April 12, 2025 • 31 mins
-
Judicial Activism and Nationwide Injunctions:
- An unprecedented number of nationwide injunctions issued against President Trump within the first two months of his administration, comparing it to the total number issued during the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
- It discusses the implications of these injunctions, describing them as an abuse of power and a deliberate attempt to undermine Trump's agenda.
- We include statements from various officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, emphasizing the constitutional crisis posed by these injunctions.
-
Legislative and Judicial Responses:
- Efforts to address the issue, including a bill co-sponsored by Chuck Grassley and the possibility of impeaching judges who are seen as defying their oath of office.
- It also discusses the role of the appellate process and the Supreme Court in addressing these nationwide injunctions.
-
USA Fencing and Transathlete Policy:
- An investigation into USA Fencing's policy on transgender athletes, initiated by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
- It details the case of Stephanie Turner, a female fencer who refused to compete against a transgender opponent and was subsequently disqualified from the tournament.
- The investigation aims to gather information on the policy, the number of transgender athletes competing, and any injuries resulting from these competitions.
-
Mexico's Water Treaty Violation:
- Mexico's violation of the 1944 Water Treaty, which obligates Mexico to provide water to South Texas.
- It highlights the impact of this violation on Texas farmers, who are facing severe drought and economic hardship due to the lack of water.
- We mention efforts by Senator Ted Cruz and President Trump to address the issue and ensure Mexico complies with the treaty.
Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and the Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. Thanks for Listening
#seanhannity #hannity #marklevin #levin #charliekirk #megynkelly #tucker #tuckercarlson #glennbeck #benshapiro #shapiro #trump #sexton #bucksexton
#rushlimbaugh #limbaugh #whitehouse #senate #congress #thehouse #democrats
#republicans #conservative #senator #congressman #congressmen #congresswoman #capitol #president #vicepresident #POTUS #presidentoftheunitedstatesofamerica
#SCOTUS #Supremecourt #DonaldTrump #PresidentDonaldTrump #DT #TedCruz #Benferguson #Verdict #justicecorrupted #UnwokeHowtoDefeatCulturalMarxisminAmerica
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 (00:01):
Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Week in Review,
Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the big stories
that we talked about this week that you may have missed.
First up, judicial activism having a major impact at trying
to stop Donald trump In's administration. Well, there was a
very big victory for the Trump administration and it's gonna
have precedents nationwide. We'll break that story down for you
(00:24):
in just a moment. Up next, an investigation has been
opened into US fencing after they disqualified a woman who
refused to fight against a trans fencer aka a dude
acting like a chick. They gave her the black card,
disqualifying her from the entire competition because she stood up
(00:45):
for what she believed in. And now there's an investigation
and to not find the law when it comes to
US fencing. And finally, in a shocking move, Mexico has
been stealing water from American farmers on the border. It
is now costing them their livelihoods and President Trump is
fighting back. It's the Week in Review and it starts
(01:08):
right now. Another threat and it's not been covered in
the news the way that it should have because we've
been dealing with this. Obviously led with this issue because
it's very important, but it's judicial activism that's having a
major impact on this administration, and in a shocking way,
I would even say historic way when you look at
the numbers. You're dealing with this now in the Senate,
(01:29):
with these judges that are basically getting to be activists,
but their injunctions are having a whole nationwide A lot
of people didn't even know that was a possibility. Isn't
an abuse of power? Is there a check and balance
that we need to have on that. Lit's dive into
that as well.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
So it's an absolute abuse of power. It is worse
than it has ever been. We have seen against Donald
Trump in the first two months of administration, more nationwide
injunctions issued against President Trump than in the entirety of
the George W. Bush administration all eight year, the entirety
of the Barack Obama administration all eight years, the entirety
(02:04):
of the Joe Biden administration all four years. More in
two months than in those twenty years. We have two
months and twenty years.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
You say it, You said it quickly. I want people
to just pause and think about how much of abuse
of power there has to be if they're doing it
that much like this is deliberate.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, and listen to Attorney General Pambondi talk about this.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
The President is going to comply with the law. He
was overwhelmingly elected by an overwhelming majority of the United
States citizens to be our commander in chief, and that's
what he's been doing, Shannon. Just since January twentieth, we've
had over one hundred and seventy lawsuits filed against us.
That should be the constitutional crisis right there. Fifty injunctions.
(02:47):
They're popping up every single day, trying to control his
executive power, trying to control where he believes our tax
dollars should be allocated. And saying he won by an
overwhelming majority is so important because that's what the American
people want, what President Trump campaigned on and what he
want on, and he's implementing that agenda at a rapid speed.
(03:10):
None of us can keep up with them every single day,
and so it's just we're going after all of these lawsuits,
we're defending them all. We just got a great win,
and we'll continue to fight.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
I talked to a judge this week and he described
it this way, because I was wanting to understand this subject.
Obviously we're going to talk about it's important, and we
haven't dealt with this a lot.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
He said.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
In essence, what the court's doing, Ben is they are
doing a coup against Donald Trump by neutering him with
his agenda. And he said that is not how the
constitution was set up, Like, you should not be able
to neuter a president this way, saying we know you won,
we know the American people support you, they voted for you,
but we're not going to let you do what you're
supposed to do as president anyway.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Well, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden put left wing
radicals on the courts, and then this is Democrat State
Attorney's General and left wing radical groups going and seeking
out these radical judges, of whom, by the way, used
to work for the groups that are suing. I mean,
I mean it is. It is fundamentally corrupt, and it
is one judge. Normally a judge has the authority over
the parties before him or her, but these judges are
(04:11):
issuing nationwide orders trying to stop everything President Trump is
trying to do. We had a hearing of the Judiciary
Committee last week on this that was focusing on the
threat to democracy and the rule of law from these
nationwide injunctions. Here's what I had to say at the hearing.
It's long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that
(04:32):
vice pays to virtue. I have to admit I'm enjoying
listening to my Democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of
the rule of law after four years where they brazenly
supported the most lawless Department of Justice and the most
politically weaponized Department of Justice our nation has ever seen.
We just heard the Senator from Rhoye Island talk about
the imperative of protecting judges, and yet not a single
(04:56):
Democrat senator cared about the violent protesters that showed up
outside Supreme Court justices homes, including I might note female
justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, threatening their family. And
Joe Biden's Attorney General didn't do a damn thing and
refused to enforce the law to protect those judges. Why
because he agreed with the violent protesters and he wanted
(05:17):
to intimidate and threaten those judges. Professor Bray, under our constitution,
who should decide elections the voters are unelected judges.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
The voters are the ones who should vote in the
election according to the laws, and the laws sometimes have
to be applied by the judges if they're anse.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
And under our constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions?
Elected representatives elected by the people or unelected federal judges?
Speaker 4 (05:53):
I think the question of policy, Senator, is a little
broader than the particular case. The laws should be enacted
by Congress. That's where the fountain of.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
La polacy decisions are the elected branch. Right, law is
the province of the court. Policy is the province of
the elected branches. These are not complicated, Professor bry Let
me ask you this. Do the federal courts have power
to issue remedies for people who are not parties to
a case?
Speaker 4 (06:21):
That's the question, I agree is not complicated. They do
not have that power.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere
in the Constitution?
Speaker 4 (06:30):
It is not.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
First chart the first one hundred and fifty years of
our republic, how many nationwide injunctions were issued?
Speaker 4 (06:38):
My view is that there were not any until nineteen
sixty three zero.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Now fast forward, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in
the entire twentieth century.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
It's a small number, I would I would think it
would be a dozen. Giver take it's not large.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Twenty seven actually, excluding Trump's first term. How many nationwide
injunctions were issued in the last twenty.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
Years far more than that thirty two from.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Twenty twenty and one to twenty twenty four against Biden,
Obama and Bush thirty two. And how many nationwide injunctions
have been issued in the last two months alone.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
There have been quite a few thirty seven.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Let that sink in. There have been more nationwide injunctions
in the past two months against President Trump than in
the entire twentieth century. There have been more nationwide injunction
against President Trump in the last two months than both
terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama,
(07:47):
and Joe Biden's term. We saw during the Biden presidency
law Fair indicting President Trump four times, using the machinery
of justice to attack him, and that was an attack
on democracy. Because democrats today hate democracy. Democrats today are
(08:08):
angry at the voters for re electing Donald Trump and
electing a Republican Senate in a Republican House, and they
engage in lawfair to stop democracy from operating. Understand, this
is the second phase of lawfair. Second chart. This is
the second phase of lawfair. Now that their efforts to
(08:30):
indict President Trump and stop the voters from re electing
him have failed, they're going and seeking out individual radical
judges to try to shut down policies, and they are
forum shopping like crazy. Give me any loon judge put
on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with
the policy. We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore US
(08:53):
immigration law concerning TPS being revoke. US law explicitly said
there's no judicial review for that. But hey, they found
a judge that says, you know what, we the Democrat Party,
we are the party of illegal aliens. We are the
party of murderers and rapists and gang members. And the
Democrat Party exists here to fight to keep murderers and
(09:18):
rapists and gang members in your communities. There's a reason
the Democrat Party is at twenty six percent approval nationwide
because they put radical policies ahead of rule of law nationwide.
Injunctions are an abuse of power. It is the judiciary
(09:39):
acting as policy deciders, and it is incumbent on this
committee and this body to rein in the abuse of
power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to
overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decided.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
So here's my question you just teased at the end,
that is it's our job to look at raining them in.
How long does that take? Can it be done through legislation?
What are the options here? And how quick can we
get this under control?
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Well, it could be done quickly. There's legislation. In fact,
there's legislation we were talking about at that hearing that
Chuck Grassley's introduced that I'm a co sponsor of that
would remove the power of a district judge to issue
nationwide injunctions. I think that makes an awful lot of sense.
Is that going to pass? Probably not, because for it
to pass in the Senate would take sixty votes, which
would mean we would need seven Democrats to support it.
(10:33):
Every Democrat they're enthusiastic about this lawfare. They want to
see more of it, so they are dug in. That
remedy is not there. The other remedy that you and
I have talked about before is impeachment. Impeachment, You can
impeach a judge in the House with a majority vote
to utter and eighteen votes. It may well make sense
(10:54):
that one or more of the most egregious district judges
who are fying their oath of office should and perhaps
will be impeached by the House. However, if and when
that happens, it'll come over to the Senate for the trial.
And under the Constitution it takes two thirds to convict.
That means we'd need Democrats, and the Democrats are not
(11:16):
going to convict. There may be value in impeaching one
or more of these judges anyway to highlight the utter,
brazen lawlessness of it, and doing so would mean we
could have a trial on the floor of the Senate
to lay out just how lawless their conduct was. But
the judge is not going to be removed because the
Democrats are all in in support of illegal aliens and
(11:39):
against the rule of law. That means the remedy are
number one, the court of public opinion making people understand
sure just what an abuse of power this is, and
number two the appellate process, the courts of appeals and
ultimately the Supreme Court. Now I will say. Immediately after
I finished my questioning, Amy Klobuchar spoke next, and I
(12:00):
think my comments rattled her because she she tried to respond, Uh,
and I got to say what she was saying made
so little sense. I couldn't resist jumping in and and
and we had some real fireworks. So here give a listen.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
And the only reason there's all these injunction center Cruise
is because he's violating the constitution. Why would Trump appointed judges?
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Why don't you file him in red red districts?
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Senator Why what did you just say?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Why don't you file him in red districts? Why are
the Democratic tournator generals seeking out Senator Cruz? Left wing?
Senator Cruz's activity in.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
I'm just gonna ask for a point of order center
center Moody.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
We have debates on this committee that that.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Let's let her have her time and then we'll get
back to that. If you wait, we'll get back to cinema.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
A choice ahead. So I was following Senator Cruz once again,
but I.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
Will excuse me. I I didn't hear you.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
What did you say to be following him?
Speaker 2 (13:03):
He and I have a one. I was.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Permitting you your time to continue to oh, would be
following him in order excuse me, go ahead, Senator klob
during hearing. Go ahead, that's what I'm rehiring.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
To go ahead, and I will take more than my
time since he's taken more than his time to yell
at me.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
I'm not yelling.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
I asked a question, Senator Cruz, Please, I'll give you time.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
I do have to say, I've seen you yell.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
That was not yelling. I didn't raise my voice at all.
And by the way, Amy Klobachar had no answer none.
She's like, well, oh, these injunctions are issuing because everything
he's doing is illegal. It's like, great, why don't they
file him in red districts? Why are you seeking out
the most left wing judges in the country who used
to be radical activists, who were nominated because they're radical
(13:48):
activists who used to work for the left wing groups
that are now bringing the lawsuits. Why are you only
filing them in their courts? If it was so clear,
if it was such a slam dunk, you ought to
be able to file them in in red districts. And nope, Nope,
they ain't gonna do that. She had no answer whatsoever.
Because this is about power and abuse of power. This
(14:08):
is not about the rule of law.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
you can go back and listen to the full podcast
from earlier this week.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Now onto story number two.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Senator, There's also another important story that is one that
is I think exciting for transparency, but also frustrating at
the same time. You have opened an investigation into US
Fencing over their transathlete policy. Give us the backstory on
this and why you're so involved.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
So. USA Fencing has received widespread criticism for something that
happened last week. Stephanie Turner, who's a female fencer. She
refused to compete against the transgender opponent, a biological male
who decided that he was a she. And what happened
(15:02):
is Stephanie Turner, rather than compete against this biological mail
Stephanie Turner took a knee and as a result, she
was disqualified from the tournament. She was given a black
card and disqualified from the tournament. It was treated as forfeiting.
And I saw this frankly. I saw this on x
(15:25):
I saw this on Twitter, and I thought this was
outrageous because women should not be forced to compete against
men in sports. That's not right. Now. As you know,
I am the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. The Commerce Committee has massive jurisdiction, as jurisdiction
over roughly forty percent of the US economy. One of
(15:49):
the things we have jurisdiction over is sports. We have
jurisdiction over collegiate sports, Olympic sports, and any kind of
sports competition. And USA Fencing is explicitly it is the
vehicle through which the American fencing team in the Olympics
(16:13):
has chosen. And so last week I launched an investigation
and I sent an oversight letter to USA Fencing asking
for the documents on what their policy is, how many
transgender athletes have attempted to compete, how many women they
(16:33):
have disqualified for decline and compete, how many injuries have occurred. Look,
there are biological differences. Men are made differently than women,
and we've seen in many other sports significant injuries from
women being forced to compete against biological men. And at
the end of the day, the Congress has a very
(16:55):
direct remedy, which is we have the ability to to
cease the designation of USA Fencing as the organization that
chooses US Olympic athletes, and so this oversight is an effort.
I want to get them to change their policy. I
want to get them to protect women. I think women's
(17:16):
sports matters, girls sports matters, and I don't think any
women should be forced to compete against a man in sports.
I don't think any girl should be forced to compete
against a boy in sports.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
What does it look like if they're actually held accountable for.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
This, What it looks like is they change their policies.
That That is my objective here, is to change the
policy so that you don't end up having having women
discriminated against and put in a position where they're competing unfairly,
where they're put in a position where they're risking real,
(17:52):
real injuries.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
It'll be very interesting to see what that injury report
looks like. Is there a timeline for them getting back
to you with this request?
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Sure? So here's what I said to my letter. I
wrote it to the chief executive officer of USA Fencing,
and I said, dear mister Andrews, it has come to
my attention that USA Fencing is still permitting men to
compete in women's fencing in violation of federal law. I'm
writing to ask why your organization is the recognized national
governing body for fencing in the United States, but to
(18:21):
remain so, it must comply with the United States Olympic
and Paralympic Committee rules and procedures, its statutory obligations to
protect women, and President Trump's recent executive order on keeping
men out of women's sports. If it does not, and
instead continues to put women at risk, Congress may be
(18:41):
forced to terminate USA Fencing's NGB certification. Last week, Stephanie
Turner from the Fencing Academy of Philadelphia competed at the
USA Fencing sanctioned Cherry Blossom Open Circuit at the University
of Maryland. The young woman was set to face a
man who now claims to be a transgender woman in
a fencing bout. However, at the start of the match,
(19:04):
Miss Turner bravely took a knee and refused to compete
against her male opponent. In response to this young woman's courage,
tournament officials presented her with a black card and disqualified
her from the entire tournament. USA's Fencing's Director of Communications,
Brian Wendell, said, the young woman's disqualification was quote the
(19:26):
direct result of her decision to decline defense an eligible opponent,
a supposed violation of the International Fencing Federation rules. He
reiterated the USA Fencing's remains committed to inclusivity. USA Fencing's
commitment to inclusivity is nothing less than a full throat
of support for males competing in women's sports in violation
(19:49):
of federal law. As the recognized MGB for fencing, USA
Fencing is required to provide quote support and encouragement for
participation by women where programs for male and female athletes
are conducted on a national basis, as well as quote
safe environments and sports. Failure to do so is grounds
(20:10):
for the United States Congress to terminate USA Fencing certification
as an MGB. And I go on to say that
they have to comply with President Trump's executive order. And
I point out that male fencers naturally possess inherent advantages
over potential female competitors. Men tend to be taller, have
(20:31):
greater muscle mass, and more testosterone, all advantages for fencing
movements like lunges, jumping, or leg power measures. And I
point out that under the rules of the Senate, the
Commerce Committee has a duty and an authority to review
and study on a continuing basis both sports and sports
agencies such as USA Fencing, and so I ask, I
(20:56):
ask a whole series of questions, and I want documents
and answers April twenty first, twenty twenty five, and it's
documents about their transgender policy. How many men or transgender
women currently compete in the women's division in the last
four years. How many bouts have occurred between transgender women
and women? How many times does the female athlete prevail?
(21:17):
How many times did the female athletes suffer an injury?
Does USA Fencing comply with the President's executive order? And
I have a whole series of additional questions. But this
is an example of holding to account. And you've got
throughout sports, these radical associations, organizations that have embrace the
(21:39):
woke ideology. There's no difference between men and women, and
that is profoundly unfair to women and girls competing in sports.
And I'm going to do everything I can to stop it.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
As before, if you want to hear the rest of
this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
dow the podcasts from earlier this week to hear the
entire thing. I want to get back to the big
story number three of the week you may have missed.
I want to ask you about this other I would
just say insane news because I can't believe they've been
(22:11):
allowed to do it for so long. And that is
that is Mexico stealing water, which is suffocating farmers.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Yeap.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Specifically, it's happening in Texas and it's it's making farming
industry collapse and farmers disappearing from areas because there is
no water.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
So let me give you the background because this is
a really important issue. It's important in Texas, but it's
important in the country, which is there's a water treaty
that we signed with Mexico in nineteen forty four, the
Mexican Water Treaty of nineteen forty four. It obligates Mexico
to provide three hundred and fifty thousand acre feet of
water a year to South Texas. That's over a five
(22:53):
year period. Okay, for the last five years Mexico has
been openinley and brazenly violating the treaty. They've not been
providing the water. They are right now in this five
year period, one point three million acre feet in arrears water.
(23:15):
They have not provided that they've committed by treaty to provide.
Now what are they doing. They're diverting that water that
should go to South Texas farmers under the treaty to
Mexican farmers. And a couple of things are happening. So
in South Texas there is a massive drought going on.
It is doing enormous damage to farmers. And I spent
(23:36):
a lot of time in South Texas and the damage
to farmers. We're seeing a lot of South Texas farmers
that are taking half of their acreage out of production.
They're shutting down half of their farms just because they
don't have the water to do it right. They're laying
off thousands of workers. So there was one sugar mill
(23:58):
in all of Texas last year. It shut down because
of water, and it shut down because the sugar farmers
did not have the water to raise the sugar. Wow,
and it's gone.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
And Mexico on the other side of green as can be.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
It is green as can be. The Mexican farmers are prospering.
They're literally stealing our water. And by the way, like
President Trump talks a lot about foreign countries taking advantage
of America. Example this is this is literally the Mexican
government stealing our.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Water and if Joe Biden do anything to stop.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
This, zero and he knew about it, so he knew
about it. So I've engaged this issue. I engaged. I
started engaging about two years ago. And I started engaging
when I was down in South Texas and I did
a roundtail with farmers and they raised this issue to me.
And two years ago, I didn't know what the water
Tree of nineteen forty four was, and they explained it
to me. And at the time they were really worried,
(24:52):
we're going to lose our sugar mill if this doesn't change.
And I said, look, I think I can help. I'm
going to lean in. And I began leaning in aggressively.
I forced a vote on the Senate floor on an
amendment to direct the state Department to use every lever
point we have to force Mexico to comply with a
water treaty. I got a majority of the senator, bipartisan majority.
(25:15):
And then there's a water commissioner for the United States.
I leaned in with the water commissioner said Look, the
Senate has spoken a bipartisan majority, and here's the fundamental problem.
Joe Biden didn't give a damn about this. So I
desperately tried to get the Biden administration to exert leverage. Yeah,
and they just didn't care.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Now, by the way, leverage for Donald Trump at this
point was him saying, hey, I'm coming after you with
tariffs or sanctions, so do the right thing now before
I have to do that, and they know he means it.
Unlike even if you had that same statement from Joe Biden,
he ain't gonna do anything.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
So in South Texas, cities are also facing massive drought.
You're literally facing the cities not having enough water for
their citizens because Mexico's stealing the water. And so I
leaned in. I could not get the Biden's administration do
a damn thing. In December, as part of the Continuing Resolution,
I authored legislation that got adopted that provided two hundred
(26:10):
and eighty million dollars in emergency relief for Texas farmers
because they're they're going broke. And we're talking about generational farms,
farms that have been three four generations who were being
bankrupted because their government is not enforcing the treaty and
they're being starved of water. And so several weeks ago
I went down to South Texas with Brook Rawlins. Brook
(26:32):
Rollins is the Secretary of Agriculture. Brooke has been a
good friend of mine for twenty five years. She's a Texan.
She's the first Texan in the history of the country
to be the Secretary of Agriculture. She's also the first
Secretary of Agriculture ever to go to the Rio Grande Valley. Wow,
and she came to the valley at my request. I
asked her come down with me, and we did. We
(26:55):
did a press conference number one where she announced I've
got two hundred and eighty million dollars I'm giving the
South Texas because your federal government has been screwing you
by not getting the water back and Mexico is starving you.
But we also did a roundtable. We did a roundtable
with farmers where Brooke and I talked with the farmers
and the Rio Grand Valley has been bright blue for
(27:17):
one hundred years. In twenty twenty four, the Rio Grand
Valley flipped red. I won the valley and Donald Trump
won the valley. Indible. That has never happened. I won
Hispanic state wide in Texas by six points. That's never happened.
I have spent an enormous amount of time and millions
(27:38):
of dollars in the valley trying to flip the valley
red because I saw the potential there. And so I
think I've invested more than any elected official in Texas
in terms of turning the valley red. Well, I got
to say, sitting there at that roundtable, you got farmers
and ranchers and you're just asking them. Look, over the
last four years, did Joe Biden do a damn thing
(27:58):
for you? No? And that's how you turn this And
what I told them as I said, listen, if there's
one thing you know about Donald Trump, he will stand
up to foreign countries and fight for you. And I
made that commitment. And frankly, look, these are voters who
their entire lives have voted Democrats. Their parents voted Democrat,
(28:21):
their grandparents voted Democrat, their great grandparents voted Democrat. And
this last election, for the first time, they pulled the
lever for Republican going down there and saying, look, we're
fighting for you. We're going to get you the damn
water is one of the ways you lock those votes.
And it's a generational shift for Texas.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
By the way, this is the first time for Verdict.
They've just opened the vote. They're only keeping it open
for fifteen minutes.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
So I'm gonna go momentary.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
You're gonna go momentarily, which means actually it's about twelve
minutes because I'm a couple minutes behind. Just this is
why I love doing Verdict, because this is how it
really works. And in Sandy in the Senate.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
So I will say this. I called President Trump a
week ago and I said, miss President, would make a
huge difference if you leaned in personally with the president
of Mexico and said, provide us the water.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Yeah, knock it off.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
And he said, I'll tell you what. I'll send a
truth social post. And so I worked with him on
the wording of it, and tonight when I was in
the Oval, I said, miss President, can you send that
truth post?
Speaker 4 (29:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (29:27):
He sent it tonight. I'm going to read it to you.
Here's what President Trump sent this evening. Mexico owes Texas
one point three million acre feet of water under the
nineteen forty four water treaty, but Mexico is unfortunately violating
their treaty obligation. This is very unfair and it is
(29:47):
hurting South Texas farmers very badly. Last year, the only
sugar mill in Texas closed because Mexico has been stealing
the water from Texas farmers. Ted Cruz has been leading
the fight to get South Texas the water it is owed,
but Sleepy Joe refused to lift a finger to help
(30:11):
the farmers. This ends now. I will make sure that
Mexico doesn't violate our treaties and doesn't hurt our Texas farmers.
Just last month, I halted water shipments to Tijuana until
Mexico complies with the nineteen forty four water treaty. My
(30:33):
Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins is standing up for Texas farmers
and we will keep escalating consequences, including TIFFs and maybe
even sanctions, until Mexico honors the treaty and gives Texas
the water they are owed and gives Texas the water
(30:55):
they are owed. Is an all caps There you go.
That tweet got sent out tonight. I'll tell you in
just within an hour of that tweet going out, the
President of Mexico is sent out a tweet saying we're
gonna fix this. We're gonna fix this, and the Mexican
government is freaking out. That's what it looks like to
be a leader president who is fighting for America. Joe
(31:16):
Biden could have done that for four years, but he
didn't give a flip about farmers in South Texas going
out of business. The President's tweet, and I can tell
you Mexico is in the process now negotiating with the
state Department to provide for the water. We're gonna get
the water, and that's a great that's a greatreat victory
for Texas in America. Go vote. You're on the clock now.
(31:37):
I love it as always.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Thank you for listening to Verdict with Center Ted Cruz
Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down with my
podcast and you can listen to my podcast every other
day you're not listening to Verdict or each day when
you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to have you
as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and
we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Welcome. It is Verdict with Ted Cruz, the Week in Review,
Ben Ferguson with you, and these are the big stories
that we talked about this week that you may have missed.
First up, judicial activism having a major impact at trying
to stop Donald trump In's administration. Well, there was a
very big victory for the Trump administration and it's gonna
have precedents nationwide. We'll break that story down for you
(00:24):
in just a moment. Up next, an investigation has been
opened into US fencing after they disqualified a woman who
refused to fight against a trans fencer aka a dude
acting like a chick. They gave her the black card,
disqualifying her from the entire competition because she stood up
(00:45):
for what she believed in. And now there's an investigation
and to not find the law when it comes to
US fencing. And finally, in a shocking move, Mexico has
been stealing water from American farmers on the border. It
is now costing them their livelihoods and President Trump is
fighting back. It's the Week in Review and it starts
(01:08):
right now. Another threat and it's not been covered in
the news the way that it should have because we've
been dealing with this. Obviously led with this issue because
it's very important, but it's judicial activism that's having a
major impact on this administration, and in a shocking way,
I would even say historic way when you look at
the numbers. You're dealing with this now in the Senate,
(01:29):
with these judges that are basically getting to be activists,
but their injunctions are having a whole nationwide A lot
of people didn't even know that was a possibility. Isn't
an abuse of power? Is there a check and balance
that we need to have on that. Lit's dive into
that as well.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
So it's an absolute abuse of power. It is worse
than it has ever been. We have seen against Donald
Trump in the first two months of administration, more nationwide
injunctions issued against President Trump than in the entirety of
the George W. Bush administration all eight year, the entirety
of the Barack Obama administration all eight years, the entirety
(02:04):
of the Joe Biden administration all four years. More in
two months than in those twenty years. We have two
months and twenty years.
Speaker 1 (02:13):
You say it, You said it quickly. I want people
to just pause and think about how much of abuse
of power there has to be if they're doing it
that much like this is deliberate.
Speaker 2 (02:20):
Well, and listen to Attorney General Pambondi talk about this.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
The President is going to comply with the law. He
was overwhelmingly elected by an overwhelming majority of the United
States citizens to be our commander in chief, and that's
what he's been doing, Shannon. Just since January twentieth, we've
had over one hundred and seventy lawsuits filed against us.
That should be the constitutional crisis right there. Fifty injunctions.
(02:47):
They're popping up every single day, trying to control his
executive power, trying to control where he believes our tax
dollars should be allocated. And saying he won by an
overwhelming majority is so important because that's what the American
people want, what President Trump campaigned on and what he
want on, and he's implementing that agenda at a rapid speed.
(03:10):
None of us can keep up with them every single day,
and so it's just we're going after all of these lawsuits,
we're defending them all. We just got a great win,
and we'll continue to fight.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
I talked to a judge this week and he described
it this way, because I was wanting to understand this subject.
Obviously we're going to talk about it's important, and we
haven't dealt with this a lot.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
He said.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
In essence, what the court's doing, Ben is they are
doing a coup against Donald Trump by neutering him with
his agenda. And he said that is not how the
constitution was set up, Like, you should not be able
to neuter a president this way, saying we know you won,
we know the American people support you, they voted for you,
but we're not going to let you do what you're
supposed to do as president anyway.
Speaker 2 (03:48):
Well, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden put left wing
radicals on the courts, and then this is Democrat State
Attorney's General and left wing radical groups going and seeking
out these radical judges, of whom, by the way, used
to work for the groups that are suing. I mean,
I mean it is. It is fundamentally corrupt, and it
is one judge. Normally a judge has the authority over
the parties before him or her, but these judges are
(04:11):
issuing nationwide orders trying to stop everything President Trump is
trying to do. We had a hearing of the Judiciary
Committee last week on this that was focusing on the
threat to democracy and the rule of law from these
nationwide injunctions. Here's what I had to say at the hearing.
It's long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that
(04:32):
vice pays to virtue. I have to admit I'm enjoying
listening to my Democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of
the rule of law after four years where they brazenly
supported the most lawless Department of Justice and the most
politically weaponized Department of Justice our nation has ever seen.
We just heard the Senator from Rhoye Island talk about
the imperative of protecting judges, and yet not a single
(04:56):
Democrat senator cared about the violent protesters that showed up
outside Supreme Court justices homes, including I might note female
justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, threatening their family. And
Joe Biden's Attorney General didn't do a damn thing and
refused to enforce the law to protect those judges. Why
because he agreed with the violent protesters and he wanted
(05:17):
to intimidate and threaten those judges. Professor Bray, under our constitution,
who should decide elections the voters are unelected judges.
Speaker 4 (05:34):
The voters are the ones who should vote in the
election according to the laws, and the laws sometimes have
to be applied by the judges if they're anse.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
And under our constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions?
Elected representatives elected by the people or unelected federal judges?
Speaker 4 (05:53):
I think the question of policy, Senator, is a little
broader than the particular case. The laws should be enacted
by Congress. That's where the fountain of.
Speaker 2 (06:03):
La polacy decisions are the elected branch. Right, law is
the province of the court. Policy is the province of
the elected branches. These are not complicated, Professor bry Let
me ask you this. Do the federal courts have power
to issue remedies for people who are not parties to
a case?
Speaker 4 (06:21):
That's the question, I agree is not complicated. They do
not have that power.
Speaker 2 (06:25):
Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere
in the Constitution?
Speaker 4 (06:30):
It is not.
Speaker 2 (06:32):
First chart the first one hundred and fifty years of
our republic, how many nationwide injunctions were issued?
Speaker 4 (06:38):
My view is that there were not any until nineteen
sixty three zero.
Speaker 2 (06:42):
Now fast forward, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in
the entire twentieth century.
Speaker 4 (06:49):
It's a small number, I would I would think it
would be a dozen. Giver take it's not large.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
Twenty seven actually, excluding Trump's first term. How many nationwide
injunctions were issued in the last twenty.
Speaker 4 (07:05):
Years far more than that thirty two from.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Twenty twenty and one to twenty twenty four against Biden,
Obama and Bush thirty two. And how many nationwide injunctions
have been issued in the last two months alone.
Speaker 4 (07:23):
There have been quite a few thirty seven.
Speaker 2 (07:27):
Let that sink in. There have been more nationwide injunctions
in the past two months against President Trump than in
the entire twentieth century. There have been more nationwide injunction
against President Trump in the last two months than both
terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama,
(07:47):
and Joe Biden's term. We saw during the Biden presidency
law Fair indicting President Trump four times, using the machinery
of justice to attack him, and that was an attack
on democracy. Because democrats today hate democracy. Democrats today are
(08:08):
angry at the voters for re electing Donald Trump and
electing a Republican Senate in a Republican House, and they
engage in lawfair to stop democracy from operating. Understand, this
is the second phase of lawfair. Second chart. This is
the second phase of lawfair. Now that their efforts to
(08:30):
indict President Trump and stop the voters from re electing
him have failed, they're going and seeking out individual radical
judges to try to shut down policies, and they are
forum shopping like crazy. Give me any loon judge put
on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with
the policy. We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore US
(08:53):
immigration law concerning TPS being revoke. US law explicitly said
there's no judicial review for that. But hey, they found
a judge that says, you know what, we the Democrat Party,
we are the party of illegal aliens. We are the
party of murderers and rapists and gang members. And the
Democrat Party exists here to fight to keep murderers and
(09:18):
rapists and gang members in your communities. There's a reason
the Democrat Party is at twenty six percent approval nationwide
because they put radical policies ahead of rule of law nationwide.
Injunctions are an abuse of power. It is the judiciary
(09:39):
acting as policy deciders, and it is incumbent on this
committee and this body to rein in the abuse of
power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to
overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decided.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
So here's my question you just teased at the end,
that is it's our job to look at raining them in.
How long does that take? Can it be done through legislation?
What are the options here? And how quick can we
get this under control?
Speaker 2 (10:10):
Well, it could be done quickly. There's legislation. In fact,
there's legislation we were talking about at that hearing that
Chuck Grassley's introduced that I'm a co sponsor of that
would remove the power of a district judge to issue
nationwide injunctions. I think that makes an awful lot of sense.
Is that going to pass? Probably not, because for it
to pass in the Senate would take sixty votes, which
would mean we would need seven Democrats to support it.
(10:33):
Every Democrat they're enthusiastic about this lawfare. They want to
see more of it, so they are dug in. That
remedy is not there. The other remedy that you and
I have talked about before is impeachment. Impeachment, You can
impeach a judge in the House with a majority vote
to utter and eighteen votes. It may well make sense
(10:54):
that one or more of the most egregious district judges
who are fying their oath of office should and perhaps
will be impeached by the House. However, if and when
that happens, it'll come over to the Senate for the trial.
And under the Constitution it takes two thirds to convict.
That means we'd need Democrats, and the Democrats are not
(11:16):
going to convict. There may be value in impeaching one
or more of these judges anyway to highlight the utter,
brazen lawlessness of it, and doing so would mean we
could have a trial on the floor of the Senate
to lay out just how lawless their conduct was. But
the judge is not going to be removed because the
Democrats are all in in support of illegal aliens and
(11:39):
against the rule of law. That means the remedy are
number one, the court of public opinion making people understand
sure just what an abuse of power this is, and
number two the appellate process, the courts of appeals and
ultimately the Supreme Court. Now I will say. Immediately after
I finished my questioning, Amy Klobuchar spoke next, and I
(12:00):
think my comments rattled her because she she tried to respond, Uh,
and I got to say what she was saying made
so little sense. I couldn't resist jumping in and and
and we had some real fireworks. So here give a listen.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
And the only reason there's all these injunction center Cruise
is because he's violating the constitution. Why would Trump appointed judges?
Speaker 2 (12:22):
Why don't you file him in red red districts?
Speaker 3 (12:25):
Senator Why what did you just say?
Speaker 2 (12:27):
Why don't you file him in red districts? Why are
the Democratic tournator generals seeking out Senator Cruz? Left wing?
Senator Cruz's activity in.
Speaker 3 (12:39):
I'm just gonna ask for a point of order center
center Moody.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
We have debates on this committee that that.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Let's let her have her time and then we'll get
back to that. If you wait, we'll get back to cinema.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
A choice ahead. So I was following Senator Cruz once again,
but I.
Speaker 3 (12:58):
Will excuse me. I I didn't hear you.
Speaker 4 (13:00):
What did you say to be following him?
Speaker 2 (13:03):
He and I have a one. I was.
Speaker 3 (13:06):
Permitting you your time to continue to oh, would be
following him in order excuse me, go ahead, Senator klob
during hearing. Go ahead, that's what I'm rehiring.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
To go ahead, and I will take more than my
time since he's taken more than his time to yell
at me.
Speaker 2 (13:21):
I'm not yelling.
Speaker 3 (13:22):
I asked a question, Senator Cruz, Please, I'll give you time.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
I do have to say, I've seen you yell.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
That was not yelling. I didn't raise my voice at all.
And by the way, Amy Klobachar had no answer none.
She's like, well, oh, these injunctions are issuing because everything
he's doing is illegal. It's like, great, why don't they
file him in red districts? Why are you seeking out
the most left wing judges in the country who used
to be radical activists, who were nominated because they're radical
(13:48):
activists who used to work for the left wing groups
that are now bringing the lawsuits. Why are you only
filing them in their courts? If it was so clear,
if it was such a slam dunk, you ought to
be able to file them in in red districts. And nope, Nope,
they ain't gonna do that. She had no answer whatsoever.
Because this is about power and abuse of power. This
(14:08):
is not about the rule of law.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
Now, if you want to hear the rest of this conversation,
you can go back and listen to the full podcast
from earlier this week.
Speaker 2 (14:17):
Now onto story number two.
Speaker 1 (14:19):
Senator, There's also another important story that is one that
is I think exciting for transparency, but also frustrating at
the same time. You have opened an investigation into US
Fencing over their transathlete policy. Give us the backstory on
this and why you're so involved.
Speaker 2 (14:41):
So. USA Fencing has received widespread criticism for something that
happened last week. Stephanie Turner, who's a female fencer. She
refused to compete against the transgender opponent, a biological male
who decided that he was a she. And what happened
(15:02):
is Stephanie Turner, rather than compete against this biological mail
Stephanie Turner took a knee and as a result, she
was disqualified from the tournament. She was given a black
card and disqualified from the tournament. It was treated as forfeiting.
And I saw this frankly. I saw this on x
(15:25):
I saw this on Twitter, and I thought this was
outrageous because women should not be forced to compete against
men in sports. That's not right. Now. As you know,
I am the chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation. The Commerce Committee has massive jurisdiction, as jurisdiction
over roughly forty percent of the US economy. One of
(15:49):
the things we have jurisdiction over is sports. We have
jurisdiction over collegiate sports, Olympic sports, and any kind of
sports competition. And USA Fencing is explicitly it is the
vehicle through which the American fencing team in the Olympics
(16:13):
has chosen. And so last week I launched an investigation
and I sent an oversight letter to USA Fencing asking
for the documents on what their policy is, how many
transgender athletes have attempted to compete, how many women they
(16:33):
have disqualified for decline and compete, how many injuries have occurred. Look,
there are biological differences. Men are made differently than women,
and we've seen in many other sports significant injuries from
women being forced to compete against biological men. And at
the end of the day, the Congress has a very
(16:55):
direct remedy, which is we have the ability to to
cease the designation of USA Fencing as the organization that
chooses US Olympic athletes, and so this oversight is an effort.
I want to get them to change their policy. I
want to get them to protect women. I think women's
(17:16):
sports matters, girls sports matters, and I don't think any
women should be forced to compete against a man in sports.
I don't think any girl should be forced to compete
against a boy in sports.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
What does it look like if they're actually held accountable for.
Speaker 2 (17:28):
This, What it looks like is they change their policies.
That That is my objective here, is to change the
policy so that you don't end up having having women
discriminated against and put in a position where they're competing unfairly,
where they're put in a position where they're risking real,
(17:52):
real injuries.
Speaker 1 (17:53):
It'll be very interesting to see what that injury report
looks like. Is there a timeline for them getting back
to you with this request?
Speaker 2 (18:00):
Sure? So here's what I said to my letter. I
wrote it to the chief executive officer of USA Fencing,
and I said, dear mister Andrews, it has come to
my attention that USA Fencing is still permitting men to
compete in women's fencing in violation of federal law. I'm
writing to ask why your organization is the recognized national
governing body for fencing in the United States, but to
(18:21):
remain so, it must comply with the United States Olympic
and Paralympic Committee rules and procedures, its statutory obligations to
protect women, and President Trump's recent executive order on keeping
men out of women's sports. If it does not, and
instead continues to put women at risk, Congress may be
(18:41):
forced to terminate USA Fencing's NGB certification. Last week, Stephanie
Turner from the Fencing Academy of Philadelphia competed at the
USA Fencing sanctioned Cherry Blossom Open Circuit at the University
of Maryland. The young woman was set to face a
man who now claims to be a transgender woman in
a fencing bout. However, at the start of the match,
(19:04):
Miss Turner bravely took a knee and refused to compete
against her male opponent. In response to this young woman's courage,
tournament officials presented her with a black card and disqualified
her from the entire tournament. USA's Fencing's Director of Communications,
Brian Wendell, said, the young woman's disqualification was quote the
(19:26):
direct result of her decision to decline defense an eligible opponent,
a supposed violation of the International Fencing Federation rules. He
reiterated the USA Fencing's remains committed to inclusivity. USA Fencing's
commitment to inclusivity is nothing less than a full throat
of support for males competing in women's sports in violation
(19:49):
of federal law. As the recognized MGB for fencing, USA
Fencing is required to provide quote support and encouragement for
participation by women where programs for male and female athletes
are conducted on a national basis, as well as quote
safe environments and sports. Failure to do so is grounds
(20:10):
for the United States Congress to terminate USA Fencing certification
as an MGB. And I go on to say that
they have to comply with President Trump's executive order. And
I point out that male fencers naturally possess inherent advantages
over potential female competitors. Men tend to be taller, have
(20:31):
greater muscle mass, and more testosterone, all advantages for fencing
movements like lunges, jumping, or leg power measures. And I
point out that under the rules of the Senate, the
Commerce Committee has a duty and an authority to review
and study on a continuing basis both sports and sports
agencies such as USA Fencing, and so I ask, I
(20:56):
ask a whole series of questions, and I want documents
and answers April twenty first, twenty twenty five, and it's
documents about their transgender policy. How many men or transgender
women currently compete in the women's division in the last
four years. How many bouts have occurred between transgender women
and women? How many times does the female athlete prevail?
(21:17):
How many times did the female athletes suffer an injury?
Does USA Fencing comply with the President's executive order? And
I have a whole series of additional questions. But this
is an example of holding to account. And you've got
throughout sports, these radical associations, organizations that have embrace the
(21:39):
woke ideology. There's no difference between men and women, and
that is profoundly unfair to women and girls competing in sports.
And I'm going to do everything I can to stop it.
Speaker 1 (21:51):
As before, if you want to hear the rest of
this conversation on this topic, you can go back and
dow the podcasts from earlier this week to hear the
entire thing. I want to get back to the big
story number three of the week you may have missed.
I want to ask you about this other I would
just say insane news because I can't believe they've been
(22:11):
allowed to do it for so long. And that is
that is Mexico stealing water, which is suffocating farmers.
Speaker 2 (22:19):
Yeap.
Speaker 1 (22:20):
Specifically, it's happening in Texas and it's it's making farming
industry collapse and farmers disappearing from areas because there is
no water.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
So let me give you the background because this is
a really important issue. It's important in Texas, but it's
important in the country, which is there's a water treaty
that we signed with Mexico in nineteen forty four, the
Mexican Water Treaty of nineteen forty four. It obligates Mexico
to provide three hundred and fifty thousand acre feet of
water a year to South Texas. That's over a five
(22:53):
year period. Okay, for the last five years Mexico has
been openinley and brazenly violating the treaty. They've not been
providing the water. They are right now in this five
year period, one point three million acre feet in arrears water.
(23:15):
They have not provided that they've committed by treaty to provide.
Now what are they doing. They're diverting that water that
should go to South Texas farmers under the treaty to
Mexican farmers. And a couple of things are happening. So
in South Texas there is a massive drought going on.
It is doing enormous damage to farmers. And I spent
(23:36):
a lot of time in South Texas and the damage
to farmers. We're seeing a lot of South Texas farmers
that are taking half of their acreage out of production.
They're shutting down half of their farms just because they
don't have the water to do it right. They're laying
off thousands of workers. So there was one sugar mill
(23:58):
in all of Texas last year. It shut down because
of water, and it shut down because the sugar farmers
did not have the water to raise the sugar. Wow,
and it's gone.
Speaker 1 (24:10):
And Mexico on the other side of green as can be.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
It is green as can be. The Mexican farmers are prospering.
They're literally stealing our water. And by the way, like
President Trump talks a lot about foreign countries taking advantage
of America. Example this is this is literally the Mexican
government stealing our.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Water and if Joe Biden do anything to stop.
Speaker 2 (24:30):
This, zero and he knew about it, so he knew
about it. So I've engaged this issue. I engaged. I
started engaging about two years ago. And I started engaging
when I was down in South Texas and I did
a roundtail with farmers and they raised this issue to me.
And two years ago, I didn't know what the water
Tree of nineteen forty four was, and they explained it
to me. And at the time they were really worried,
(24:52):
we're going to lose our sugar mill if this doesn't change.
And I said, look, I think I can help. I'm
going to lean in. And I began leaning in aggressively.
I forced a vote on the Senate floor on an
amendment to direct the state Department to use every lever
point we have to force Mexico to comply with a
water treaty. I got a majority of the senator, bipartisan majority.
(25:15):
And then there's a water commissioner for the United States.
I leaned in with the water commissioner said Look, the
Senate has spoken a bipartisan majority, and here's the fundamental problem.
Joe Biden didn't give a damn about this. So I
desperately tried to get the Biden administration to exert leverage. Yeah,
and they just didn't care.
Speaker 1 (25:35):
Now, by the way, leverage for Donald Trump at this
point was him saying, hey, I'm coming after you with
tariffs or sanctions, so do the right thing now before
I have to do that, and they know he means it.
Unlike even if you had that same statement from Joe Biden,
he ain't gonna do anything.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
So in South Texas, cities are also facing massive drought.
You're literally facing the cities not having enough water for
their citizens because Mexico's stealing the water. And so I
leaned in. I could not get the Biden's administration do
a damn thing. In December, as part of the Continuing Resolution,
I authored legislation that got adopted that provided two hundred
(26:10):
and eighty million dollars in emergency relief for Texas farmers
because they're they're going broke. And we're talking about generational farms,
farms that have been three four generations who were being
bankrupted because their government is not enforcing the treaty and
they're being starved of water. And so several weeks ago
I went down to South Texas with Brook Rawlins. Brook
(26:32):
Rollins is the Secretary of Agriculture. Brooke has been a
good friend of mine for twenty five years. She's a Texan.
She's the first Texan in the history of the country
to be the Secretary of Agriculture. She's also the first
Secretary of Agriculture ever to go to the Rio Grande Valley. Wow,
and she came to the valley at my request. I
asked her come down with me, and we did. We
(26:55):
did a press conference number one where she announced I've
got two hundred and eighty million dollars I'm giving the
South Texas because your federal government has been screwing you
by not getting the water back and Mexico is starving you.
But we also did a roundtable. We did a roundtable
with farmers where Brooke and I talked with the farmers
and the Rio Grand Valley has been bright blue for
(27:17):
one hundred years. In twenty twenty four, the Rio Grand
Valley flipped red. I won the valley and Donald Trump
won the valley. Indible. That has never happened. I won
Hispanic state wide in Texas by six points. That's never happened.
I have spent an enormous amount of time and millions
(27:38):
of dollars in the valley trying to flip the valley
red because I saw the potential there. And so I
think I've invested more than any elected official in Texas
in terms of turning the valley red. Well, I got
to say, sitting there at that roundtable, you got farmers
and ranchers and you're just asking them. Look, over the
last four years, did Joe Biden do a damn thing
(27:58):
for you? No? And that's how you turn this And
what I told them as I said, listen, if there's
one thing you know about Donald Trump, he will stand
up to foreign countries and fight for you. And I
made that commitment. And frankly, look, these are voters who
their entire lives have voted Democrats. Their parents voted Democrat,
(28:21):
their grandparents voted Democrat, their great grandparents voted Democrat. And
this last election, for the first time, they pulled the
lever for Republican going down there and saying, look, we're
fighting for you. We're going to get you the damn
water is one of the ways you lock those votes.
And it's a generational shift for Texas.
Speaker 1 (28:41):
By the way, this is the first time for Verdict.
They've just opened the vote. They're only keeping it open
for fifteen minutes.
Speaker 2 (28:47):
So I'm gonna go momentary.
Speaker 1 (28:48):
You're gonna go momentarily, which means actually it's about twelve
minutes because I'm a couple minutes behind. Just this is
why I love doing Verdict, because this is how it
really works. And in Sandy in the Senate.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
So I will say this. I called President Trump a
week ago and I said, miss President, would make a
huge difference if you leaned in personally with the president
of Mexico and said, provide us the water.
Speaker 4 (29:12):
Yeah, knock it off.
Speaker 2 (29:13):
And he said, I'll tell you what. I'll send a
truth social post. And so I worked with him on
the wording of it, and tonight when I was in
the Oval, I said, miss President, can you send that
truth post?
Speaker 4 (29:26):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (29:27):
He sent it tonight. I'm going to read it to you.
Here's what President Trump sent this evening. Mexico owes Texas
one point three million acre feet of water under the
nineteen forty four water treaty, but Mexico is unfortunately violating
their treaty obligation. This is very unfair and it is
(29:47):
hurting South Texas farmers very badly. Last year, the only
sugar mill in Texas closed because Mexico has been stealing
the water from Texas farmers. Ted Cruz has been leading
the fight to get South Texas the water it is owed,
but Sleepy Joe refused to lift a finger to help
(30:11):
the farmers. This ends now. I will make sure that
Mexico doesn't violate our treaties and doesn't hurt our Texas farmers.
Just last month, I halted water shipments to Tijuana until
Mexico complies with the nineteen forty four water treaty. My
(30:33):
Agriculture Secretary Brook Rollins is standing up for Texas farmers
and we will keep escalating consequences, including TIFFs and maybe
even sanctions, until Mexico honors the treaty and gives Texas
the water they are owed and gives Texas the water
(30:55):
they are owed. Is an all caps There you go.
That tweet got sent out tonight. I'll tell you in
just within an hour of that tweet going out, the
President of Mexico is sent out a tweet saying we're
gonna fix this. We're gonna fix this, and the Mexican
government is freaking out. That's what it looks like to
be a leader president who is fighting for America. Joe
(31:16):
Biden could have done that for four years, but he
didn't give a flip about farmers in South Texas going
out of business. The President's tweet, and I can tell
you Mexico is in the process now negotiating with the
state Department to provide for the water. We're gonna get
the water, and that's a great that's a greatreat victory
for Texas in America. Go vote. You're on the clock now.
(31:37):
I love it as always.
Speaker 1 (31:39):
Thank you for listening to Verdict with Center Ted Cruz
Ben Ferguson with you don't forget to down with my
podcast and you can listen to my podcast every other
day you're not listening to Verdict or each day when
you listen to Verdict. Afterwards, I'd love to have you
as a listener to again the Ben Ferguson podcasts, and
we will see you back here on Monday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
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. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!