May 29, 2025 • 47 mins
This week on Power Hour, US court blocks Trump’s tariffs, Musk thanks Trump as he exits DOGE, DNC Vice Chair drops Biden bombshell, Disney boss tells 'The View' to tone it down, Dems’ $20M ‘American Man’ plan mocked, and Harry’s bizarre China trip.
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 (00:02):
This is Power Hour with Gabriella Power.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Hello and welcome to Power Hour. I'm Gabriella Power. Thank
you for your company. We have a massive show lined
up today, but first let's get straight into media meltdowns. Well,
this week French President and Manuel mccron was assaulted by
his seventy two year old wife, First Lady Bridget.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Mccron for the world to see.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And although the slap was caught on camera, the French
president insists that they were just joking, which we all
know is a lie. But let's look at how scene
in covered the incident. Scene in video of Bridget mccron
pushing President mccron fuels Russian disinformation. Russian disinformation? Whom have
we heard that from the leftist media?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Before?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
You know, that was the narrative around Hunter Biden's laptop.
We were told that Russia medaled in the twenty sixteen election.
And now there's footage of the French president being slapped
by his wife. What do they do They link the
story to Russian disinformation. It's almost like there's a pattern
here when it comes to one side of politics. Now,
Macron's offers put out a statement saying they were just
(01:16):
horsing around, and that was all that was needed to
give ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. Now, I do have
to say that there are some wild conspiracies about the
first Lady around out there that are completely absurd, But
it is not a conspiracy that Bridget mccron slapped her husband,
and it really has a lot of people reflecting on
their romantic love story. Where Bridget was Emmanuel's teacher. She
(01:41):
was nearly forty years old and he was just fifteen
when they met, which is really gross when you think
about it. But the hosts of the view have discussed
the incident on the plane and who would have seen
this coming? But Whoopee Goldberg has come out leaping to
the couple's defense and Bridget's defense, insisting that she was
simply reaching for her husband's face.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
What I saw and maybe I'm crazy, but I saw
someone doing this.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
Come here, let me move on.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
I did not see that. I saw embarrassed that.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
I saw, and I'm sure that's exactly what Whoopy would
say if this was.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Donald Trump and Millennia. And when other.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Hosts suggested that it was clearly I see between the couple,
as Brigitte refused to hold her husband's hand when he
offered it to her while the cameras were rolling. Well,
Whoopee has a brilliantly insightful explanation for that, too.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Joking narrative is sweet. I mean, we won't ever know
what's going on here, but I.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Can tell you why she won't take his hand. Why
because she doesn't want to look like she can't come
down the stairs or that.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
But there's versions, of.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Course, Thank goodness for Whoopee and her spot on analysis
were clearly violent. Bridget mccron is defended for her behavior.
Joinnings Now is Brent brey Cannon, GOP polster and messaging
a strategists brand.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Great to see you. I want to get.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Into the latest polling with you in a moment, But
first of all, can I get your reaction to how
the hosts of the View have covered the mcron slap.
I mean, if it was Donald Trump and Millennia, I'm
sure would get a pretty different perspective.
Speaker 5 (03:25):
I think I was the third person today to watch
the View after you sent me the link to their
Twitter post. But I can tell you normal Americans do
not respond to watching the View, and honestly, I was
a bit shocked in the fact that they really didn't
go after defending mccron's wife very hard.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Okay, look, it comes after reports that Disney CEO Bob
IgA asked the co hosts of the View to turn
down the heated political retric aa aka rather their anti
Trump retric And in case you're not familiar with just
how far these hosts, he's a reminder.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Take him seriously and take him literally.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
We have to.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
I think it would be.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Remiss of us to not say, Joe Biden knows how
to do this.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Yes, he knows how to do this.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
He's he's quite.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
Good at this.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
And you know, you can't refute anything with him because
he just when I say him, I mean, he tends
to just.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Can I mention one thing?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Spitting while speaking about the president? That is what you
get when you watch will be Goldberg. So Disney sources
told The Daily Beasts that both Disney and the AB
Seniors president recently suggested that the talk show hosts be
less antagonistic on political issues. Brent, is this actually going
to help the View or really, when you look at
their coverage time and time again, should they just be
(04:57):
canceled at this point?
Speaker 5 (05:00):
Well, if you're speaking to highly educated white women with
no children or no children at home, who have nothing
to do except watch The View, and that really is
the new base of the Democratic Party, then maybe the
View actually has a place. But when you look at
the broad spectrum of what Americans want is they want
to be more in the center or actually not political
(05:22):
at all. And so this call to the View is
really a reaction to the twenty twenty four election, which
basically stopped the swing of the political pendulum. And so
what happened with Obama's election in two thousand and eight
is that after he got elected, he said, let me
take this pendulum and swing it as far to left
as possible. And what's going to happen to the pendulum.
It's going to swing to the right equally. And that's
(05:44):
how we got Donald Trump. And so when Joe Biden
came in, he said, well, Obama didn't go far enough.
Let me pull that pendulum even further. And then it
swung further to the right with Donald Trump two point zero.
And now you have these TV shows like The View
and Disney and others who are looking at their base,
their subscriber base, their viewership and seeing a plumbting and
(06:06):
realizing that they have pulled the pendulum way too far
to the left.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Let's get into the polling and the data. Now, Trump
has been back in power for nearly one hundred and
thirty days and in that time there's been a massive
shift in how Americans feel about the country and the
direction that it's heading in. So at the time of
the election in November last year, when Joe Biden was
in power, more than seventy five percent of Americans believe
the country was going in the wrong direction, which is
(06:32):
of course part of the reason Donald Trump delivered such
a landslide victory. Now we have Trump back. He's been
back in power for some time. He's been getting the
work done. And the latest polling by Rasmussen has found
that fifty percent of Americans believe the country is on
the right track, and that same polling group has found
that Trump's approval rating is at fifty three percent. Look,
(06:55):
it's fascinating because, whether you like him or not, it
appears as though he's certainly giving people confidence about what's
ahead about the future, and his approval rating will it
suggests that people do think that he's doing a great job.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
What do you put this down to, Well.
Speaker 5 (07:11):
Those numbers are a bit rosy, but there's definitely a
trend to where Donald Trump's image has improved. I mean,
we've seen it in our weekly polling also, and a
lot of it comes from the fact that Americans definitely
wanted change, but Trump brought so much change within his
first hundred days that they really didn't understand how to
grasp what all was going on. Every single day he
(07:33):
was coming out with something brand new, changing what they'd
known for years. And now it feels like the pace
has slowed down a little bit of how many changes
are happening. So I really say the first hundred days
were probably the hardest but the most important for Donald Trump,
and in the last thirty days there's been a bit
more stability in how much change is coming. And that
(07:56):
is really what is driving this reaction to Donald Trump's
image improving in the last month or so.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Okay, Well, meanwhile, Democrats are not polling well at all.
Recent polling from NBC and Fox News had the Democrats
reaching an.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
All time low.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
I want to get your thoughts on why that could
be in a moment, but I want to talk to
you about this bizarre new strategy that they're putting in place.
We know that the Democrats know how to waste money.
We saw that in the election campaign last year, where
Kamala Harris blew more than a billion dollars in a
few months for what was essentially a disastrous election campaign.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
But just when you thought that, you know, they.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Couldn't waste any more money, or what they spend money
on couldn't be more ridiculous. The Democrats are spending twenty
million dollars on a study examining how to speak to
American men. The New York Times reports that they're twenty
million dollar project speaking with American Men, a strategic plan.
(08:52):
We'll look at the language and content that gains the
attention of male voters. So this, of course comes after
their brutal election last where fifty three percent of men
aged between eighteen and forty four supported Donald Trump. So, Brent,
what's your assessment of these twenty million dollars on learning
how to speak to men? Is that really going to
help them?
Speaker 6 (09:14):
Well?
Speaker 5 (09:14):
First off, I would like to offer, for only ten
million dollars a study in how to understand people who
watch the view and that probably will turn out about
as well as this twenty million dollars studying how to
speak to men. But no joke, There was actually a
study done a couple of years ago about testosterone levels
and men and how that affected their political views, and
(09:35):
so this must be low testosterone men trying to figure
out how to speak to men with normal and high testosterone.
But really what it comes down to is that Democrats
are now the party of the coastal elites, and these
folks have no clue how to talk to normal folks,
and so they're trying to throw money at the problem
as opposed to looking internally and saying, what have we
(09:56):
done and said and what positions have we taken that
have made normal people male and female both turn away
from the left, not even the central left anymore, but
the left parties of the US and around the world
because they just do not understand normal folks anymore. They've
never run into a normal person in their everyday life.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
And the Democrats right now searching for a new leader.
They've been trying to rebrand for some time, and they
really haven't been able to gain momentum. Do you see
them turning this around.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
At some point? It looks pretty grim.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Well, it's really hard to be the party out of
power when your opposing party has such a strong leader
like the Republicans have in Donald Trump. I mean, I
remember back to the Obama days once he took power
in two thousand and nine, but it wasn't really until
the Tea Party movement came around after Obamacare was pushed
out and some of the plan changes to the tax laws.
(10:57):
But even then we didn't have a leader. We just
had a movement that was asking for our leader. And
so far the left hasn't even found its movement, and
without that they can't find their leader. We recently did
a study where we looked at and asked voters who
the head of the Democratic Party is and listed out
about ten to twelve options, and not even that Democrats
(11:18):
could come up with an answer over twenty percent of
who the own leader of their party was.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
It's interesting, Well, certainly the number one question that Americans
we're thinking while Joe Biden was in office was who
was actually running the country. And now a bombshell video
has emerged of the Democratic National Committee's vice chair David Hogg,
admitting who actually ran the twenty twenty four rice behind
the Saints The.
Speaker 5 (11:44):
Foundational question for me is like, how corrupt is the
DNC If so many people knew or a few people
knew about Biden, well the president.
Speaker 7 (11:52):
Of nice I mean I did the the DNC that
was going to be like a campaign arm of the president.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
Ultimately, the bigger issue was like the inner circle that
was around Biden.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
That's it. I keep stress, I keep strength to you enough.
Jill Biden's chief of staff.
Speaker 6 (12:07):
Like had an enormous amount of hour Jill Biden.
Speaker 5 (12:10):
Jill Biden's that was like an open secret of that.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
I would avoid him, think he was scary.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
So that was secretly recorded and then published by Project Veritas,
and there we have it. He's admitting that Jill Biden's
chief of staff, Anthony Bernal.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Had enormous power.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
And this comes after Jake Tapper's book Original Sin revealed
that former President Joe Biden's aides considered Jill Biden one
of the most powerful first ladies in history, which made
her top aid Anthney Bernel, one of the most influential
people in it the White House. What's your assessment of this.
How damning is this for Joe Biden.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
The only people who finally realized that Joe Biden was
not actually in charge of this country for the last
four years.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Is the media.
Speaker 5 (12:55):
And I don't know if they were complicit and hiding it,
but at minimum they were incompetent and not seeing it.
Because Americans realize this. That is why Joe Biden's image
was so bad. That is why the direction of the
country was so poor. Is because Americans actually knew what
was going on, because they saw it with their own
eyes and then they realized the consequences of it. And
(13:16):
for those of you who ever want to come to
the United States, if you ever go to a barbecue
joint that has a ceiling and a backdrop like that,
you have found the right barbecue place. Wherever they had
dinner with a Project Veritas and David Hogg, that's where
you want to go find American barbecue.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Finally, the Trump administration is cutting federal contracts with Harvard University,
intensifying the president's clash with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university.
Now Donald Trump is talking about giving the money that
was going to Harvard to trade schools.
Speaker 8 (13:45):
They're taking five billion dollars and I'd rather see that
money go to trade schools. And by the way. They're
totally anti semitic at Harvard, as you know, and some
other colleges do, in all fairness to them, and it's
been Oh, it's very exposed, and I.
Speaker 6 (14:01):
Think they're dealing very badly.
Speaker 8 (14:03):
Every time they fight, they lose another two hundred and
fifty million dollars. Yesterday we found another one hundred million.
And you know, they have a fund fifty two an
endowment fifty two billion dollars, all right, they get a
lot of that from the United States, and I think
it's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
It's an interesting argument.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Should this money go well towards trade schools instead of
funding woke Harvard? Is this going to win Donald Trump
political points?
Speaker 5 (14:35):
If you look at what's happened in American politics in
the last twenty years, it's really been driven by what
we call the diploma divide. So if you're not college educated,
twenty years ago, you were more likely to be a Democrat,
and now today you're more likely to be a Republican.
Speaker 6 (14:50):
And we just.
Speaker 5 (14:51):
Finished an exit study of the US election. We found
the folks who came out for the first time to
vote for Donald Trump, which means they'd skip twenty twenty
or the they weren't registered in twenty twenty and did
not participate. Eighty percent of them did not have a
college degree. And then when you look at the folks
who flipped from Biden in twenty four or in twenty
twenty to Trump in twenty twenty four, you were much
(15:13):
more likely to be non college educated. The base of
the Republican Party is not college educated. There's a couple
of reasons for that. One is cost, because going to
university now is so expensive too. They walk out of
there with degrees that now AI can do in the
next five minutes instead of that they spent five years
getting a degree for. And it's really all driven by
(15:35):
the fact that going to college used to be the
common sense thing and now it takes your common sense
out of you. And Donald Trump is attacking Harvard one
because there's no reason for us to be giving universities
that much money, but two because that is no longer
the base of the Republican Party. And Donald Trump has
always been a leader in figuring out where's the Republican
(15:56):
Party headed, and he drives them there. And much of
this is from diploma divide.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Yeah, it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Brentfrey Cannon, GP poster and messaging strategies. Thank you so
much for your time in joining us on Power Hour.
Joining us now is former president of the Victorian at
Liberal Party and Skyney's contributor, Michael Kroger. Michael, thank you
for joining us on Power Hour. In news breaking as
we record this, a US court has blocked Donald Trump's
(16:24):
Liberation Day tariffs. Now it's the first major legal challenge
against the president's sweeping import policies. The Court of International
Trade says that Donald Trump overreached his authority in it
ruled that duties cannot be imposed on imports from nations
that sell more to the US than they buy. Now,
we know that Trump is appealing this ruling. Can I
(16:44):
get your reaction?
Speaker 9 (16:47):
Well, it's is typical Donald Trump. You know, the way
to look at his presidency is he's a man in
a hurry. He goes two steps forward, knowing that in
many cases he's going to go one step back. That's
just what he does. He pushes the envelope everywhere where
he can and then reaches some form of compromise. Now,
it's very arguable that he overreached in relation to tariffs.
(17:08):
The powers divested in the presidency through Congress that they
that they gave him his then use of this emergency
declaration that he's made in relation to many things. Of course,
his decisions are going to be challenged, but he's he
accepts that. As I said, two steps sword, one step back.
He knows he's not going to get everything he wants.
(17:30):
He reaches out and then he compromises back. So he'll
appeal this. It'll end up in the Supreme Court in America.
Who knows what will happen there. But he just sees
this as an occupational hazards. That's how he treats all
of these decisions he's making in relation to the universities,
the Middle East, the Ukraine, and set everything he does.
That's his modus apparandi. It'll succeed on some occasions and
(17:53):
it won't on others. Gab.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
We'll see how this plays out, and Trump's frustration with
Prutent appears to be escalating. Donald Trump claims that the
Russian leader is now playing with fire. He wrote on
truth Social what Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if
it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would
have already happened to Russia. And I mean really bad.
He's playing with fire now. Trump indicating over the weekend
(18:18):
that he was considering sanctions against Russia, and we know
at this point he has really been unable to persuade
Putin to make significant concessions in peace negotiations with the Ukraine.
Now the Russian leader Vladimir Putin has of course intensified
the war recently. We've been seeing that what's your assessment
of where things are at at the moment.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Has it reached the point that it is too late?
Speaker 9 (18:43):
No, Every war ends one way or the other, for
better or worse. The Europeans are going to stick with
the Ukraine. The Russians can continue what they're doing. The
only hope for an immediate piece was Trump He's famous
One Day Declaration, which unfortunately hasn't come to pass. I
think this will wax and wane for quite a while
(19:06):
to come. Yet in the end they will reach some
kind of peace deal. Obviously not to the extent that
Trump wants because he wanted this resolved quickly, But in
the end it'll come to a peace deal. Unfortunately, as
Trump says, thousands of people die in the meantime, but
that doesn't look like gab there's any hope for an
immediate resolution, given that Trump's now appear to have given
(19:26):
up on Pertin. He thought his friendship would make a difference,
but it hasn't.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Trump has revealed he told Israeli Prime Minister Bendabinette Yaho
to hold off on any strikes against Iran to give
his administration more time to push for a new nuclear deal.
Speaker 8 (19:43):
I want it very strong where we can go in
with those factors. We can take whatever we want, We
can blow up whatever we want, but nobody getting killed.
We can blow up a lab, but nobody's going to
be in the lab, as opposed to everybody being in
the lab and blowing it up, right, two ways of
doing it. Yeah, I told this would be inappropriate to
do right now because we're very close to a solution.
Speaker 6 (20:03):
Now.
Speaker 8 (20:04):
That could change at any moment, but right now, I
think they want to make a deal, and if we
can make a deal, they save a lot of lives.
Speaker 6 (20:14):
EM think you have on your on which well, I
don't know.
Speaker 8 (20:21):
I think over the next couple of weeks, if it happens.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
And as we just heard, Trump says he believes an
agreement could come together over.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
The next couple of weeks. Do you see that happening.
Speaker 9 (20:32):
Probably not. He thought that'd be a deal in Ukraine.
He thought that'd be a deal in Gaza. I thought
to be a deal with Hamas the hostages, et cetera. Look,
he puts a massive amount of store on personal relations
and in the end, a lot of leaders know that
he's only there for four years. This is a long game.
(20:53):
The Chinese taught us years ago. You know, plan for
decades ahead, don't worry about something immediate. So to stay
with North Korea, he tried to do deals with Kim John,
et cetera. The Iranians are playing a long game. They've
held controlled the Mullels of Hell control since the revolution,
you know what, four decades ago. So I don't see
a deal coming. And you know, ultimately Israel mayneg to
(21:16):
take out these these weapons. They were doing the world
a great favor if they did, because Iran is the
center of evil in the modern world as we know gap.
But do I see a deal coming in the in
the immediate short term? Unfortunately, I don't. I hope I'm wrong,
but I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
What's your assessment of how Donald Trump is perceived on
the world stage right now, do you think he's as
feared as he once was or should he be getting
credit for really trying to be an anti war president.
Speaker 9 (21:44):
He made one major tactical blunder, an immense tactical blunder.
He fell into the trap of believing that he started
no wars. I mean, obviously he looked back at his
presidency and people said him, you know, no wars started
under you. And Trump took this view of looked at
himself and yea, I'm a peace nick I should be
up there for the Noble Peace Prize. So he basically
(22:05):
said to the world he's surrendering American military power in
the name of peace. He wasn't going to be an aggressor.
Apart from Yemen where no one's really watching. He doesn't
want to he doesn't want to commit American troops. And
we saw that recent speech the other day by the
Vice President saying the soldiers come first. So Trump appears
(22:26):
to have surrendered his military power, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.
They've got the best weaponry in the world, the most
advanced weapon in the world. If he says to the world,
which he has, American military might is not going to
be used to resolve the Ukraine, to resolve Gaza, to
resolve Iran. Then basically he's no longer feared as he
(22:48):
was because what people fear American military might. Yes, they
don't like sanctions, and that has short term effects and
medium term effects, but mainly on the population. I mean,
no government appears to have been overthrown recently because the
government had sanctions put on it, namely Iran and Russia.
These governments tend to survive these sanctions in one way
or the other. As I see, it's the public that
(23:09):
pays the price. But in the end, if America surrenders
its military power, no gap. It's not fear as it
used to be. And that's one of the problems with Trump.
He's negotiating now with one hand tied behind his back.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Well, I'm sure he's still more feared than Joe Biden was,
and I'm sure he's more feared.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
No doubt.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Kamala Harris if she won the election, and that is
who I have to ask you about, because the former
vice president has visited Australia, as she spoke on stage
at the twenty twenty five Australasian Real Estate conference on
the Gold Coast over the weekend, and she's being slammed
for delivering word salad after word salad.
Speaker 10 (23:44):
Here she is the ability to understand the context in
which you live, the context in which others live, you're
more likely than the connect with them and understand what's.
Speaker 11 (23:56):
Reported to them.
Speaker 12 (23:58):
The vast majority of human beings very intelligent, regardless of
their education level, regardless of where they're from, and intelligent
enough to know whether when you were looking at and
you are looking at them with a level of respect,
they will know that you.
Speaker 10 (24:21):
Are someone who is actually interested in their life and
their reality and their fears and their views.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Are not where you spoke about this when it was
announced that Kamala Harris would be paid hundreds of thousands
of dollars to speak for an hour at this real
estate conference. But now she's done it, she's spoken to
the audience there listening to some of those clips.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
What's your reaction? Was it as bad as you thought
it would be?
Speaker 9 (24:49):
I think it's words. I mean, what vicuous babble that is.
But that's what she's known for. I mean, let's be frank,
she was a circus act at this conference. She wasn't
there to enlighten the Australian property industry about payroll taxes,
building costs, over regulation, planning approvals, building approvals, the shortage
of contractors, the prices of materials stamped yuhy, et cetera,
(25:14):
et cetera. These are the things that are a real
interest to realiest that agency. We're at that conference, thousands
of them and people in the building industry. She comes
along and gives us, as you say, word seller, this
vacuous babble. I mean, she was just a circus act.
Let's be frank that no one learned anything from her speech.
She was there for pure entertainment purposes. But you know,
good honor, I gather you got five hundred thousand dollars
(25:36):
for that speech. She can get five hundred thousand for
saying that. I would have done her for four hundred myself,
and I know something about the property industry. So no,
what a waste of space.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
We have to leave it there. Thank you so much
for joining us on Power out. Thanks joining us now
is former US Congressman at Jim at Reneesi. Jim Raneesi,
thank you so much for joining us on Power Hour.
We've been hearing about it for some time. It's passer
House of Representatives. It's now under consideration in the Senate.
(26:07):
This is Trump's one big beautiful.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
Bill, the one big beautiful bill, and it is a
big beautiful bill. And so I think the Senate is
going to get there.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
I hope they're going to get there.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
The bill spans over one thousand pages and includes tax cuts,
such as making permanent the twenty seventeen tax cuts, and
also introduces additional tax reductions.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
It proposes eight.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Hundred billion dollars in medicaid cuts and eligibility changes. It
allocates one hundred and fifty billion dollars for defense spending,
seventy billion dollars for border security.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
And scales back clean energy tax credits.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Now, the White House says that this bill saves more
than one point six trillion dollars in spending. But there's
also concern that this bill will add three point eight
trillion dollars to the federal debt over ten years. What's
your assessment on this big beautiful bill?
Speaker 13 (27:00):
And thank you for having me. And it is a
big beautiful bill, except the problem is it does add
a tremendous amount to the debt over the next ten years,
and that's the real key. Look, I'm very supportive of
the tax cuts from twenty seventeen being extended, but I
also do think it's time that we really take a
good look at how we can reduce our debts and
(27:22):
deficits and the trajectory of our debts and deficits over
the next ten years, not add to them. So I
think there will be a number of members of the Senate,
and there still are some people in the House that
are a little concerned about how much it adds to
the debts and deficits of the United States government.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
The White House is arguing, though, that this bill saves
more than one point six trillion dollars in spending.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Could this be seen as a starting point?
Speaker 13 (27:48):
Well, look, there are some there are some cuts in
this bill, but there's not enough. I was in Congress
from twenty eleven to twenty nineteen. We also made some
significant cuts. The problem is much of the expenditures of
the United States government are spending that's on autopilot, and
(28:09):
none of those expenses are being looked at closely, which
are things that really need to be addressed, Because if
you're cutting one point eight trillion or even two trillion,
but your automatic expenditures, your mandatory expenditures are growing by
five or six trillion. You're not making any headway. And
that's the biggest problem we have right now with federal spending.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Ellen Musk says that Hayes disappointed by Trump's massive spending bill,
warning that it undercuts the work of DOSE, the agency
he wants led.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Let's take a look.
Speaker 14 (28:41):
It's appointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which
increases the Budge depths that not just decrease it, and
that reminds the work that the dog team is doing.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
I actually thought that when this big, beautiful bill came along.
Speaker 5 (28:54):
I mean, like everything he's done on Dose gets wiped
out in.
Speaker 6 (28:58):
The first year.
Speaker 14 (29:00):
I think it both can be big or it can
be beautiful, But I don't know if it could be
both my close opinion.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
Look, Alon mask noted that there are parts of the
bill that he is thrilled about. But what do you
make of Alon's assessment? Is it embarrassing for Trump?
Speaker 13 (29:18):
Well, the one thing is true, I'm surprised that Elon
has said that. Although I agree with what he's saying,
those cuts about one hundred billion and spending cuts are not.
Speaker 6 (29:29):
Part of this big, beautiful bill. I do know there's a.
Speaker 13 (29:32):
Recision package coming out in the next seven to ten
days to take care of some of that spending. But
we're talking about very minor spending cuts in DOGE that
could have been put in this bill as well and passed.
The problem with making it a separate bill, whether it's seven,
ten days or even two weeks from now, is you
(29:53):
have to get approval again from the House and Senate,
and that's always the tricky thing when you have a
very slim majority in the House especially, but not that
big of a majority in the Senator as well.
Speaker 11 (30:06):
Well.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Elon has thanked Donald Trump in a post today as
he steps back from DOGE. He wrote, as my scheduled
time as a special government employee comes to an end,
I would like to thank President Trump for the opportunity
to reduce wasteful spending. The DOGE mission will only strengthen
over time as it becomes a way of life throughout
the government.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
Now.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
I believe that Elon Musk deserves so much credit for
what him and the DOGE team have been able to do.
What they've been able to find so far one hundred
and seventy five billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Has been saved.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
According to what's on the DOGE website, it's around one
thousand dollars a year for the taxpayer. What's your assessment
of Elon Musk and what he's been able to achieve
in these few months.
Speaker 13 (30:49):
Well, I'm happy to see that. Look, President Clinton did this,
President Nixon did this. All the presidents have said we
need to make these cuts. President Trump has at least
set up a commission and committee and move the numbers
to a point where he's saying we need to make
these cuts. So I'm happy with what he's done. I
(31:09):
think there is wasteful spending. The problem is it has
to be cut. Even when I was in Congress, we
talked about all this wasteful spending. The Congress has to
be able to pass bills that cut this spending or
pass a recision bill, or this will just be a
waste of time.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Yes, so let's talk about how Donald Trump does want
to make some of these DOGE cuts official. The White
House is set to send its first DOGE package to
Congress next week. I aiming to slash federal spending. Office
of Management and Budget Director Russell Thought confirmed the move
to Fox Business.
Speaker 11 (31:45):
So rumor has it that we got a big recision
package and Elon Musk DOGE recision package coming up.
Speaker 6 (31:53):
Can you confirm it?
Speaker 11 (31:55):
I can. We'll be sending that up on Monday or Tuesday,
whenever the House is back in session. They will get
our first recisions bill. And again this has been proposed
and we've talked about it. We want to make sure
that Congress passes its first recisions bill, including the DOGE
and we will send more if they pass it. And
so this is the first one is Foreign aid. USAID
(32:17):
cuts many of the waste and garbage that was funding
not only wasteful but hurting our foreign policy, but also
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at NPR. We'll be sending
that up and we're working with Congress and we've had
good conversations to make sure that they knew what was coming.
They had some input is to changes that could be
made to make it something that could pass the House,
(32:37):
and we're excited for that to occur next week.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
So this is almost a ten billion dollar package, but
it's also below where many conservatives would like it to be.
What's your sense, what's your assessment? And also what does
the future of DOGE look like. As we heard from
Elon Musk that he believes it's going to continue being
strong and will be a sort of way of life,
what does that actually look like.
Speaker 13 (33:03):
Well, look, I don't know what happens to DOGE, but
the one thing that has to happen is the DOGE
package that's being sent up there next week has to
be passed. And you heard that is in his conversations
that he is saying that this is the first set
of DOGE cuts. We want to see if Congress can
(33:24):
pass these before we send others up there.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
So that's that's the White House, that's.
Speaker 13 (33:30):
The administration saying let's see if they can cut this
small amount, because if they can't do this, they're never
going to cut a big, beautiful DOGE precision package either.
And I think that's a real key to see whether
this can get done now. As I said, it's not
been done in the past. One recision package was passed
(33:52):
maybe thirty years ago, but we haven't been able to
do that in a long time. It'll be interesting to
see whether they can get it done be done. I
hope it gets done, but again, you've got to get
the House and Senate both to approve it.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
I want to talk about COVID.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
It's been a favoit of time since we spent way
too much time talking about COVID. But today FBI Deputy
Director Dan Bongino has announced that there is an active
investigation into the origins of COVID. He wrote on x
as we read and process reports of a new COVID
strain emerging, I want you to know that we are
actively investigating in multiple field offices the cover up of
(34:32):
the origin of the COVID virus, along with associated matters
requiring our attention.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
You deserve the answers now.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
It's interesting because at the moment, the White House has
on its official website that it was a lably, but
there are still so many questions left unanswered around the
origins of COVID and of course the cover up. What
do you make of this the investigation? What could we
possibly find?
Speaker 13 (34:57):
Well, lork I know we've been looking for the origins
of COVID all the way back in twenty nineteen and
twenty twenty when it first came to the United States,
So it's.
Speaker 6 (35:08):
Good that we're looking.
Speaker 13 (35:10):
I would not want to waste too much time on it,
but I do know it becomes good political fodder when
you continue to look at these things. But I'm not
sure we'll ever find out. And at the same time,
there should not be any cover up, so that's always good.
But in the end, we got to move forward, not backward.
I've said that time and time again. This is more political,
(35:32):
but at the same time, it's always good to learn
from past history so we don't repeat the same mistakes.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
RFK Junior has made an announcement that's probably triggering for
everyone against his MAHA movement. He's announced that he's no
longer recommending for healthy children and healthy pregnant women to
get the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 15 (35:53):
I couldn't be more pleased to announce that, as of today,
the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy ignant women
has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule. Last year,
the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another
COVID shot, despite the lack of any political data to
(36:15):
support the repeat booster strategy in children.
Speaker 6 (36:18):
That ends today. It's common sense, that's good science.
Speaker 13 (36:22):
There is no evidence healthy kids need it today, and
most countries have stopped recommending it for children.
Speaker 15 (36:28):
We're now one step closer to realizing President Trump's promise
to make America healthy again.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
Look, in my opinion, it seems like it's common sense
at this point. We know the impact of COVID has
significantly dropped, partly due to widespread immunity from either prior
infections or vaccinations, and we know that vaccines are primarily
designed to reduce severe outcomes and the risk of severe
illness in healthy children will that risk is low. Around
four percent of hospitalizations from COVID involve children, mostly with
(36:59):
underlying conditions. But of course, the mainstream media always freak
out when RFK Junior is in the headlines in the
same way they freak out about Donald Trump and ey Lawnmusk.
This is how CBS covered the announcement. They had an
article that they published with the headline health experts fear
potential public health impacts from RFK Junior holting COVID vaccine
recommendations for kids pregnant women Now health experts and fear
(37:24):
these It seems like a headline straight out of twenty twenty,
but on RFK Junior's announcement, it also comes amid concerns
about potential rare side effects from the vaccine, such as
MAA cardatis if I am pronouncing that correctly, a heart
inflammation linked to the MR and A vaccines, particularly in
younger individuals. As we covered last week, Biden officials knew
(37:47):
about potential COVID nineteen vaccine risks and took steps to
downplay them, which, in.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
My opinion, is unforgivable.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
But what's your assessment of this announcement and the MAHA
movement more broadly, is really achieving what it set out to?
Speaker 13 (38:03):
Well, look, I think you said it best. This is
just common sense. And you know, why would we be
trying to push a vaccine, especially on healthy children and
healthy pregnant women, when at the same time we know
the risks are limited. I'm also a big believer, and
it's their choice anyway. I mean, if they want, if
a healthy if a healthy parent wants their healthy children
(38:26):
to have the COVID vaccine, so be it. Those are
the rights, the individual rights. But I don't think the
government should be mandating any of these things, nor should
they be recommending it and pushing it like the Biden
administration did.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
Former US Congressman Jim Reneesi, thank you so much for
joining us on pow our.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
Great to speak with you.
Speaker 13 (38:47):
Thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
Megan Markle's podcast has ended its eight episode run and
there are no plans to release a second at this point.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
What a surprise. Riley Sullivan is a lifestyle reporter.
Speaker 2 (39:03):
Here at sky news dot com dot are you, and
he's always across the latest celebrity headlines.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
Riley, Great to see you, Lovely.
Speaker 4 (39:09):
To be back.
Speaker 2 (39:09):
So, Megan Markle's podcast, The Serious Confessions but Female Founder
has officially wrapped up after eight weeks and hitting the airways.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Is this the last we'll ever hear about the podcast?
Speaker 4 (39:20):
Do you think? I? Do? I think so?
Speaker 7 (39:22):
I think that, as we've spoken about, this show has
completely underperformed. It did not really appear on the Spotify charts.
This was there, of course, the podcast that she made
with Lemonada Media. It's still unclear actually about what money
has come from this podcast. So originally when she signed
up with Spotify, there was money upfront.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
That deal went south she signed up with Lemonada.
Speaker 7 (39:43):
But looking into the details of it, it's unclear if
she actually took any money up front for this deal
at all or if it was supposed to be a
performance based deal. I think on that alone, there's no
way this will come back because it hasn't performed well,
you know, in terms of advertising or any types of
revenue you can gleaned from the podcast.
Speaker 4 (40:01):
It really has failed on that front.
Speaker 7 (40:03):
Also, there was a very interesting article that came out
in a business publication called Fast Company.
Speaker 4 (40:09):
Never really heard of.
Speaker 7 (40:09):
It, right, Well, weirdly they got an exclusive interview with
Mega Markel, and the interview.
Speaker 4 (40:14):
Reads like a press release.
Speaker 7 (40:15):
It's basically sort of giving her her claim, really celebrating
all her achievements, and these are things that have been
a complete failure, you know, American Review, or Orchard, all
of these other sort of projects that have come and gone.
And in that she's already sort of subtly moving on.
She said, you know, this was great, but you know,
maybe there's talk of a second season. She's stead of
(40:36):
retroactively making it seem like it was always going to
be a one off, and that wasn't true.
Speaker 4 (40:40):
Now it was supposed to be an ongoing podcast.
Speaker 7 (40:43):
It's gone after eight episodes, but you know, seven hours
of audio content. I hope Lemonada didn't pay her too much.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
Now Prince Harry has flown all the way from his
Monde Seater home to Shanghai to appear at a sustainable
travel summit. Now this is a sustainable travel summit, so
fans are questioning why he didn't just dal in remotely.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
Yeah, what do you make of this move?
Speaker 7 (41:06):
Exactly that? I mean, why was he there? You know,
this is one from a pr point of view, it
looks ridiculous to be fronting a sustainable travel summit and
jetting in from Montecito all the way to China. It's
like a six thousand mile journey across the Pacific. I mean,
you know, very wasteful and as far as we know,
he appeared on stage for a few minutes and took
(41:27):
a few photos. So it's not like he was on
a tour or he was doing lots of engagements to
me to make it worthwhile. For example, you know, when
the royal family's traveling, I'm thinking of someone like Princess
Anne when she goes to Sri Lanka for five days,
she is doing ten twenty engagements in that time. She's
not just flying over there for five minutes and flying back.
(41:47):
You know, this was sort of ridiculous on that front.
I also think that there's some other factors here. I
think there's probably a mercenary aspect. Maybe there's a paid
appearance fee. A lot of royals, Harris isn't the only one.
You know, a lot of royal family members that are
non working royals make a lot of money going abroad,
making appearances, showing up at events. That's why we see
Princess Beaches and Princess Eugenie in.
Speaker 4 (42:08):
The Middle East all the time, right. It's not because
they love the dates.
Speaker 7 (42:11):
It's because you know, they're there for engagements and business engagements.
And the other set of aspect of it, which I
think really speaks to Harry's personality, is he loves the
adoration he gets in China. When he's traveling abroad, he
gets the red carpet treatment, He's treated like a member
of the royal family. He gets that first class treatment
and the deference that I think that he craves. So
(42:33):
I think that's really what's going on here. But the
whole thing was pretty ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (42:37):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (42:38):
Now King Charles has converted his home when he's sanding
him estate into a luxury holiday rental, which is available
to the public. Now this sounds great, of course, but
the big question is how much it would actually cost.
Speaker 7 (42:50):
Yeah, that's right. Well it's actually quite a bargain. It's
something like six pounds to rent out. It's a beautiful property,
sort of an arts and craft style home on the
Sandringham estate. This isn't surprising, you know, when we talk
about Sandrackham. Of course there's the main house where the
royal family stays, but there's also all of these other
smaller properties and cottages and workers you know, where all
(43:12):
the workers because you know, there's a huge staff living there.
So I don't think they're exactly going to be renting
out the throne room.
Speaker 4 (43:18):
But for six k I think it sounds like a
pretty good.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Yeah, better than I expected.
Speaker 2 (43:23):
Now, the Norwegian Royal Palace has announced that Princess Ingrid
Alexandra will move to Australia to study at the University
of Sydney.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
Now tell us about this. When will she actually be arriving.
Speaker 7 (43:36):
Yes, so, Princess Ingrid Alexandra, as you said, is moving
to Sydney. She'll be at Sydney University starting in second
semester in August. I noticed there were some publications that
have shared very specific details about where she's staying. Just editorially,
Sky we've opted not to. I think it's really important
with something like this to protect her privacy. But she
will be in the Harbst City from August onwards. I
(43:58):
think the decision to have her study here, I think
there's again there's a few factors at play. Firstly, she
has just completed military service. She's twenty one. I think
it's a great time in her life to be abroad
and enriching herself before she's you know, in full time
royal mode. I also think that there's frankly a lot
of scandal at the moment in the Norwegian monarchy.
Speaker 4 (44:20):
They've had her half sibling.
Speaker 7 (44:23):
It's quite convoluted, but basically Ingrid Alexandra has a half sibling.
Her mother had a previous relationship before she married him
too the monarchy, and there's a son from that relationship.
He's about twenty eight years old. It's her half brother,
Ingrid's half brother, and he is currently facing very serious
charges of sexual assault, so he possibly could you be
spending a lot of time in jail. This is a
(44:44):
very very serious case, and even though he's not a
member of the royal family. This has been a huge
scandal in Norway. Also in terms of the Norwegian royal family,
you know Ingrid's aunt Martha Luise. I believe we talked
about her on this show last year. She's very controversial.
She's a cl boyant. She is a real kind of
free spirit. Nothing wrong with that, but again, you know,
(45:05):
there's a maybe a bit of a publicity issue with that.
So I think this is a really great move for
her to be away from the chaos and away from
the press in Norway in Australia, and I hope she
has a great time. I think it's a wonderful tradition
of royals studying in Australia. We had the current King
of Thailand spent several years studying in Australia. Of course,
King Childs spent a semester at Geelong Grammar. So you know,
(45:28):
it's just a wonderful tradition and I hope and I
do think. I think Ossie's were always good. We give
people their privacy, we let them have their space.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
Absolutely, and it's exciting for us.
Speaker 4 (45:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (45:37):
Now, Denmark's King Frederick has presented a special royal honor
to his nephews after they were stripped of their royal title.
Speaker 1 (45:44):
So what's prompted Frederick to do this?
Speaker 4 (45:46):
Yes, this is a really clever decision.
Speaker 7 (45:48):
So essentially, there was a huge scandal in the Danish
royal family a couple of years ago where Margarethe Frederick's mother,
stripped some of her grandchildren of their royal titles. Very
controversial move, but it was sort of kind of like
what King Charles's envisions, you know, a slim down monarchy.
She did it because the Danish royal family works because
(46:08):
it's small, and she kind of felt that it was
getting a bit too extended with all of these sort
of cousins and nephews. So that decision went down like
a lead balloon. Frederick's brothers, children were impacted by that decision.
He was furious. He spoke against his mother in the
Danish press. He said it was a form of you know,
mistreatment of them. It was very, very controversial, and now
(46:31):
two years later, I think Frederick's really righting the wrong.
I think it's a really genius move. He's brought them
into this order, which is a sort of civilian honor,
very sort of royal style with civilian honor. But it's
not restoring the title. So he's not contradicting Margerie. He's
not going back on her word and her actions, but
he is extending the olive branch. I think it was
(46:53):
a very classy move by Frederick.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Sounds like it indeed. Riley Sullivan, thank you so much
for joining us in power.
Speaker 1 (46:57):
Allah.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
And that is power our Thank you for your company.
We'll see you next week. Make sure you subscribe to
Sky News Australia on YouTube.
This is Power Hour with Gabriella Power.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Hello and welcome to Power Hour. I'm Gabriella Power. Thank
you for your company. We have a massive show lined
up today, but first let's get straight into media meltdowns. Well,
this week French President and Manuel mccron was assaulted by
his seventy two year old wife, First Lady Bridget.
Speaker 1 (00:29):
Mccron for the world to see.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
And although the slap was caught on camera, the French
president insists that they were just joking, which we all
know is a lie. But let's look at how scene
in covered the incident. Scene in video of Bridget mccron
pushing President mccron fuels Russian disinformation. Russian disinformation? Whom have
we heard that from the leftist media?
Speaker 1 (00:53):
Before?
Speaker 2 (00:54):
You know, that was the narrative around Hunter Biden's laptop.
We were told that Russia medaled in the twenty sixteen election.
And now there's footage of the French president being slapped
by his wife. What do they do They link the
story to Russian disinformation. It's almost like there's a pattern
here when it comes to one side of politics. Now,
Macron's offers put out a statement saying they were just
(01:16):
horsing around, and that was all that was needed to
give ammunition to the conspiracy theorists. Now, I do have
to say that there are some wild conspiracies about the
first Lady around out there that are completely absurd, But
it is not a conspiracy that Bridget mccron slapped her husband,
and it really has a lot of people reflecting on
their romantic love story. Where Bridget was Emmanuel's teacher. She
(01:41):
was nearly forty years old and he was just fifteen
when they met, which is really gross when you think
about it. But the hosts of the view have discussed
the incident on the plane and who would have seen
this coming? But Whoopee Goldberg has come out leaping to
the couple's defense and Bridget's defense, insisting that she was
simply reaching for her husband's face.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
What I saw and maybe I'm crazy, but I saw
someone doing this.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
Come here, let me move on.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
I did not see that. I saw embarrassed that.
Speaker 2 (02:14):
I saw, and I'm sure that's exactly what Whoopy would
say if this was.
Speaker 1 (02:22):
Donald Trump and Millennia. And when other.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
Hosts suggested that it was clearly I see between the couple,
as Brigitte refused to hold her husband's hand when he
offered it to her while the cameras were rolling. Well,
Whoopee has a brilliantly insightful explanation for that, too.
Speaker 1 (02:39):
Joking narrative is sweet. I mean, we won't ever know
what's going on here, but I.
Speaker 3 (02:43):
Can tell you why she won't take his hand. Why
because she doesn't want to look like she can't come
down the stairs or that.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
But there's versions, of.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Course, Thank goodness for Whoopee and her spot on analysis
were clearly violent. Bridget mccron is defended for her behavior.
Joinnings Now is Brent brey Cannon, GOP polster and messaging
a strategists brand.
Speaker 1 (03:11):
Great to see you. I want to get.
Speaker 2 (03:13):
Into the latest polling with you in a moment, But
first of all, can I get your reaction to how
the hosts of the View have covered the mcron slap.
I mean, if it was Donald Trump and Millennia, I'm
sure would get a pretty different perspective.
Speaker 5 (03:25):
I think I was the third person today to watch
the View after you sent me the link to their
Twitter post. But I can tell you normal Americans do
not respond to watching the View, and honestly, I was
a bit shocked in the fact that they really didn't
go after defending mccron's wife very hard.
Speaker 2 (03:45):
Okay, look, it comes after reports that Disney CEO Bob
IgA asked the co hosts of the View to turn
down the heated political retric aa aka rather their anti
Trump retric And in case you're not familiar with just
how far these hosts, he's a reminder.
Speaker 1 (04:02):
Take him seriously and take him literally.
Speaker 4 (04:06):
We have to.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
I think it would be.
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Remiss of us to not say, Joe Biden knows how
to do this.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
Yes, he knows how to do this.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
He's he's quite.
Speaker 4 (04:17):
Good at this.
Speaker 3 (04:18):
And you know, you can't refute anything with him because
he just when I say him, I mean, he tends
to just.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Can I mention one thing?
Speaker 2 (04:35):
Spitting while speaking about the president? That is what you
get when you watch will be Goldberg. So Disney sources
told The Daily Beasts that both Disney and the AB
Seniors president recently suggested that the talk show hosts be
less antagonistic on political issues. Brent, is this actually going
to help the View or really, when you look at
their coverage time and time again, should they just be
(04:57):
canceled at this point?
Speaker 5 (05:00):
Well, if you're speaking to highly educated white women with
no children or no children at home, who have nothing
to do except watch The View, and that really is
the new base of the Democratic Party, then maybe the
View actually has a place. But when you look at
the broad spectrum of what Americans want is they want
to be more in the center or actually not political
(05:22):
at all. And so this call to the View is
really a reaction to the twenty twenty four election, which
basically stopped the swing of the political pendulum. And so
what happened with Obama's election in two thousand and eight
is that after he got elected, he said, let me
take this pendulum and swing it as far to left
as possible. And what's going to happen to the pendulum.
It's going to swing to the right equally. And that's
(05:44):
how we got Donald Trump. And so when Joe Biden
came in, he said, well, Obama didn't go far enough.
Let me pull that pendulum even further. And then it
swung further to the right with Donald Trump two point zero.
And now you have these TV shows like The View
and Disney and others who are looking at their base,
their subscriber base, their viewership and seeing a plumbting and
(06:06):
realizing that they have pulled the pendulum way too far
to the left.
Speaker 2 (06:10):
Let's get into the polling and the data. Now, Trump
has been back in power for nearly one hundred and
thirty days and in that time there's been a massive
shift in how Americans feel about the country and the
direction that it's heading in. So at the time of
the election in November last year, when Joe Biden was
in power, more than seventy five percent of Americans believe
the country was going in the wrong direction, which is
(06:32):
of course part of the reason Donald Trump delivered such
a landslide victory. Now we have Trump back. He's been
back in power for some time. He's been getting the
work done. And the latest polling by Rasmussen has found
that fifty percent of Americans believe the country is on
the right track, and that same polling group has found
that Trump's approval rating is at fifty three percent. Look,
(06:55):
it's fascinating because, whether you like him or not, it
appears as though he's certainly giving people confidence about what's
ahead about the future, and his approval rating will it
suggests that people do think that he's doing a great job.
Speaker 1 (07:08):
What do you put this down to, Well.
Speaker 5 (07:11):
Those numbers are a bit rosy, but there's definitely a
trend to where Donald Trump's image has improved. I mean,
we've seen it in our weekly polling also, and a
lot of it comes from the fact that Americans definitely
wanted change, but Trump brought so much change within his
first hundred days that they really didn't understand how to
grasp what all was going on. Every single day he
(07:33):
was coming out with something brand new, changing what they'd
known for years. And now it feels like the pace
has slowed down a little bit of how many changes
are happening. So I really say the first hundred days
were probably the hardest but the most important for Donald Trump,
and in the last thirty days there's been a bit
more stability in how much change is coming. And that
(07:56):
is really what is driving this reaction to Donald Trump's
image improving in the last month or so.
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Okay, Well, meanwhile, Democrats are not polling well at all.
Recent polling from NBC and Fox News had the Democrats
reaching an.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
All time low.
Speaker 2 (08:11):
I want to get your thoughts on why that could
be in a moment, but I want to talk to
you about this bizarre new strategy that they're putting in place.
We know that the Democrats know how to waste money.
We saw that in the election campaign last year, where
Kamala Harris blew more than a billion dollars in a
few months for what was essentially a disastrous election campaign.
Speaker 1 (08:29):
But just when you thought that, you know, they.
Speaker 2 (08:32):
Couldn't waste any more money, or what they spend money
on couldn't be more ridiculous. The Democrats are spending twenty
million dollars on a study examining how to speak to
American men. The New York Times reports that they're twenty
million dollar project speaking with American Men, a strategic plan.
(08:52):
We'll look at the language and content that gains the
attention of male voters. So this, of course comes after
their brutal election last where fifty three percent of men
aged between eighteen and forty four supported Donald Trump. So, Brent,
what's your assessment of these twenty million dollars on learning
how to speak to men? Is that really going to
help them?
Speaker 6 (09:14):
Well?
Speaker 5 (09:14):
First off, I would like to offer, for only ten
million dollars a study in how to understand people who
watch the view and that probably will turn out about
as well as this twenty million dollars studying how to
speak to men. But no joke, There was actually a
study done a couple of years ago about testosterone levels
and men and how that affected their political views, and
(09:35):
so this must be low testosterone men trying to figure
out how to speak to men with normal and high testosterone.
But really what it comes down to is that Democrats
are now the party of the coastal elites, and these
folks have no clue how to talk to normal folks,
and so they're trying to throw money at the problem
as opposed to looking internally and saying, what have we
(09:56):
done and said and what positions have we taken that
have made normal people male and female both turn away
from the left, not even the central left anymore, but
the left parties of the US and around the world
because they just do not understand normal folks anymore. They've
never run into a normal person in their everyday life.
Speaker 2 (10:19):
And the Democrats right now searching for a new leader.
They've been trying to rebrand for some time, and they
really haven't been able to gain momentum. Do you see
them turning this around.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
At some point? It looks pretty grim.
Speaker 5 (10:33):
Well, it's really hard to be the party out of
power when your opposing party has such a strong leader
like the Republicans have in Donald Trump. I mean, I
remember back to the Obama days once he took power
in two thousand and nine, but it wasn't really until
the Tea Party movement came around after Obamacare was pushed
out and some of the plan changes to the tax laws.
(10:57):
But even then we didn't have a leader. We just
had a movement that was asking for our leader. And
so far the left hasn't even found its movement, and
without that they can't find their leader. We recently did
a study where we looked at and asked voters who
the head of the Democratic Party is and listed out
about ten to twelve options, and not even that Democrats
(11:18):
could come up with an answer over twenty percent of
who the own leader of their party was.
Speaker 2 (11:23):
It's interesting, Well, certainly the number one question that Americans
we're thinking while Joe Biden was in office was who
was actually running the country. And now a bombshell video
has emerged of the Democratic National Committee's vice chair David Hogg,
admitting who actually ran the twenty twenty four rice behind
the Saints The.
Speaker 5 (11:44):
Foundational question for me is like, how corrupt is the
DNC If so many people knew or a few people
knew about Biden, well the president.
Speaker 7 (11:52):
Of nice I mean I did the the DNC that
was going to be like a campaign arm of the president.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
Ultimately, the bigger issue was like the inner circle that
was around Biden.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
That's it. I keep stress, I keep strength to you enough.
Jill Biden's chief of staff.
Speaker 6 (12:07):
Like had an enormous amount of hour Jill Biden.
Speaker 5 (12:10):
Jill Biden's that was like an open secret of that.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
I would avoid him, think he was scary.
Speaker 2 (12:17):
So that was secretly recorded and then published by Project Veritas,
and there we have it. He's admitting that Jill Biden's
chief of staff, Anthony Bernal.
Speaker 1 (12:25):
Had enormous power.
Speaker 2 (12:27):
And this comes after Jake Tapper's book Original Sin revealed
that former President Joe Biden's aides considered Jill Biden one
of the most powerful first ladies in history, which made
her top aid Anthney Bernel, one of the most influential
people in it the White House. What's your assessment of this.
How damning is this for Joe Biden.
Speaker 5 (12:47):
The only people who finally realized that Joe Biden was
not actually in charge of this country for the last
four years.
Speaker 4 (12:53):
Is the media.
Speaker 5 (12:55):
And I don't know if they were complicit and hiding it,
but at minimum they were incompetent and not seeing it.
Because Americans realize this. That is why Joe Biden's image
was so bad. That is why the direction of the
country was so poor. Is because Americans actually knew what
was going on, because they saw it with their own
eyes and then they realized the consequences of it. And
(13:16):
for those of you who ever want to come to
the United States, if you ever go to a barbecue
joint that has a ceiling and a backdrop like that,
you have found the right barbecue place. Wherever they had
dinner with a Project Veritas and David Hogg, that's where
you want to go find American barbecue.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
Finally, the Trump administration is cutting federal contracts with Harvard University,
intensifying the president's clash with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university.
Now Donald Trump is talking about giving the money that
was going to Harvard to trade schools.
Speaker 8 (13:45):
They're taking five billion dollars and I'd rather see that
money go to trade schools. And by the way. They're
totally anti semitic at Harvard, as you know, and some
other colleges do, in all fairness to them, and it's
been Oh, it's very exposed, and I.
Speaker 6 (14:01):
Think they're dealing very badly.
Speaker 8 (14:03):
Every time they fight, they lose another two hundred and
fifty million dollars. Yesterday we found another one hundred million.
And you know, they have a fund fifty two an
endowment fifty two billion dollars, all right, they get a
lot of that from the United States, and I think
it's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
It's an interesting argument.
Speaker 2 (14:24):
Should this money go well towards trade schools instead of
funding woke Harvard? Is this going to win Donald Trump
political points?
Speaker 5 (14:35):
If you look at what's happened in American politics in
the last twenty years, it's really been driven by what
we call the diploma divide. So if you're not college educated,
twenty years ago, you were more likely to be a Democrat,
and now today you're more likely to be a Republican.
Speaker 6 (14:50):
And we just.
Speaker 5 (14:51):
Finished an exit study of the US election. We found
the folks who came out for the first time to
vote for Donald Trump, which means they'd skip twenty twenty
or the they weren't registered in twenty twenty and did
not participate. Eighty percent of them did not have a
college degree. And then when you look at the folks
who flipped from Biden in twenty four or in twenty
twenty to Trump in twenty twenty four, you were much
(15:13):
more likely to be non college educated. The base of
the Republican Party is not college educated. There's a couple
of reasons for that. One is cost, because going to
university now is so expensive too. They walk out of
there with degrees that now AI can do in the
next five minutes instead of that they spent five years
getting a degree for. And it's really all driven by
(15:35):
the fact that going to college used to be the
common sense thing and now it takes your common sense
out of you. And Donald Trump is attacking Harvard one
because there's no reason for us to be giving universities
that much money, but two because that is no longer
the base of the Republican Party. And Donald Trump has
always been a leader in figuring out where's the Republican
(15:56):
Party headed, and he drives them there. And much of
this is from diploma divide.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Yeah, it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
Brentfrey Cannon, GP poster and messaging strategies. Thank you so
much for your time in joining us on Power Hour.
Joining us now is former president of the Victorian at
Liberal Party and Skyney's contributor, Michael Kroger. Michael, thank you
for joining us on Power Hour. In news breaking as
we record this, a US court has blocked Donald Trump's
(16:24):
Liberation Day tariffs. Now it's the first major legal challenge
against the president's sweeping import policies. The Court of International
Trade says that Donald Trump overreached his authority in it
ruled that duties cannot be imposed on imports from nations
that sell more to the US than they buy. Now,
we know that Trump is appealing this ruling. Can I
(16:44):
get your reaction?
Speaker 9 (16:47):
Well, it's is typical Donald Trump. You know, the way
to look at his presidency is he's a man in
a hurry. He goes two steps forward, knowing that in
many cases he's going to go one step back. That's
just what he does. He pushes the envelope everywhere where
he can and then reaches some form of compromise. Now,
it's very arguable that he overreached in relation to tariffs.
(17:08):
The powers divested in the presidency through Congress that they
that they gave him his then use of this emergency
declaration that he's made in relation to many things. Of course,
his decisions are going to be challenged, but he's he
accepts that. As I said, two steps sword, one step back.
He knows he's not going to get everything he wants.
(17:30):
He reaches out and then he compromises back. So he'll
appeal this. It'll end up in the Supreme Court in America.
Who knows what will happen there. But he just sees
this as an occupational hazards. That's how he treats all
of these decisions he's making in relation to the universities,
the Middle East, the Ukraine, and set everything he does.
That's his modus apparandi. It'll succeed on some occasions and
(17:53):
it won't on others. Gab.
Speaker 2 (17:56):
We'll see how this plays out, and Trump's frustration with
Prutent appears to be escalating. Donald Trump claims that the
Russian leader is now playing with fire. He wrote on
truth Social what Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if
it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would
have already happened to Russia. And I mean really bad.
He's playing with fire now. Trump indicating over the weekend
(18:18):
that he was considering sanctions against Russia, and we know
at this point he has really been unable to persuade
Putin to make significant concessions in peace negotiations with the Ukraine.
Now the Russian leader Vladimir Putin has of course intensified
the war recently. We've been seeing that what's your assessment
of where things are at at the moment.
Speaker 1 (18:39):
Has it reached the point that it is too late?
Speaker 9 (18:43):
No, Every war ends one way or the other, for
better or worse. The Europeans are going to stick with
the Ukraine. The Russians can continue what they're doing. The
only hope for an immediate piece was Trump He's famous
One Day Declaration, which unfortunately hasn't come to pass. I
think this will wax and wane for quite a while
(19:06):
to come. Yet in the end they will reach some
kind of peace deal. Obviously not to the extent that
Trump wants because he wanted this resolved quickly, But in
the end it'll come to a peace deal. Unfortunately, as
Trump says, thousands of people die in the meantime, but
that doesn't look like gab there's any hope for an
immediate resolution, given that Trump's now appear to have given
(19:26):
up on Pertin. He thought his friendship would make a difference,
but it hasn't.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Trump has revealed he told Israeli Prime Minister Bendabinette Yaho
to hold off on any strikes against Iran to give
his administration more time to push for a new nuclear deal.
Speaker 8 (19:43):
I want it very strong where we can go in
with those factors. We can take whatever we want, We
can blow up whatever we want, but nobody getting killed.
We can blow up a lab, but nobody's going to
be in the lab, as opposed to everybody being in
the lab and blowing it up, right, two ways of
doing it. Yeah, I told this would be inappropriate to
do right now because we're very close to a solution.
Speaker 6 (20:03):
Now.
Speaker 8 (20:04):
That could change at any moment, but right now, I
think they want to make a deal, and if we
can make a deal, they save a lot of lives.
Speaker 6 (20:14):
EM think you have on your on which well, I
don't know.
Speaker 8 (20:21):
I think over the next couple of weeks, if it happens.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
And as we just heard, Trump says he believes an
agreement could come together over.
Speaker 1 (20:27):
The next couple of weeks. Do you see that happening.
Speaker 9 (20:32):
Probably not. He thought that'd be a deal in Ukraine.
He thought that'd be a deal in Gaza. I thought
to be a deal with Hamas the hostages, et cetera. Look,
he puts a massive amount of store on personal relations
and in the end, a lot of leaders know that
he's only there for four years. This is a long game.
(20:53):
The Chinese taught us years ago. You know, plan for
decades ahead, don't worry about something immediate. So to stay
with North Korea, he tried to do deals with Kim John,
et cetera. The Iranians are playing a long game. They've
held controlled the Mullels of Hell control since the revolution,
you know what, four decades ago. So I don't see
a deal coming. And you know, ultimately Israel mayneg to
(21:16):
take out these these weapons. They were doing the world
a great favor if they did, because Iran is the
center of evil in the modern world as we know gap.
But do I see a deal coming in the in
the immediate short term? Unfortunately, I don't. I hope I'm wrong,
but I don't think so.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
What's your assessment of how Donald Trump is perceived on
the world stage right now, do you think he's as
feared as he once was or should he be getting
credit for really trying to be an anti war president.
Speaker 9 (21:44):
He made one major tactical blunder, an immense tactical blunder.
He fell into the trap of believing that he started
no wars. I mean, obviously he looked back at his
presidency and people said him, you know, no wars started
under you. And Trump took this view of looked at
himself and yea, I'm a peace nick I should be
up there for the Noble Peace Prize. So he basically
(22:05):
said to the world he's surrendering American military power in
the name of peace. He wasn't going to be an aggressor.
Apart from Yemen where no one's really watching. He doesn't
want to he doesn't want to commit American troops. And
we saw that recent speech the other day by the
Vice President saying the soldiers come first. So Trump appears
(22:26):
to have surrendered his military power, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.
They've got the best weaponry in the world, the most
advanced weapon in the world. If he says to the world,
which he has, American military might is not going to
be used to resolve the Ukraine, to resolve Gaza, to
resolve Iran. Then basically he's no longer feared as he
(22:48):
was because what people fear American military might. Yes, they
don't like sanctions, and that has short term effects and
medium term effects, but mainly on the population. I mean,
no government appears to have been overthrown recently because the
government had sanctions put on it, namely Iran and Russia.
These governments tend to survive these sanctions in one way
or the other. As I see, it's the public that
(23:09):
pays the price. But in the end, if America surrenders
its military power, no gap. It's not fear as it
used to be. And that's one of the problems with Trump.
He's negotiating now with one hand tied behind his back.
Speaker 2 (23:22):
Well, I'm sure he's still more feared than Joe Biden was,
and I'm sure he's more feared.
Speaker 6 (23:26):
No doubt.
Speaker 2 (23:26):
Kamala Harris if she won the election, and that is
who I have to ask you about, because the former
vice president has visited Australia, as she spoke on stage
at the twenty twenty five Australasian Real Estate conference on
the Gold Coast over the weekend, and she's being slammed
for delivering word salad after word salad.
Speaker 10 (23:44):
Here she is the ability to understand the context in
which you live, the context in which others live, you're
more likely than the connect with them and understand what's.
Speaker 11 (23:56):
Reported to them.
Speaker 12 (23:58):
The vast majority of human beings very intelligent, regardless of
their education level, regardless of where they're from, and intelligent
enough to know whether when you were looking at and
you are looking at them with a level of respect,
they will know that you.
Speaker 10 (24:21):
Are someone who is actually interested in their life and
their reality and their fears and their views.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
Are not where you spoke about this when it was
announced that Kamala Harris would be paid hundreds of thousands
of dollars to speak for an hour at this real
estate conference. But now she's done it, she's spoken to
the audience there listening to some of those clips.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
What's your reaction? Was it as bad as you thought
it would be?
Speaker 9 (24:49):
I think it's words. I mean, what vicuous babble that is.
But that's what she's known for. I mean, let's be frank,
she was a circus act at this conference. She wasn't
there to enlighten the Australian property industry about payroll taxes,
building costs, over regulation, planning approvals, building approvals, the shortage
of contractors, the prices of materials stamped yuhy, et cetera,
(25:14):
et cetera. These are the things that are a real
interest to realiest that agency. We're at that conference, thousands
of them and people in the building industry. She comes
along and gives us, as you say, word seller, this
vacuous babble. I mean, she was just a circus act.
Let's be frank that no one learned anything from her speech.
She was there for pure entertainment purposes. But you know,
good honor, I gather you got five hundred thousand dollars
(25:36):
for that speech. She can get five hundred thousand for
saying that. I would have done her for four hundred myself,
and I know something about the property industry. So no,
what a waste of space.
Speaker 2 (25:46):
We have to leave it there. Thank you so much
for joining us on Power out. Thanks joining us now
is former US Congressman at Jim at Reneesi. Jim Raneesi,
thank you so much for joining us on Power Hour.
We've been hearing about it for some time. It's passer
House of Representatives. It's now under consideration in the Senate.
(26:07):
This is Trump's one big beautiful.
Speaker 8 (26:09):
Bill, the one big beautiful bill, and it is a
big beautiful bill. And so I think the Senate is
going to get there.
Speaker 1 (26:17):
I hope they're going to get there.
Speaker 2 (26:19):
The bill spans over one thousand pages and includes tax cuts,
such as making permanent the twenty seventeen tax cuts, and
also introduces additional tax reductions.
Speaker 1 (26:29):
It proposes eight.
Speaker 2 (26:30):
Hundred billion dollars in medicaid cuts and eligibility changes. It
allocates one hundred and fifty billion dollars for defense spending,
seventy billion dollars for border security.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
And scales back clean energy tax credits.
Speaker 2 (26:42):
Now, the White House says that this bill saves more
than one point six trillion dollars in spending. But there's
also concern that this bill will add three point eight
trillion dollars to the federal debt over ten years. What's
your assessment on this big beautiful bill?
Speaker 13 (27:00):
And thank you for having me. And it is a
big beautiful bill, except the problem is it does add
a tremendous amount to the debt over the next ten years,
and that's the real key. Look, I'm very supportive of
the tax cuts from twenty seventeen being extended, but I
also do think it's time that we really take a
good look at how we can reduce our debts and
(27:22):
deficits and the trajectory of our debts and deficits over
the next ten years, not add to them. So I
think there will be a number of members of the Senate,
and there still are some people in the House that
are a little concerned about how much it adds to
the debts and deficits of the United States government.
Speaker 2 (27:39):
The White House is arguing, though, that this bill saves
more than one point six trillion dollars in spending.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Could this be seen as a starting point?
Speaker 13 (27:48):
Well, look, there are some there are some cuts in
this bill, but there's not enough. I was in Congress
from twenty eleven to twenty nineteen. We also made some
significant cuts. The problem is much of the expenditures of
the United States government are spending that's on autopilot, and
(28:09):
none of those expenses are being looked at closely, which
are things that really need to be addressed, Because if
you're cutting one point eight trillion or even two trillion,
but your automatic expenditures, your mandatory expenditures are growing by
five or six trillion. You're not making any headway. And
that's the biggest problem we have right now with federal spending.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Ellen Musk says that Hayes disappointed by Trump's massive spending bill,
warning that it undercuts the work of DOSE, the agency
he wants led.
Speaker 1 (28:39):
Let's take a look.
Speaker 14 (28:41):
It's appointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which
increases the Budge depths that not just decrease it, and
that reminds the work that the dog team is doing.
Speaker 1 (28:52):
I actually thought that when this big, beautiful bill came along.
Speaker 5 (28:54):
I mean, like everything he's done on Dose gets wiped
out in.
Speaker 6 (28:58):
The first year.
Speaker 14 (29:00):
I think it both can be big or it can
be beautiful, But I don't know if it could be
both my close opinion.
Speaker 2 (29:08):
Look, Alon mask noted that there are parts of the
bill that he is thrilled about. But what do you
make of Alon's assessment? Is it embarrassing for Trump?
Speaker 13 (29:18):
Well, the one thing is true, I'm surprised that Elon
has said that. Although I agree with what he's saying,
those cuts about one hundred billion and spending cuts are not.
Speaker 6 (29:29):
Part of this big, beautiful bill. I do know there's a.
Speaker 13 (29:32):
Recision package coming out in the next seven to ten
days to take care of some of that spending. But
we're talking about very minor spending cuts in DOGE that
could have been put in this bill as well and passed.
The problem with making it a separate bill, whether it's seven,
ten days or even two weeks from now, is you
(29:53):
have to get approval again from the House and Senate,
and that's always the tricky thing when you have a
very slim majority in the House especially, but not that
big of a majority in the Senator as well.
Speaker 11 (30:06):
Well.
Speaker 2 (30:06):
Elon has thanked Donald Trump in a post today as
he steps back from DOGE. He wrote, as my scheduled
time as a special government employee comes to an end,
I would like to thank President Trump for the opportunity
to reduce wasteful spending. The DOGE mission will only strengthen
over time as it becomes a way of life throughout
the government.
Speaker 4 (30:25):
Now.
Speaker 2 (30:26):
I believe that Elon Musk deserves so much credit for
what him and the DOGE team have been able to do.
What they've been able to find so far one hundred
and seventy five billion dollars.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Has been saved.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
According to what's on the DOGE website, it's around one
thousand dollars a year for the taxpayer. What's your assessment
of Elon Musk and what he's been able to achieve
in these few months.
Speaker 13 (30:49):
Well, I'm happy to see that. Look, President Clinton did this,
President Nixon did this. All the presidents have said we
need to make these cuts. President Trump has at least
set up a commission and committee and move the numbers
to a point where he's saying we need to make
these cuts. So I'm happy with what he's done. I
(31:09):
think there is wasteful spending. The problem is it has
to be cut. Even when I was in Congress, we
talked about all this wasteful spending. The Congress has to
be able to pass bills that cut this spending or
pass a recision bill, or this will just be a
waste of time.
Speaker 2 (31:27):
Yes, so let's talk about how Donald Trump does want
to make some of these DOGE cuts official. The White
House is set to send its first DOGE package to
Congress next week. I aiming to slash federal spending. Office
of Management and Budget Director Russell Thought confirmed the move
to Fox Business.
Speaker 11 (31:45):
So rumor has it that we got a big recision
package and Elon Musk DOGE recision package coming up.
Speaker 6 (31:53):
Can you confirm it?
Speaker 11 (31:55):
I can. We'll be sending that up on Monday or Tuesday,
whenever the House is back in session. They will get
our first recisions bill. And again this has been proposed
and we've talked about it. We want to make sure
that Congress passes its first recisions bill, including the DOGE
and we will send more if they pass it. And
so this is the first one is Foreign aid. USAID
(32:17):
cuts many of the waste and garbage that was funding
not only wasteful but hurting our foreign policy, but also
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at NPR. We'll be sending
that up and we're working with Congress and we've had
good conversations to make sure that they knew what was coming.
They had some input is to changes that could be
made to make it something that could pass the House,
(32:37):
and we're excited for that to occur next week.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
So this is almost a ten billion dollar package, but
it's also below where many conservatives would like it to be.
What's your sense, what's your assessment? And also what does
the future of DOGE look like. As we heard from
Elon Musk that he believes it's going to continue being
strong and will be a sort of way of life,
what does that actually look like.
Speaker 13 (33:03):
Well, look, I don't know what happens to DOGE, but
the one thing that has to happen is the DOGE
package that's being sent up there next week has to
be passed. And you heard that is in his conversations
that he is saying that this is the first set
of DOGE cuts. We want to see if Congress can
(33:24):
pass these before we send others up there.
Speaker 6 (33:27):
So that's that's the White House, that's.
Speaker 13 (33:30):
The administration saying let's see if they can cut this
small amount, because if they can't do this, they're never
going to cut a big, beautiful DOGE precision package either.
And I think that's a real key to see whether
this can get done now. As I said, it's not
been done in the past. One recision package was passed
(33:52):
maybe thirty years ago, but we haven't been able to
do that in a long time. It'll be interesting to
see whether they can get it done be done. I
hope it gets done, but again, you've got to get
the House and Senate both to approve it.
Speaker 1 (34:06):
I want to talk about COVID.
Speaker 2 (34:08):
It's been a favoit of time since we spent way
too much time talking about COVID. But today FBI Deputy
Director Dan Bongino has announced that there is an active
investigation into the origins of COVID. He wrote on x
as we read and process reports of a new COVID
strain emerging, I want you to know that we are
actively investigating in multiple field offices the cover up of
(34:32):
the origin of the COVID virus, along with associated matters
requiring our attention.
Speaker 1 (34:37):
You deserve the answers now.
Speaker 2 (34:39):
It's interesting because at the moment, the White House has
on its official website that it was a lably, but
there are still so many questions left unanswered around the
origins of COVID and of course the cover up. What
do you make of this the investigation? What could we
possibly find?
Speaker 13 (34:57):
Well, lork I know we've been looking for the origins
of COVID all the way back in twenty nineteen and
twenty twenty when it first came to the United States,
So it's.
Speaker 6 (35:08):
Good that we're looking.
Speaker 13 (35:10):
I would not want to waste too much time on it,
but I do know it becomes good political fodder when
you continue to look at these things. But I'm not
sure we'll ever find out. And at the same time,
there should not be any cover up, so that's always good.
But in the end, we got to move forward, not backward.
I've said that time and time again. This is more political,
(35:32):
but at the same time, it's always good to learn
from past history so we don't repeat the same mistakes.
Speaker 2 (35:39):
RFK Junior has made an announcement that's probably triggering for
everyone against his MAHA movement. He's announced that he's no
longer recommending for healthy children and healthy pregnant women to
get the COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1 (35:51):
Let's take a listen.
Speaker 15 (35:53):
I couldn't be more pleased to announce that, as of today,
the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy ignant women
has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule. Last year,
the Biden administration urged healthy children to get yet another
COVID shot, despite the lack of any political data to
(36:15):
support the repeat booster strategy in children.
Speaker 6 (36:18):
That ends today. It's common sense, that's good science.
Speaker 13 (36:22):
There is no evidence healthy kids need it today, and
most countries have stopped recommending it for children.
Speaker 15 (36:28):
We're now one step closer to realizing President Trump's promise
to make America healthy again.
Speaker 2 (36:35):
Look, in my opinion, it seems like it's common sense
at this point. We know the impact of COVID has
significantly dropped, partly due to widespread immunity from either prior
infections or vaccinations, and we know that vaccines are primarily
designed to reduce severe outcomes and the risk of severe
illness in healthy children will that risk is low. Around
four percent of hospitalizations from COVID involve children, mostly with
(36:59):
underlying conditions. But of course, the mainstream media always freak
out when RFK Junior is in the headlines in the
same way they freak out about Donald Trump and ey Lawnmusk.
This is how CBS covered the announcement. They had an
article that they published with the headline health experts fear
potential public health impacts from RFK Junior holting COVID vaccine
recommendations for kids pregnant women Now health experts and fear
(37:24):
these It seems like a headline straight out of twenty twenty,
but on RFK Junior's announcement, it also comes amid concerns
about potential rare side effects from the vaccine, such as
MAA cardatis if I am pronouncing that correctly, a heart
inflammation linked to the MR and A vaccines, particularly in
younger individuals. As we covered last week, Biden officials knew
(37:47):
about potential COVID nineteen vaccine risks and took steps to
downplay them, which, in.
Speaker 1 (37:53):
My opinion, is unforgivable.
Speaker 2 (37:55):
But what's your assessment of this announcement and the MAHA
movement more broadly, is really achieving what it set out to?
Speaker 13 (38:03):
Well, look, I think you said it best. This is
just common sense. And you know, why would we be
trying to push a vaccine, especially on healthy children and
healthy pregnant women, when at the same time we know
the risks are limited. I'm also a big believer, and
it's their choice anyway. I mean, if they want, if
a healthy if a healthy parent wants their healthy children
(38:26):
to have the COVID vaccine, so be it. Those are
the rights, the individual rights. But I don't think the
government should be mandating any of these things, nor should
they be recommending it and pushing it like the Biden
administration did.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
Former US Congressman Jim Reneesi, thank you so much for
joining us on pow our.
Speaker 1 (38:45):
Great to speak with you.
Speaker 13 (38:47):
Thank you, thank you for having me.
Speaker 2 (38:53):
Megan Markle's podcast has ended its eight episode run and
there are no plans to release a second at this point.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
What a surprise. Riley Sullivan is a lifestyle reporter.
Speaker 2 (39:03):
Here at sky news dot com dot are you, and
he's always across the latest celebrity headlines.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
Riley, Great to see you, Lovely.
Speaker 4 (39:09):
To be back.
Speaker 2 (39:09):
So, Megan Markle's podcast, The Serious Confessions but Female Founder
has officially wrapped up after eight weeks and hitting the airways.
Speaker 1 (39:18):
Is this the last we'll ever hear about the podcast?
Speaker 4 (39:20):
Do you think? I? Do? I think so?
Speaker 7 (39:22):
I think that, as we've spoken about, this show has
completely underperformed. It did not really appear on the Spotify charts.
This was there, of course, the podcast that she made
with Lemonada Media. It's still unclear actually about what money
has come from this podcast. So originally when she signed
up with Spotify, there was money upfront.
Speaker 4 (39:40):
That deal went south she signed up with Lemonada.
Speaker 7 (39:43):
But looking into the details of it, it's unclear if
she actually took any money up front for this deal
at all or if it was supposed to be a
performance based deal. I think on that alone, there's no
way this will come back because it hasn't performed well,
you know, in terms of advertising or any types of
revenue you can gleaned from the podcast.
Speaker 4 (40:01):
It really has failed on that front.
Speaker 7 (40:03):
Also, there was a very interesting article that came out
in a business publication called Fast Company.
Speaker 4 (40:09):
Never really heard of.
Speaker 7 (40:09):
It, right, Well, weirdly they got an exclusive interview with
Mega Markel, and the interview.
Speaker 4 (40:14):
Reads like a press release.
Speaker 7 (40:15):
It's basically sort of giving her her claim, really celebrating
all her achievements, and these are things that have been
a complete failure, you know, American Review, or Orchard, all
of these other sort of projects that have come and gone.
And in that she's already sort of subtly moving on.
She said, you know, this was great, but you know,
maybe there's talk of a second season. She's stead of
(40:36):
retroactively making it seem like it was always going to
be a one off, and that wasn't true.
Speaker 4 (40:40):
Now it was supposed to be an ongoing podcast.
Speaker 7 (40:43):
It's gone after eight episodes, but you know, seven hours
of audio content. I hope Lemonada didn't pay her too much.
Speaker 1 (40:50):
Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (40:51):
Now Prince Harry has flown all the way from his
Monde Seater home to Shanghai to appear at a sustainable
travel summit. Now this is a sustainable travel summit, so
fans are questioning why he didn't just dal in remotely.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
Yeah, what do you make of this move?
Speaker 7 (41:06):
Exactly that? I mean, why was he there? You know,
this is one from a pr point of view, it
looks ridiculous to be fronting a sustainable travel summit and
jetting in from Montecito all the way to China. It's
like a six thousand mile journey across the Pacific. I mean,
you know, very wasteful and as far as we know,
he appeared on stage for a few minutes and took
(41:27):
a few photos. So it's not like he was on
a tour or he was doing lots of engagements to
me to make it worthwhile. For example, you know, when
the royal family's traveling, I'm thinking of someone like Princess
Anne when she goes to Sri Lanka for five days,
she is doing ten twenty engagements in that time. She's
not just flying over there for five minutes and flying back.
(41:47):
You know, this was sort of ridiculous on that front.
I also think that there's some other factors here. I
think there's probably a mercenary aspect. Maybe there's a paid
appearance fee. A lot of royals, Harris isn't the only one.
You know, a lot of royal family members that are
non working royals make a lot of money going abroad,
making appearances, showing up at events. That's why we see
Princess Beaches and Princess Eugenie in.
Speaker 4 (42:08):
The Middle East all the time, right. It's not because
they love the dates.
Speaker 7 (42:11):
It's because you know, they're there for engagements and business engagements.
And the other set of aspect of it, which I
think really speaks to Harry's personality, is he loves the
adoration he gets in China. When he's traveling abroad, he
gets the red carpet treatment, He's treated like a member
of the royal family. He gets that first class treatment
and the deference that I think that he craves. So
(42:33):
I think that's really what's going on here. But the
whole thing was pretty ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (42:37):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (42:38):
Now King Charles has converted his home when he's sanding
him estate into a luxury holiday rental, which is available
to the public. Now this sounds great, of course, but
the big question is how much it would actually cost.
Speaker 7 (42:50):
Yeah, that's right. Well it's actually quite a bargain. It's
something like six pounds to rent out. It's a beautiful property,
sort of an arts and craft style home on the
Sandringham estate. This isn't surprising, you know, when we talk
about Sandrackham. Of course there's the main house where the
royal family stays, but there's also all of these other
smaller properties and cottages and workers you know, where all
(43:12):
the workers because you know, there's a huge staff living there.
So I don't think they're exactly going to be renting
out the throne room.
Speaker 4 (43:18):
But for six k I think it sounds like a
pretty good.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Yeah, better than I expected.
Speaker 2 (43:23):
Now, the Norwegian Royal Palace has announced that Princess Ingrid
Alexandra will move to Australia to study at the University
of Sydney.
Speaker 1 (43:32):
Now tell us about this. When will she actually be arriving.
Speaker 7 (43:36):
Yes, so, Princess Ingrid Alexandra, as you said, is moving
to Sydney. She'll be at Sydney University starting in second
semester in August. I noticed there were some publications that
have shared very specific details about where she's staying. Just editorially,
Sky we've opted not to. I think it's really important
with something like this to protect her privacy. But she
will be in the Harbst City from August onwards. I
(43:58):
think the decision to have her study here, I think
there's again there's a few factors at play. Firstly, she
has just completed military service. She's twenty one. I think
it's a great time in her life to be abroad
and enriching herself before she's you know, in full time
royal mode. I also think that there's frankly a lot
of scandal at the moment in the Norwegian monarchy.
Speaker 4 (44:20):
They've had her half sibling.
Speaker 7 (44:23):
It's quite convoluted, but basically Ingrid Alexandra has a half sibling.
Her mother had a previous relationship before she married him
too the monarchy, and there's a son from that relationship.
He's about twenty eight years old. It's her half brother,
Ingrid's half brother, and he is currently facing very serious
charges of sexual assault, so he possibly could you be
spending a lot of time in jail. This is a
(44:44):
very very serious case, and even though he's not a
member of the royal family. This has been a huge
scandal in Norway. Also in terms of the Norwegian royal family,
you know Ingrid's aunt Martha Luise. I believe we talked
about her on this show last year. She's very controversial.
She's a cl boyant. She is a real kind of
free spirit. Nothing wrong with that, but again, you know,
(45:05):
there's a maybe a bit of a publicity issue with that.
So I think this is a really great move for
her to be away from the chaos and away from
the press in Norway in Australia, and I hope she
has a great time. I think it's a wonderful tradition
of royals studying in Australia. We had the current King
of Thailand spent several years studying in Australia. Of course,
King Childs spent a semester at Geelong Grammar. So you know,
(45:28):
it's just a wonderful tradition and I hope and I
do think. I think Ossie's were always good. We give
people their privacy, we let them have their space.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
Absolutely, and it's exciting for us.
Speaker 4 (45:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (45:37):
Now, Denmark's King Frederick has presented a special royal honor
to his nephews after they were stripped of their royal title.
Speaker 1 (45:44):
So what's prompted Frederick to do this?
Speaker 4 (45:46):
Yes, this is a really clever decision.
Speaker 7 (45:48):
So essentially, there was a huge scandal in the Danish
royal family a couple of years ago where Margarethe Frederick's mother,
stripped some of her grandchildren of their royal titles. Very
controversial move, but it was sort of kind of like
what King Charles's envisions, you know, a slim down monarchy.
She did it because the Danish royal family works because
(46:08):
it's small, and she kind of felt that it was
getting a bit too extended with all of these sort
of cousins and nephews. So that decision went down like
a lead balloon. Frederick's brothers, children were impacted by that decision.
He was furious. He spoke against his mother in the
Danish press. He said it was a form of you know,
mistreatment of them. It was very, very controversial, and now
(46:31):
two years later, I think Frederick's really righting the wrong.
I think it's a really genius move. He's brought them
into this order, which is a sort of civilian honor,
very sort of royal style with civilian honor. But it's
not restoring the title. So he's not contradicting Margerie. He's
not going back on her word and her actions, but
he is extending the olive branch. I think it was
(46:53):
a very classy move by Frederick.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Sounds like it indeed. Riley Sullivan, thank you so much
for joining us in power.
Speaker 1 (46:57):
Allah.
Speaker 4 (46:58):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (47:02):
And that is power our Thank you for your company.
We'll see you next week. Make sure you subscribe to
Sky News Australia on YouTube.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
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
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!