what you're seeing here is, first of all,
I just fifteen years in conservative media. All in the
beginning of this. When I got into this, we would
always hear we need private industry minds in government. We
need people who understand how jobs are created in the economy,
(06:34):
not by siphoning money from tax payers to people who
don't actually necessarily do anything or add anything with some
of these government with some of this government bloat. We
have this now in a way we not only on
the advisors, but Trump himself, right, somebody who understands the
private sector. You look at even Scott Bessant, you compare
him to Biden's Treasury secretary Janet Yellen. Yellen is an
(07:00):
an academic economist. Okay, that's who was running the Treasury before.
Bessen is a guy who had to place multi billion
dollar bets and be right about the trajectory of economic growth,
about what was actually going to happen in the global economy.
We have doers and practitioners now, Clay, not theorists and
(07:23):
faculty lounge layabouts.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, and again I think that's why you know, the
caller from San Diego's fired up. I think people sometimes
have unrealistic expectations of what is capable of doing with
the ship of state. And I've had this analogy made
to me a lot over the years. You know, in
(07:48):
the world of sports, the smaller the team, the quicker
you can adjust the direction. So if you're a basketball coach,
it's like a speedboat. You can change a couple of players.
You can turn it around football teams, an aircraft carrier.
The United States is the largest floatable ship on the planet.
(08:08):
It's very hard to turn it in any particular direction. Now,
sometimes that can be good because if people make really
poor choices, then the degree to which they can shift
the direction of the country is limited. But you've made
the argument for years here, and it's a pessimistic one,
but I think there's some truth to it that the
president doesn't largely matter because the apparatus surrounding the president
(08:33):
is such that they're going to direct the ship in
the way they see best.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
And you made that argus. But Biden was a test
of my theory. Yes, right, Biden was a real world
experiment of is it the machinery and not the man
with Trump. That's obviously not the case, but I'm just
saying it can be what we just.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Saw well, and this is why I think Elon Musk
has been so frustrated. And look, I love that Elon
Musk and Scott Bessant and Howard Ludnik and all of
these guys that are super successful outside of government are
in government trying to do their best. Trump is a
great example of that too, but in sports, and I've
(09:15):
never seen it applied in politics, but I love the
concept and it's such an interesting one. There's something called
win over replacement value, and it's a I think you
can apply it to all of your life. It's such
an interesting concept. You know, there's basically a war, you know,
win above replacement for every player. And I mentioned Aaron
Judge is the best player in baseball right now statistically
(09:38):
across the board. His stats a New York Yankee player
are off the charts. He is worth multiple wins compared
to someone that might be replacing him at a position.
I think you can apply it to politics. How much
better is Trump not only than any other Republican but
than Kamala I think massively right, because over every day,
(10:01):
every decision. The trajectory of the USS aircraft carrier is
very different based on the judgments Trump is making versus
what Kama is making versus what Biden did. But within
the constraints, I would argue that it is impossible for
any president to move faster and break more things than
(10:23):
Trump has done in the first hundred days. And therefore,
when you call in and say, and I understand people
get frustrated, But I think it's important to understand the
larger construct. There are people out there who will tell you, oh,
the president can do whatever he wants, and he can
take forty eight thousand different actions. And the reality is
(10:45):
Trump is moving faster and breaking more things than anything
I have ever seen from any president in the history
of our country. And if you are out there saying
he needs to move faster and he needs to break
more things, I respect it. I would just point out
that historically, no one has moved at the pace that
(11:06):
Trump has ever in the history of the United States government.
I really think that's true. And they're trying to make
government move more like a business. And if you have
ever run a business, one of the great things about
sitting at the head of the table if you own
the businesses, for better or worse, you make a decision
and buck. One of the management lessons that I think
I've learned is it's better to make a wrong decision
(11:28):
than not do anything. And some people think that's crazy,
but actually it's important because it's a wrong decision.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
One of the things that at the CIA farm, this
is our training facility that they would always talk about
in the context of counter ambush, somebody's trying to take
you out. They would just and I know this military
talks about this too, but they would say get off
the X, and they drilled into our brain when you
(11:57):
are under threat, the worst thing you can do is nothing.
The worst thing you can do is I don't want
to make the wrong decision, so I make no decision.
Yes that you can pay with your life or that one.
There there's a broader lesson, there's a broader principle there.
You got to just do sometimes because sitting around and
(12:18):
especially given the time constraints. I think the Trump administration
is under with the midterms. As we've discussed that moving
as fast as possible, Moving as fast as possible is
its own advantage in a system which we've already seen
for all of our adult for all of our lives.
That can always fall back on inaction as its preferred plan.
(12:41):
And the Democrats were hoping that there would be inertia
even with Trump coming in. The inertia of government would
be a protection for what they want, which is the
status quo. Yes, no, he's smashing that by moving so
fast in so many places.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
And I would argue again, this is me being a
hit history nerd. Probably the person who's moved the government
the fastest in the lives of anyone out there that
is listening to us right now, certainly the adult lives
of anyone that's listening is Lyndon Johnson. And Lindon Johnson
was able to move the government so rapidly in his
one term after one term plus change when he took
(13:19):
over for JFK, because he was a genius of Senate procedure,
and so he was able to move Congress at a
speed in the Senate in particular that it had never
moved at before because he knew the inner workings of
procedure in the Senate, having spent time there better than
almost anyone. Corrollary to that was Charlie Wilson's War where
(13:40):
I for Doc whatever his name is, I forget now.
But the member of Congress who was like on the
you know, the Finance Spending Committee, whatever it was at
the time, and Charlie Wilson knew, if I just got
this guy in my pocket, I got whoever I need
in my pocket to get the things through that I
need to get through. So understanding that system is critical.
Trump has come in not just with the right team
(14:01):
to decide, but with people like Steven Miller and others
who know how the system functions. And this is part
of what I think Clay has driven Democrats so insane
because first time around Trump great ideas first term, not
an understanding of the system. So yes, a huge, huge
difference this time around. You're listening to Team forty seven
(14:24):
with Clay and Buck. We're joined now by Senator Ran Paul,
a great State of Kentucky and Senat Paul. I know
there's a ton of things we're going to get into
with you, but I want to start with this Anthony Fauci.
The evidence continues to mount that he lied about gain
a function research. You, uniquely, I think in the entire
(14:45):
political class, have continued to hold his feet to the fire.
What is the latest about that that you can tell us.
Speaker 7 (14:52):
We've been trying to get records on the deliberation of
who made the call to send the money to Wuhan,
the research, the lab, the league, who funded it. We
know the NIH did it. If we're going to know
who met about it, who discussed it, and who made
the final approval, we think that's Anthony Fauci, and we're
getting closer to that. The Biden administration refused to give
us any documents. They basically refused for years to give
(15:15):
any Robert Kennedy has opened up the books to us.
Jay Battachari and NIH is also helping us, and we're
sorting through it and we're going to begin interviewing everybody
who's part of the process. So there's a committee over
there that discussed it. When Fauci said, everybody told him
that it wasn't gain a function, it's interesting though, that
the committee has documents, and in the documents they have
(15:39):
EcoHealth Alliance. This is a group that got the money
that took it to Wuhan. They have EcoHealth Alliance sending
notes back to the NIAH saying thank you for lifting
our gain of function. Pause so they were paused. The
government quits funding gain of function between fourteen and twenty sixteen.
They thanked them for lifting their pause on the same
(15:59):
research that she said was never gain function. So how
do you lift a pause in funding for a project
that was never gained a function if it was never
again a function. So we've got evidence like that. But ultimately,
once we've interviewed everybody, we will get to Anthony Fauci.
That will be within a month or two, and we'll
be having him come in and testify.
Speaker 2 (16:19):
In terms of that testimony, what are you hoping to
be able to get final answers from Fauci on and
given the Senator Paul, given the preemptive pardon that he
was given, which is still pretty remarkable when I say
that out loud, that that even happened, what are you
hoping the final disposition of this whole situation will be?
Speaker 7 (16:42):
You know, you realize with a preemptive pardon where they
don't even list your crime, that he's pardoned for anything
stealing in a larceny, grand larceny, assault, you name it.
He's pardoned for anything he could have done over a
ten year period. It's the craziest thing I've ever heard.
I've never ever heard of a pardon. It's preemptive and
also include any possible crime he committed over a ten
(17:02):
year period. I don't have high hopes that he's going
to be ultimately held criminally responsible, but I think it's
important that history judges him accurately and harshly. He made
a decision that led to the million, millions of people dying,
basically a decision to fund a lab that was not
up to safety standards and fund research that was incredibly dangerous.
(17:26):
We also were concerned that this kind of research still
goes on. So the President came out in the last
day or so with a pause once again on gain
to function research, importantly, not just in our country, but
a pause on all funding we do around the world,
because of course, you know, Uncle Sam funds everybody's research
lab everywhere in the world. And some of this, some
(17:47):
people conjecture Anthony Fauci farmed out because he wanted less scrutiny.
So if he wanted, you know, for example, some of
the most gruesome stuff that was done on beagles was
done in Tunisia. They did in Tunisia hoping that their
sensibility is about sewing their eyelids open and infecting them
with sand fleas and then cutting their larynx out so
you couldn't hear the dogs cry. That there'd be less
(18:09):
sensibility for that somewhere else other than the United States.
But same way with the gain of function, we think
some of it was farmed out. We need to know
the degree of this, and we need to get to
the bottom of it. We're also very concerned with a
couple of labs near Fort Dietrich. Kennedy closed one down
and the media reported he was anti science. I heard
of the accurate story from Jay Batachari. The accurate story
(18:31):
is someone's hasmat suit was purposely cut in one of
the areas dealing with ebola in different very dangerous viruses.
So getting that kind of disease out of a lab,
if he were to have gotten infected, is incredibly dangerous.
And so next to that lab is an niht a
DHS lab Department of Homeland Security that we now have
(18:55):
reports are doing experiments aerosolizing ebola. We think that somebody,
you know, somebody representing the taxpayer and the citizens of
the country ought to be able to take a look
at these labs and find out what experiments are doing
and really should we be doing some of this.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
I think both all of this you just said is
really important because I think it answers two questions. One,
it is backward looking in the context of Fauci should
be seen as a villain of history and his full
trajectory of stories and lies should be analyzed for years
to come. That's backwards looking prospectively. As you just laid out,
the reason why this matters is if China created COVID,
(19:34):
which I think it's quite clear that they did, partly
based on having gain a function access to American taxpayer dollars,
we should be massively concerned about. As you just laid out,
whatever the next iteration of the virus that could be
created is because it could end up far more deadly
than anything that we dealt with with COVID. I think
(19:55):
that's kind of a synthesis of all of this For
people out there who would say, Okay, why are we
still talking about COVID.
Speaker 7 (20:01):
Well, you know, the next virus could be avian flu.
Avian flu has a fifty percent death rate. Coronavirus or
COVID was less than one percent, so avian flu. Currently
can a human can get it from chickens or from birds,
but doesn't go human to human. But there are experiments
trying to get it to go human to human, mammal
to mammal through the air. These have been funded by NIH.
(20:24):
This is the kind of stuff that has to be discussed.
Is it a death wish for humanity for someone to
try to get Avian flu and make it more transmissible
among humans? I think it is. We should be shouting
this from the rooftop. This kind of research should not occur,
and the taxpayer shouldn't pay for it. But I don't
know that we've actually gotten to that point yet. The
(20:44):
Trump administration's ban or at least temporary or maybe longer
on this as a good step. I have legislation that
would do this, and we actually have gotten bipartisan support.
I've passed it out unanimously out of committee last Congress.
I'm going to do it again in the next month
or so, and then we're hoping it can be included
in some kind of legislation that's going to pass soon.
(21:05):
But this would actually let President Trump appoint a panel
of scientists, and importantly, these scientists would not be ones
who get NIH grants, so they can't be bribed to
have an opinion. They will be independent voices, but experts
in their field, and they will examine all government research,
have access to all classified and unclassified documents, and they
(21:26):
will give their opinion on whether it should be funded,
and they will have the ability to stop funding. It
will be a powerful committee, but it won't be a
total ban. It would be we're going to look at
case by case. The reason you need that is if
you just ban it and then the next people come
in and say, well, that's not gain to function. That's
what Anthony Fauci did is oh, yeah, we were had
special safety for gain to function, but this wasn't gain
(21:47):
to function. Anthony Fauci to this day still argues that
the research and WU on that led to the death
of six to ten million people. He said that wasn't
gain a function, which nobody else he's other than Anthony
Fauci speaking.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
The Senator ran Paul Kentucky Senator on President Trump today.
He spoke about the houthis. I think he said there's
a deal that they have now. Essentially it's please stop
bombing us and we'll stop blowing up ships. But the
Houthis are an extension and allied with Iran. There's a
lot of talk right now about one of the kind
of I think you could say a rare disconnect or
(22:23):
disagreement at the senior levels of some of the Trump personnel,
and it has to do with Iran and what we
should do about Iran and its nuclear ambitions going forward.
How do you see that? Where do you think Trump
is on this and where would you like to see
this go?
Speaker 7 (22:41):
You know, I'm encouraged by the announcement today and Trump
shows great strength and they back down. So I think
that is a good thing. And my hope is that
we can get to a point where international shipping is
safe to go around the bend there and up to
the sus with regard to Iran, my hope is that
we can move forward. Is where Trump is different than
(23:01):
some of the neo conservatives. The new Conservatives never want
to get to the next step of negotiation. So Trump
goes in with a firm hand. But he does get
to the next step of negotiation. He did it with
North Korea. Didn't necessarily work out, but most of the neocons,
from Hillary Clinton to Bill Crystal would have never talked
to North Korea, they would never talk to an Iran. Ultimately,
(23:23):
getting to the point where we talk to them is
good because really the only realistic way of stopping them
from getting a new Colear weapon isn't all likely who
are likely hid through diplomacy. I don't think you can
bomb away their nuclear knowledge. I don't think once they
haven't rich unuranium. You know, a cupful of uranium enriched
to ninety five or ninety eight percent is probably enough
for a bomb. You know, once you get six or
(23:45):
eight or ten cupfuls of the uranium, you're mitched to
that point. You have the rest of the technical knowledge
to do it. You know, you can hide that thousands
of feet below the ground where no bomb can get to. So,
you know, I don't want that to happen, and we
want to top it. But ultimately it has to be
both stick and carrot. And so ultimately you have to
talk to people and you have to This is the
(24:07):
same thing we should be doing with Russia. You know,
they're wanting to put more more sanctions on Russia. The
Lindsey Graham Bill wants to put a five hundred percent
tariff on everybody who buys oil from Russia. You know
what that is. That's about forty or fifty countries by
oil and gas and from Russia. That five percent tariff
(24:27):
would be a shutdown of basically all all commerce in
the world. That mean, it's a terrible idea. What we
should be doing instead is going to Russia and say
you want to get back in the banking system, you
want to get rid of some sanctions, salming of Venezuela,
and let's have a ceasefire and peace stalks. I think
we have the ability to offer stuff, but I think
it's I think you we have so many sanctions already
(24:48):
on these countries that really to get to diplomacy and
get to peace, the peace should be offering to remove
sanctions and allow Russia back into the banking world. But
they have to do something real. It has to be
real seafire and has to really ultimately be a peace plan.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
All right, I know it's a complicated topic, but I
want to give you an opportunity to weigh in on
tariffs and analyze this. Reports today that India might be
willing to go to zero tariffs for American goods. It
seems to me that there is dual arguments here. One
is you hear it from a lot of Trump people, Hey,
we want to actually eliminate many of the tariffs and
(25:25):
have more free trade. The other argument is we need
to have more protectionist trade, potentially with China other countries.
How do you analyze this, what should we do? And
bigger picture, how does it impact the big beautiful bill.
I know that's a big question, but the tax cut
bill that's currently making its way along with border security
(25:47):
through Congress right now.
Speaker 7 (25:49):
There's two camps on tariffs. They're all pro tariff and
the Trump administration, but two camps, one of the Neanderthal camp.
The Neanderthal camp says that we keep tariffs on until
there's no more trade sits, Well, you think we're ever
going to get to the point where Bangladesh buys as
much from us as we five from them, the same
with Vietnam. We're a very, very rich country, and part
(26:10):
of a trade deficit is when you're richer, you buy
more stuff from other people than they buy from you.
So it's just that's a ridiculous ne and with all
sort of argument. The other camp says, well, we want
reciprocal agreements, we want fairness, but we'll you know, we'd
like to see lower tariffs. That's a more reasonable camp.
And I've actually said, well, I'm not for the tariffs,
and I think tariff's from this guided. If Trump is
(26:31):
able to use as a negotiating technique the ability of
lower terraffs with India and they get to a much
lower level than when we started, I'll be the first
to compliment him on that. But realize that the tariff
bill or the sanctioned bill that Lindsay is proposing on
Russia actually would tariff because India is an India and
China the two biggest purchasers of oil and gas from Russia,
(26:53):
and if you put a five hundred percent tariff, that's
going the opposite way. So I don't think we're going
to zero if we pass this new rights sanctioned bill
that puts a five hundred percent. A five hundred percent
tiff is an embargo. It's it's almost like a declaration
of war basically, So it's a it's a really really
really foolish notion. But if you know, they come up
(27:13):
with a deal with India, I will be the first
to compliment the President and say, bay job you know,
if he gets if he gets lower tariffs, we'll see
what happens. But I think that should be the goal
really with every country, and I would say even including China,
because I think the moment that we have no trade
with China is the moment that they become less predictable
(27:35):
and potentially more militaristic.
Speaker 2 (27:37):
Senator one more for you only got about a minute,
but I just wanted to hear you weigh in on
this because I know government spending and are unsustainable debt
is something you've been talking about for a long time.
The doose cuts, I'm hearing there's been some cuts, actually
made a lot of cuts. Advise, what do you think
where are we on that?
Speaker 7 (27:55):
None of them actually count until they come back to Congress.
So if you say you've cut spending and UNUSS it's
actually booked by Congress, and Congress boats on it, it
doesn't really it hasn't been transmitted or accounted for. There's
supposedly a recision package. It can be voted on by
a simple majority. That's coming back to us of only
nine billion. That's a pittance. That's a rounding era. I'm
(28:15):
for it, but I'll think send us more please, we'll see.
But right now we've been hearing about that for two
weeks and haven't seen that. And if that gets over
here and the weak need Republicans won't go over that,
then I say, Katie, bar the door. You might as
well plan on a full scale bankruptcy in the country.
It's the Congress canting cut nine billion.
Speaker 2 (28:34):
On that note, Senator ra and Paul, thank you for
being with us. As always Strow, we appreciate it.
Speaker 7 (28:39):
Thank you,
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.