June 6, 2025 • 22 mins
Is Trump’s “big beautiful bill” actually worth supporting? Inez Stepman of the Independent Women’s Forum joins to break it all down, from the immigration wins and tax cuts to the surprising reforms in higher education. While some conservatives like Rand Paul and Elon Musk are sounding the alarm over deficit concerns, Inez makes the case for why this bill might be the best Republicans can get, and why immigration enforcement needs to take priority. Plus, is the bromance between Trump and Elon officially over? Buck and Inez dive into the clash of egos, ideology, and what it means for the future of the GOP.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
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 (00:11):
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Is the Big Beautiful Bill? Big Beautiful? And will it
become a bill? These are things that we should dive
into now with our friend Inez Felcher, stepman of the
Independent Woman's Forum, also a new mom seven months, not
quite as new as I am a dad, but she's
given me all the insights and all the special tips
(00:40):
to be good at the parent thing.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
So we'll talk about I was just telling him he
had a lot to look forward to, that's all.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
They get cuter and cuter.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Well, that's a tip, especially when I'm spending a lot
of time now bottle feeding and changing diapers, and a
lot of time is probably a lie. I do it
a little bit. Carrie does ninety five percent of it,
So once in a while I get in there just
to show everybody that I can. But I'm trying to help.
He's very cute little guy. But we'll talk cute baby
stuff in a second. First, America, The Big Beautiful Bill.
(01:08):
Where are you on this one? Because you're a you're
a realist and somebody who looks at the numbers. So
how does that come out for you? Which side of
this do you think should should end up winning? So
to speak?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Yeah, well, look, I've been against a lot of these
big omipus bills. I've complained about them, but I actually
think this one's pretty good. Now that's not to say
that it's perfect. I think there are a lot of
There is a lot of merit to Elon's criticism on
the deficit. This is not really a deficit reduction bill.
That being said, I mean, how many times have Republicans
(01:46):
not you know, have promised to make substantial cuts and
they haven't done it. And that's partially because really bending
the cost curve on American governance means doing some things
that are really unpopular with the American people, like you know,
reforming entitlements and yes, eventually we're going to slam into
some kind of physical wall. All of that being said,
(02:06):
I think the policy in this bill is really good,
and I think think it's worth passing for the policy.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Some of those policies.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Obviously, the top line the tax cuts, no tax on tips,
and tax on overtime. That is something that the fuel
that the economy needs, especially with some of the uncertainty
around tariffs. If we want to try to restructure and
bring more things home, like we need to shore up
the basics of the economy.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
So I think that's good.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
But then a lot of the little things are I
don't think they're little things, but like things that are
not getting the headlines. In the same way, there's a
lot of Green New Deal subsidies that are cut in
this bill. Most importantly for me, there's an endowment tax.
There's a proposal to tax endowments of universities at twenty
one percent, which I think is a long, long overdue
(02:53):
higher ED reform. The other pieces of higher ed reforms
in this bill are also quite impressive. I was initially
kind of negative on it, but they've improved it since then.
And this is the first time, for example, that we're
starting to structurally touch student loans and try to start,
you know, stoping the cost of university tuition via these
government backed loans that are going into default at record rates,
(03:17):
trying to start bending that cost curve. I think those
things are all really substantively important. And then probably the
most important, the most central promise of the Trump administration
from twenty sixteen campaign to twenty twenty campaign twenty twenty four.
Right is immigration enforcement. Now the president is doing what
he can from the administrative side, from the executive side,
(03:39):
but this gives money to build the wall. It gives
money to border patrol and immigration enforcement more broadly, that
is desperately needed. Everybody is understaffed for the magnitude of
the problem. And it deals with some of the recalibrating.
Our military is starting to actually produce more munitions at home.
Like that's something that all of these things, to me,
(04:00):
are like really critical issues that we should be happy that,
you know, the Republican government is finally addressing. And I
say this to someone who's been a critic of like
almost every quote unquote big beautiful bill since then, this
one seems pretty good to me, even granting some of
the critiques about the deficit.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Now, explain to me if you would. Now it's funny,
because I feel like I should be able to explain
this to anybody who asked, because I've talked to Senator
Ran Paul about this on radio. I've talked to Senator
Ron Johnson about this on radio, and I understand their
philosophical objection, which is we're raising the debt ceiling of
(04:38):
five trillion dollars, the most I think it's ever been raised.
And it's this is not going to address even the deficit. Right,
it's not going to do as I understand this? What
I don't understand and maybe you can help me with
this And they might have told me, but I've forgotten
because it was last week. What if they want to
be done here? That's different. There's there's the philosophical objection.
(04:59):
I get it. They're like, this isn't doing the following, Okay,
but how could the following, meaning addressing that be done?
If reconciliation can only be spending that is non mandatory,
it cannot touch mandatory spending if you need to do
mandatory spending or try to mandatory spending cuts. Now you're
back at the sixty vote threshold of filibusters. So what
(05:20):
is the process that like Senator Rampaul and others have
problems with this, like Elon, which we're going to talk
about a second, what do they want to happen?
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Look, politics is the art of the possible. And in
Elon's crash out on x Or, he's just been tweeting.
He's probably tweeting as we speak right now, more about this.
But one thing that he tweeted struck me is incredibly naive,
which he said, you know, keep the good, take get
rid of the bad, and the bill as though these
bills are not a very delicate balance of things that
(05:49):
you're trying to keep like an entire coalition happy, and
everybody is unhappy with some piece of this bill. It
just struck me as a politically naive tweet in particular.
But no, I'm not sure what they think. I mean,
clearly they think that they can get a better deal.
And if all of this public fighting results in a
bill that does make more cuts, I know one of
(06:09):
the cut, for example, that that House Member Chip Roy
was interested in, is actually putting even more stringent reforms
on Medicaid expansion right under Obamacare. That would be quite
a big fiscal difference, and for him it was something
that was really important. Now, this bill does play some
restrictions around able bodied adults who are getting Medicaid I
(06:31):
have to be seeking work. I think those work requirements
are a good idea, but there was a disagreement about
when they were going to kick in how stringent they
should be, and it probably would make quite a big
difference on the on the scoring of the bill. That
was one of the disagreements on the House side. So
I think that it's a number of things like that,
But fundamentally, I don't think we're going to get a
(06:51):
better deal than this, given the margins in the House
and then the reconciliation process limitations that you and I'm
not like an expert on you know, all the horse
trading that has happened behind the scenes. But looking at
this bill policy wise versus previous, the previous omnibus bill,
some of the proposals in the past dealing with various
(07:13):
of these programs where Republicans actually frankly had larger majorities
to work with, and this bill seems a lot better
to me on policy, like just border enforcement alone, to
me right now at this point in time, is probably
more important than touching the debt and deficit right now,
even though I recognize that that's a big problem, Like
(07:34):
I don't think we're ever going to deal with the
debt if we don't preserve the country right and preserve
law and order in the American way of life.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
So I think it's a matter of priorities.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
We didn't coordinate this. But this is funny because you know,
I know you were busy earlier today. This is what
I said on radio what you just said now, which
if we lose on this, if we lose on the
border stuff and the immigration, we lose on everything. It
doesn't matter. Like the country that we think we're trying
to preserve is gone, and the notion of being a
country that cares about a lot of other countries have
true financial crises that hit them that they can never
(08:05):
get out of because they spend themselves into oblivion and
they do all this socialist crow app and the place
is ruined.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
If we don't control immigration, we don't control the border,
is the whole thing is over anyway. So that's one
of my problems here is the I like the immigration
component of the bill so much that I'm you know,
it's like when you're dating on the hot crazy scale,
like I'm willing to overlook a lot, you know, I'm
willing to overlook a lot of the arrest of this
bill because of that. We'll come back.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
I feel that way about, by the way, about an
endowment tax and about reforms to higher ed If we're
talking about these kinds of problems that have really dogged
the United States and have made me, until this election,
like incredibly pessimistic about our trajectory. It's the state of
higher ed right, state of our ivy leagues that train
all of our elites, that go all into all of
(08:55):
the institutions, companies, government, everything being just basically woke madrasas
that no longer actually fulfill their purpose or their promise
to the American people. Like, that's an incredibly important issue
to me. It's a you know, civilizational level issue. And
I feel like if America rights itself as a civilization,
then we will be able to deal with the debt
(09:16):
slowly over time. And so I just I just think
this is on balance, this is a deal worth taking.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Yeah, I mean I do. I do too, And I
really I heard out. I specifically sought out Senator Paul
you know Johnson. I talked to them. I wanted to
hear their cases, and I get it, but I still
think it's the right thing to do. So I'm kind
of with you on this that I didn't know where
you were gonna come down. I feel like there's so
much good let's let's let's get back into this though
(09:42):
in a second. We'll talk about the Elon Trump situation here,
but our sponsor is the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews,
and the reality in Israel is still a stark one.
Parents have to take their children and put them in
places where they'll be safe from missiles. There are sirens
that are blaring. This is still going on because there
(10:02):
are enemies of Israel that continue to attack civilians and
the threat of terrorism looms large. That's why we have
partnered with the National Fellowship of Christians and Jews to
help provide life saving aid and security essentials on the
front line in Israel where they matter most. Your urgently
needed gift today will help provide security essentials like bomb shelters,
black jackets and bulletproof vests for first responders, armored security vehicles, ambulances,
(10:25):
ambulances and more. Join me in standing with Israel. Call
to make your gifted eight eight eight four eight eight
I f CJ. That's eight eight eight four eight eight
four three two five or online at SUPPORTIFCJ dot org.
That's support i f CJ dot org. Now, Elon Trump,
was this end to the bromance completely inevitable in your mind? Uh,
(10:51):
there's Elon is because here, here's the problem as I
see it. I wanted to lay this out for a
little bit. He as Trump can fight with people, and
that's fine. Elon has now's not He's not just fighting
of the bill. Elon is saying Trump would have lost
the election without me, basically like you're ungrateful. No, actually
he said that's right up. He didn't even say basically
you're ungrateful from And I feel like there are things
(11:15):
you could say to Trump and things that you can
and I think that taking credit for the election is
something that's going to get Like you see what I'm
saying here. I'm a little a little concerned about this one.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Yeah, I mean, look, I do think Trump lets people
back into the fold for saying really really mean stuff
about him.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
If they put appropriately here's the ring.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
So I don't know that this is permanent necessarily, But
Elon's also out there like tweeting that he needs to
start a new political party. Can only hope it doesn't
start with the name X. But like, look, I think
Elon purchasing Twitter was arguably that act. Actually, I would
say did contribute substantially to Trump's being able to be
(11:57):
elected I'm less sure about Elon's like contributions in terms
of money, although I'm sure they were helpful and his
you know, sort of public backing of Trump, and and
maybe they did they did sway some people, But I
I think actually those contributions were probably less important structurally
than just people being able to speak their minds finally
(12:18):
on a major social media platform in a way that
censorship and collusion prevented in twenty twenty, so that I
really think was like a trajectory changing thing for the
United States. This random billionaire buys Twitter and let's people
say what they want on it without censorship. I mean
that that did transform things. So I don't want to
take that away from Elon, but I mean, frankly, there
(12:41):
are huge differences and always will be huge differences between
I think Trump's outlook and not only Elon Musks, but
a lot of people in Silicon Valley, right. We saw
it over tariffs, the battle over tariffs, where a lot
of people are unhappy. We see it when early on,
if we've forgotten already, the h toe B flap right
between between Elon kind of got off because viveg got
(13:03):
sent to you know, the provinces on that one, it
got sent.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Out, he got sent to the archives as we used
to stay in the cias, then to the r later.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Yeah, but I think just fundamentally, I grew up in
Silicon Valley, and I grew up around this particular outlook.
And one of the things that the people on the
right and the left there seem to have in common
are a few underlying outlook issues that I don't think
are compatible with MAGA with the right more broadly, which
(13:32):
is this endless faith in capital pe progress without limitation.
They mostly think the nation state is obsolete, right. We
don't get into whether they think humanity is obsolete, that's
another level of question. But they mostly think that the
unit of the nation state is sort of jangoistic, outdated, clunky, right,
And so I think any issue that goes to the
(13:54):
heart of sovereignty or that goes like some of these
immigration issues, like oh, you should have loyalty actually not
to pure efficiency, but you should have loyalties or fellow
citizens rather than you know how the numbers come out,
even on a GDP spreadsheet. And I I just fundamentally think,
though it's not to say that they won't work together,
I mean, all political parties in America, because of the
(14:17):
nature of our system and having two parties, are coalitions
of people who have different ideas. So I don't think
that means that it can never work together. But I
do think that there were always going to be cracks
between those two world views.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
I also just think at a very fundamental level, you
knows that two ultra alpha dogs, I mean, two guys
who for a long time now both have been willing
to just say this is how it's going to be,
and their expectation is that's how it's going to be,
at least to those sort of around them and in
their orbit. It's tough for those it's tough for two
(14:48):
guys like that to have a collaboration. Uh that doesn't
run into some speed bumps.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
Well, that's certainly true on a personality level. I also
just I remember speculation a few months ago like, oh,
you know, some partially fueled of course by the leftist
media and everything.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Just you know who's on top? Actually Elon is.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
The you know, the alpha under Trump's skin.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Yeah, they were trying to get.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
But but to me, it's really obvious he's on top now, right, Like,
I don't think Elon is going to get his way
on this. I don't think he's going to get his
way on a lot of things that he would like
to see, and that's why he's, you know, crashing out
publicly and getting mad publicly.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
I think the top partner in the relationship is is
definitely Trump, and maybe Elon didn't realize that quite as much,
and maybe he should have, although he seemed to kind
of accept it in the beginning. I don't I don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
I don't want to talk about like anything personal with
these two. I do think you're right that two guys
who are usually on top of the pyramid, you know,
may have some jostling issues at the top.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
But to me, it's.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Pretty clear that the political side and the politics and
Trump are more powerful even than the richest man in
the world, which in some ways is rather encouraging because
Trump is in fact elected. He is our representative, right
in a way that Elon, while he's brilliant and very rich, right,
is not our represent He's not been elected by the
(16:12):
American people, and he shouldn't have equal power to the
President of the United States.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Sponsor here is paradigm press. You know, there's a lot
of countries out there that have a sovereign wealth fund, Japan, Norway,
Saudi Arabia. The national program that many citizens of those
countries benefit from with the development of an asset, oil,
for example, is a sovereign wealth asset. Our nations never
have one of these, but there are states like Texas
and Alaska that do. Jim Rickards believes that there's an
(16:39):
asset worth one hundred and fifty trillion dollars buried on
American soil.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
Now.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Jim was a former advisor to the White House in
the Federal Reserve, and he says this endowment, so to speak,
is so large it could pay off our national debt
four times over. Why has it been kept secret for
so long? Well, thanks to President Trump and the Supreme Court,
there could be a big release relating to this, and
it could affect you. To hear more of Jim's thinking.
Go to Birthright twenty twenty five dot com. That's birthright
(17:03):
twenty twenty five dot com. If he's right, it could
make President Trump the most popular president in history and
help millions of investors hire wealthy. Got a Birthright twenty
twenty five dot com paid for by Paradigm press Inez.
Just one thing. The Supreme Court decision came down nine
to zero says you can't. Actually, there's no such thing
really effectively as reverse discrimination. So you tweeting about this
(17:23):
spot on that you can't discriminate, Like, if you can't
discriminate on the basis of sex, it means you can't
discriminate on the basis of sex. It doesn't mean we're like, well, like,
what's your sex? I'm like, well, are you straight? Or
well are This is encouraging, except I feel like, whether
it's whether it comes to college admissions or hiring stuff,
the systems that have been discriminating in this way just
(17:45):
just think they can keep doing it. They're like, you know,
our side with the Supreme Court goes against us. It
feels like we stop doing it. They just keep doing it.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Well, I actually, I'm again, I'm very optimistic about this,
and I keep having to repeat whenever I say this
that I'm not a traditionally optimistic person. I was very
down on our ultimate trajectory before this election. But I
just think the last few months of policy coming out
of the Trump administration has changed the landscape in higher ED.
(18:13):
So on the higher ED side, I'll take them separately
because they're separate titles and separate like policy landscapes with
universities versus private companies. Okay, universities are so dependent on
federal money, and they are just coming to the end
of their kicking and screaming denial phase about how much
control the Trump administration is going to have over what
(18:33):
they do. Because of that, there was this great piece
in the New York Times. Don't often say that, but
if I trust anything in the New York Times, it's
that they have good sources inside Harvard University right now,
and so it was one of these like insider pieces
about how.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Has freaked out about the financial damage that they were
going to suffer.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Right Absolutely, they're freaked out. And if Harvard is streaked out,
everyone without a fifty three billion dollar endowment is even
more freaked out. So I think they are coming to
the realization that the way that they've operated for decades
and decades is dependent on taxpayer money, and that Trump
holds the strengths to the tax payer money, and that
he has really good legal grounds for doing this because
(19:14):
they have been to the point of this the Supreme
Court case flagrantly violating the law and the constitution publicly
announcing that they're doing it, announcing that they're discriminating on
the basis of race, right and sex, and so they
really don't have much of a leg to stand on.
They they're all their legal cases right now deal on
administrative matters like they didn't fully get a perfect investigation
(19:38):
or do process. Even if they win on some of
those those minor tiki tac issues, the Trump administration can
go back and do a update their process and do
it again and still take their money, because fundamentally they
there's not really much investigation necessary. They're announcing that they
are doing things that are very clearly illegal, and that
the fact that they're illegal is affirmed now in this
(19:59):
Supreme Court decision aims nine to zero. This is written
by Katanji Brown, Jackson right, Jackson Brown, whichever one. And
so this is this is you know, this is a
unanim opinion of the Court of something very very simple.
There is no different standard whether the plaintiff isn't a
member of a majority or a minority protected class. Right,
(20:19):
So raise sex. It's interesting this this opinion is actually
about sexual orientation. It's about a straight woman who was
discriminated against on the basis of being straight. Now that
hinges on boss Stock, which is interesting because there is
no protected category for sexual orientation. Even after boss Stock,
it's it's looped into sex. Like the long discussion to
(20:40):
be had there. But basically, the basic principle of this
decision is that you can't have different standards for essentially
favored and disfavored classes within these these protected categories.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
It's so vague also as to be like, how do
you even you know? It's like, well, which which level
of protection under the protected class? Are you right grading this?
You know you're a level seven, You're a level nine observer?
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Also, like, how are you defining the boundaries between these classes?
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Right? It's just it's it's a totally unworkable standard in
addition to being blatantly unfair and discriminatory. But on employer's
side with this title, this is a Title seven case
on the employer side. Unlike with admissions, where the Supreme
Court kind of okayed it for twenty years until the
decision a couple of years ago students for fair admissions,
it was never okay to take race into account, for example,
(21:28):
on hiring and firing decisions. That's something the EEOC, even
the leftist members of the agency that's tasked with enforcing it,
it will admit if they're pushed to the wall. Okay,
like you are not supposed to take into account. It's
illegal to take race into account, even the slightest bit.
You cannot put your thumb on the scale for race, okay.
And you had companies coming out in twenty twenty and
(21:49):
saying point blank quotas, which even the universities weren't allowed
to do in admissions, right, they were supposed to cover
for the fact that they were functionally using quotas by
something else. And you have Google coming out and saying, well,
we're going to hire thirty percent more black engineers in
the next three years or whatever.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
By the way, these people, they should all be sued.
They should all be sued into oblivion, and they will
the administration by people who were wrong by them. So
they this is just the beginning. We got to leave
it there. Inez always brilliant, always insight.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
They are also one sentence.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
Those cases are already in the pipeline and they're at
the EOC and they're coming out.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
That's fantasm. Well, we'll talk more about this down the line. Uh,
give your your also brilliant husband a big high five
for me, and go ten to that adorable seven month
old baby. I'm gonna go change now my you know,
go change the milk for my baby in the bottle
or something. Anyway, great to see you talk.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
It's great to see you
You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
Is the Big Beautiful Bill? Big Beautiful? And will it
become a bill? These are things that we should dive
into now with our friend Inez Felcher, stepman of the
Independent Woman's Forum, also a new mom seven months, not
quite as new as I am a dad, but she's
given me all the insights and all the special tips
(00:40):
to be good at the parent thing.
Speaker 3 (00:42):
So we'll talk about I was just telling him he
had a lot to look forward to, that's all.
Speaker 1 (00:47):
They get cuter and cuter.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Well, that's a tip, especially when I'm spending a lot
of time now bottle feeding and changing diapers, and a
lot of time is probably a lie. I do it
a little bit. Carrie does ninety five percent of it,
So once in a while I get in there just
to show everybody that I can. But I'm trying to help.
He's very cute little guy. But we'll talk cute baby
stuff in a second. First, America, The Big Beautiful Bill.
(01:08):
Where are you on this one? Because you're a you're
a realist and somebody who looks at the numbers. So
how does that come out for you? Which side of
this do you think should should end up winning? So
to speak?
Speaker 3 (01:23):
Yeah, well, look, I've been against a lot of these
big omipus bills. I've complained about them, but I actually
think this one's pretty good. Now that's not to say
that it's perfect. I think there are a lot of
There is a lot of merit to Elon's criticism on
the deficit. This is not really a deficit reduction bill.
That being said, I mean, how many times have Republicans
(01:46):
not you know, have promised to make substantial cuts and
they haven't done it. And that's partially because really bending
the cost curve on American governance means doing some things
that are really unpopular with the American people, like you know,
reforming entitlements and yes, eventually we're going to slam into
some kind of physical wall. All of that being said,
(02:06):
I think the policy in this bill is really good,
and I think think it's worth passing for the policy.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Some of those policies.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
Obviously, the top line the tax cuts, no tax on tips,
and tax on overtime. That is something that the fuel
that the economy needs, especially with some of the uncertainty
around tariffs. If we want to try to restructure and
bring more things home, like we need to shore up
the basics of the economy.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
So I think that's good.
Speaker 3 (02:30):
But then a lot of the little things are I
don't think they're little things, but like things that are
not getting the headlines. In the same way, there's a
lot of Green New Deal subsidies that are cut in
this bill. Most importantly for me, there's an endowment tax.
There's a proposal to tax endowments of universities at twenty
one percent, which I think is a long, long overdue
(02:53):
higher ED reform. The other pieces of higher ed reforms
in this bill are also quite impressive. I was initially
kind of negative on it, but they've improved it since then.
And this is the first time, for example, that we're
starting to structurally touch student loans and try to start,
you know, stoping the cost of university tuition via these
government backed loans that are going into default at record rates,
(03:17):
trying to start bending that cost curve. I think those
things are all really substantively important. And then probably the
most important, the most central promise of the Trump administration
from twenty sixteen campaign to twenty twenty campaign twenty twenty four.
Right is immigration enforcement. Now the president is doing what
he can from the administrative side, from the executive side,
(03:39):
but this gives money to build the wall. It gives
money to border patrol and immigration enforcement more broadly, that
is desperately needed. Everybody is understaffed for the magnitude of
the problem. And it deals with some of the recalibrating.
Our military is starting to actually produce more munitions at home.
Like that's something that all of these things, to me,
(04:00):
are like really critical issues that we should be happy that,
you know, the Republican government is finally addressing. And I
say this to someone who's been a critic of like
almost every quote unquote big beautiful bill since then, this
one seems pretty good to me, even granting some of
the critiques about the deficit.
Speaker 2 (04:18):
Now, explain to me if you would. Now it's funny,
because I feel like I should be able to explain
this to anybody who asked, because I've talked to Senator
Ran Paul about this on radio. I've talked to Senator
Ron Johnson about this on radio, and I understand their
philosophical objection, which is we're raising the debt ceiling of
(04:38):
five trillion dollars, the most I think it's ever been raised.
And it's this is not going to address even the deficit. Right,
it's not going to do as I understand this? What
I don't understand and maybe you can help me with
this And they might have told me, but I've forgotten
because it was last week. What if they want to
be done here? That's different. There's there's the philosophical objection.
(04:59):
I get it. They're like, this isn't doing the following, Okay,
but how could the following, meaning addressing that be done?
If reconciliation can only be spending that is non mandatory,
it cannot touch mandatory spending if you need to do
mandatory spending or try to mandatory spending cuts. Now you're
back at the sixty vote threshold of filibusters. So what
(05:20):
is the process that like Senator Rampaul and others have
problems with this, like Elon, which we're going to talk
about a second, what do they want to happen?
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Look, politics is the art of the possible. And in
Elon's crash out on x Or, he's just been tweeting.
He's probably tweeting as we speak right now, more about this.
But one thing that he tweeted struck me is incredibly naive,
which he said, you know, keep the good, take get
rid of the bad, and the bill as though these
bills are not a very delicate balance of things that
(05:49):
you're trying to keep like an entire coalition happy, and
everybody is unhappy with some piece of this bill. It
just struck me as a politically naive tweet in particular.
But no, I'm not sure what they think. I mean,
clearly they think that they can get a better deal.
And if all of this public fighting results in a
bill that does make more cuts, I know one of
(06:09):
the cut, for example, that that House Member Chip Roy
was interested in, is actually putting even more stringent reforms
on Medicaid expansion right under Obamacare. That would be quite
a big fiscal difference, and for him it was something
that was really important. Now, this bill does play some
restrictions around able bodied adults who are getting Medicaid I
(06:31):
have to be seeking work. I think those work requirements
are a good idea, but there was a disagreement about
when they were going to kick in how stringent they
should be, and it probably would make quite a big
difference on the on the scoring of the bill. That
was one of the disagreements on the House side. So
I think that it's a number of things like that,
But fundamentally, I don't think we're going to get a
(06:51):
better deal than this, given the margins in the House
and then the reconciliation process limitations that you and I'm
not like an expert on you know, all the horse
trading that has happened behind the scenes. But looking at
this bill policy wise versus previous, the previous omnibus bill,
some of the proposals in the past dealing with various
(07:13):
of these programs where Republicans actually frankly had larger majorities
to work with, and this bill seems a lot better
to me on policy, like just border enforcement alone, to
me right now at this point in time, is probably
more important than touching the debt and deficit right now,
even though I recognize that that's a big problem, Like
(07:34):
I don't think we're ever going to deal with the
debt if we don't preserve the country right and preserve
law and order in the American way of life.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
So I think it's a matter of priorities.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
We didn't coordinate this. But this is funny because you know,
I know you were busy earlier today. This is what
I said on radio what you just said now, which
if we lose on this, if we lose on the
border stuff and the immigration, we lose on everything. It
doesn't matter. Like the country that we think we're trying
to preserve is gone, and the notion of being a
country that cares about a lot of other countries have
true financial crises that hit them that they can never
(08:05):
get out of because they spend themselves into oblivion and
they do all this socialist crow app and the place
is ruined.
Speaker 3 (08:11):
Right.
Speaker 2 (08:12):
If we don't control immigration, we don't control the border,
is the whole thing is over anyway. So that's one
of my problems here is the I like the immigration
component of the bill so much that I'm you know,
it's like when you're dating on the hot crazy scale,
like I'm willing to overlook a lot, you know, I'm
willing to overlook a lot of the arrest of this
bill because of that. We'll come back.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
I feel that way about, by the way, about an
endowment tax and about reforms to higher ed If we're
talking about these kinds of problems that have really dogged
the United States and have made me, until this election,
like incredibly pessimistic about our trajectory. It's the state of
higher ed right, state of our ivy leagues that train
all of our elites, that go all into all of
(08:55):
the institutions, companies, government, everything being just basically woke madrasas
that no longer actually fulfill their purpose or their promise
to the American people. Like, that's an incredibly important issue
to me. It's a you know, civilizational level issue. And
I feel like if America rights itself as a civilization,
then we will be able to deal with the debt
(09:16):
slowly over time. And so I just I just think
this is on balance, this is a deal worth taking.
Speaker 2 (09:21):
Yeah, I mean I do. I do too, And I
really I heard out. I specifically sought out Senator Paul
you know Johnson. I talked to them. I wanted to
hear their cases, and I get it, but I still
think it's the right thing to do. So I'm kind
of with you on this that I didn't know where
you were gonna come down. I feel like there's so
much good let's let's let's get back into this though
(09:42):
in a second. We'll talk about the Elon Trump situation here,
but our sponsor is the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews,
and the reality in Israel is still a stark one.
Parents have to take their children and put them in
places where they'll be safe from missiles. There are sirens
that are blaring. This is still going on because there
(10:02):
are enemies of Israel that continue to attack civilians and
the threat of terrorism looms large. That's why we have
partnered with the National Fellowship of Christians and Jews to
help provide life saving aid and security essentials on the
front line in Israel where they matter most. Your urgently
needed gift today will help provide security essentials like bomb shelters,
black jackets and bulletproof vests for first responders, armored security vehicles, ambulances,
(10:25):
ambulances and more. Join me in standing with Israel. Call
to make your gifted eight eight eight four eight eight
I f CJ. That's eight eight eight four eight eight
four three two five or online at SUPPORTIFCJ dot org.
That's support i f CJ dot org. Now, Elon Trump,
was this end to the bromance completely inevitable in your mind? Uh,
(10:51):
there's Elon is because here, here's the problem as I
see it. I wanted to lay this out for a
little bit. He as Trump can fight with people, and
that's fine. Elon has now's not He's not just fighting
of the bill. Elon is saying Trump would have lost
the election without me, basically like you're ungrateful. No, actually
he said that's right up. He didn't even say basically
you're ungrateful from And I feel like there are things
(11:15):
you could say to Trump and things that you can
and I think that taking credit for the election is
something that's going to get Like you see what I'm
saying here. I'm a little a little concerned about this one.
Speaker 3 (11:25):
Yeah, I mean, look, I do think Trump lets people
back into the fold for saying really really mean stuff
about him.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
If they put appropriately here's the ring.
Speaker 3 (11:34):
So I don't know that this is permanent necessarily, But
Elon's also out there like tweeting that he needs to
start a new political party. Can only hope it doesn't
start with the name X. But like, look, I think
Elon purchasing Twitter was arguably that act. Actually, I would
say did contribute substantially to Trump's being able to be
(11:57):
elected I'm less sure about Elon's like contributions in terms
of money, although I'm sure they were helpful and his
you know, sort of public backing of Trump, and and
maybe they did they did sway some people, But I
I think actually those contributions were probably less important structurally
than just people being able to speak their minds finally
(12:18):
on a major social media platform in a way that
censorship and collusion prevented in twenty twenty, so that I
really think was like a trajectory changing thing for the
United States. This random billionaire buys Twitter and let's people
say what they want on it without censorship. I mean
that that did transform things. So I don't want to
take that away from Elon, but I mean, frankly, there
(12:41):
are huge differences and always will be huge differences between
I think Trump's outlook and not only Elon Musks, but
a lot of people in Silicon Valley, right. We saw
it over tariffs, the battle over tariffs, where a lot
of people are unhappy. We see it when early on,
if we've forgotten already, the h toe B flap right
between between Elon kind of got off because viveg got
(13:03):
sent to you know, the provinces on that one, it
got sent.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
Out, he got sent to the archives as we used
to stay in the cias, then to the r later.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Yeah, but I think just fundamentally, I grew up in
Silicon Valley, and I grew up around this particular outlook.
And one of the things that the people on the
right and the left there seem to have in common
are a few underlying outlook issues that I don't think
are compatible with MAGA with the right more broadly, which
(13:32):
is this endless faith in capital pe progress without limitation.
They mostly think the nation state is obsolete, right. We
don't get into whether they think humanity is obsolete, that's
another level of question. But they mostly think that the
unit of the nation state is sort of jangoistic, outdated, clunky, right,
And so I think any issue that goes to the
(13:54):
heart of sovereignty or that goes like some of these
immigration issues, like oh, you should have loyalty actually not
to pure efficiency, but you should have loyalties or fellow
citizens rather than you know how the numbers come out,
even on a GDP spreadsheet. And I I just fundamentally think,
though it's not to say that they won't work together,
I mean, all political parties in America, because of the
(14:17):
nature of our system and having two parties, are coalitions
of people who have different ideas. So I don't think
that means that it can never work together. But I
do think that there were always going to be cracks
between those two world views.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
I also just think at a very fundamental level, you
knows that two ultra alpha dogs, I mean, two guys
who for a long time now both have been willing
to just say this is how it's going to be,
and their expectation is that's how it's going to be,
at least to those sort of around them and in
their orbit. It's tough for those it's tough for two
(14:48):
guys like that to have a collaboration. Uh that doesn't
run into some speed bumps.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
Well, that's certainly true on a personality level. I also
just I remember speculation a few months ago like, oh,
you know, some partially fueled of course by the leftist
media and everything.
Speaker 1 (15:06):
Just you know who's on top? Actually Elon is.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
The you know, the alpha under Trump's skin.
Speaker 2 (15:13):
Yeah, they were trying to get.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
But but to me, it's really obvious he's on top now, right, Like,
I don't think Elon is going to get his way
on this. I don't think he's going to get his
way on a lot of things that he would like
to see, and that's why he's, you know, crashing out
publicly and getting mad publicly.
Speaker 1 (15:29):
I think the top partner in the relationship is is
definitely Trump, and maybe Elon didn't realize that quite as much,
and maybe he should have, although he seemed to kind
of accept it in the beginning. I don't I don't know.
Speaker 3 (15:40):
I don't want to talk about like anything personal with
these two. I do think you're right that two guys
who are usually on top of the pyramid, you know,
may have some jostling issues at the top.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
But to me, it's.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Pretty clear that the political side and the politics and
Trump are more powerful even than the richest man in
the world, which in some ways is rather encouraging because
Trump is in fact elected. He is our representative, right
in a way that Elon, while he's brilliant and very rich, right,
is not our represent He's not been elected by the
(16:12):
American people, and he shouldn't have equal power to the
President of the United States.
Speaker 2 (16:17):
Sponsor here is paradigm press. You know, there's a lot
of countries out there that have a sovereign wealth fund, Japan, Norway,
Saudi Arabia. The national program that many citizens of those
countries benefit from with the development of an asset, oil,
for example, is a sovereign wealth asset. Our nations never
have one of these, but there are states like Texas
and Alaska that do. Jim Rickards believes that there's an
(16:39):
asset worth one hundred and fifty trillion dollars buried on
American soil.
Speaker 1 (16:42):
Now.
Speaker 2 (16:42):
Jim was a former advisor to the White House in
the Federal Reserve, and he says this endowment, so to speak,
is so large it could pay off our national debt
four times over. Why has it been kept secret for
so long? Well, thanks to President Trump and the Supreme Court,
there could be a big release relating to this, and
it could affect you. To hear more of Jim's thinking.
Go to Birthright twenty twenty five dot com. That's birthright
(17:03):
twenty twenty five dot com. If he's right, it could
make President Trump the most popular president in history and
help millions of investors hire wealthy. Got a Birthright twenty
twenty five dot com paid for by Paradigm press Inez.
Just one thing. The Supreme Court decision came down nine
to zero says you can't. Actually, there's no such thing
really effectively as reverse discrimination. So you tweeting about this
(17:23):
spot on that you can't discriminate, Like, if you can't
discriminate on the basis of sex, it means you can't
discriminate on the basis of sex. It doesn't mean we're like, well, like,
what's your sex? I'm like, well, are you straight? Or
well are This is encouraging, except I feel like, whether
it's whether it comes to college admissions or hiring stuff,
the systems that have been discriminating in this way just
(17:45):
just think they can keep doing it. They're like, you know,
our side with the Supreme Court goes against us. It
feels like we stop doing it. They just keep doing it.
Speaker 1 (17:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (17:53):
Well, I actually, I'm again, I'm very optimistic about this,
and I keep having to repeat whenever I say this
that I'm not a traditionally optimistic person. I was very
down on our ultimate trajectory before this election. But I
just think the last few months of policy coming out
of the Trump administration has changed the landscape in higher ED.
(18:13):
So on the higher ED side, I'll take them separately
because they're separate titles and separate like policy landscapes with
universities versus private companies. Okay, universities are so dependent on
federal money, and they are just coming to the end
of their kicking and screaming denial phase about how much
control the Trump administration is going to have over what
(18:33):
they do. Because of that, there was this great piece
in the New York Times. Don't often say that, but
if I trust anything in the New York Times, it's
that they have good sources inside Harvard University right now,
and so it was one of these like insider pieces
about how.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
Has freaked out about the financial damage that they were
going to suffer.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
Right Absolutely, they're freaked out. And if Harvard is streaked out,
everyone without a fifty three billion dollar endowment is even
more freaked out. So I think they are coming to
the realization that the way that they've operated for decades
and decades is dependent on taxpayer money, and that Trump
holds the strengths to the tax payer money, and that
he has really good legal grounds for doing this because
(19:14):
they have been to the point of this the Supreme
Court case flagrantly violating the law and the constitution publicly
announcing that they're doing it, announcing that they're discriminating on
the basis of race, right and sex, and so they
really don't have much of a leg to stand on.
They they're all their legal cases right now deal on
administrative matters like they didn't fully get a perfect investigation
(19:38):
or do process. Even if they win on some of
those those minor tiki tac issues, the Trump administration can
go back and do a update their process and do
it again and still take their money, because fundamentally they
there's not really much investigation necessary. They're announcing that they
are doing things that are very clearly illegal, and that
the fact that they're illegal is affirmed now in this
(19:59):
Supreme Court decision aims nine to zero. This is written
by Katanji Brown, Jackson right, Jackson Brown, whichever one. And
so this is this is you know, this is a
unanim opinion of the Court of something very very simple.
There is no different standard whether the plaintiff isn't a
member of a majority or a minority protected class. Right,
(20:19):
So raise sex. It's interesting this this opinion is actually
about sexual orientation. It's about a straight woman who was
discriminated against on the basis of being straight. Now that
hinges on boss Stock, which is interesting because there is
no protected category for sexual orientation. Even after boss Stock,
it's it's looped into sex. Like the long discussion to
(20:40):
be had there. But basically, the basic principle of this
decision is that you can't have different standards for essentially
favored and disfavored classes within these these protected categories.
Speaker 2 (20:51):
It's so vague also as to be like, how do
you even you know? It's like, well, which which level
of protection under the protected class? Are you right grading this?
You know you're a level seven, You're a level nine observer?
Speaker 1 (21:03):
Also, like, how are you defining the boundaries between these classes?
Speaker 3 (21:06):
Right? It's just it's it's a totally unworkable standard in
addition to being blatantly unfair and discriminatory. But on employer's
side with this title, this is a Title seven case
on the employer side. Unlike with admissions, where the Supreme
Court kind of okayed it for twenty years until the
decision a couple of years ago students for fair admissions,
it was never okay to take race into account, for example,
(21:28):
on hiring and firing decisions. That's something the EEOC, even
the leftist members of the agency that's tasked with enforcing it,
it will admit if they're pushed to the wall. Okay,
like you are not supposed to take into account. It's
illegal to take race into account, even the slightest bit.
You cannot put your thumb on the scale for race, okay.
And you had companies coming out in twenty twenty and
(21:49):
saying point blank quotas, which even the universities weren't allowed
to do in admissions, right, they were supposed to cover
for the fact that they were functionally using quotas by
something else. And you have Google coming out and saying, well,
we're going to hire thirty percent more black engineers in
the next three years or whatever.
Speaker 2 (22:05):
By the way, these people, they should all be sued.
They should all be sued into oblivion, and they will
the administration by people who were wrong by them. So
they this is just the beginning. We got to leave
it there. Inez always brilliant, always insight.
Speaker 1 (22:18):
They are also one sentence.
Speaker 3 (22:19):
Those cases are already in the pipeline and they're at
the EOC and they're coming out.
Speaker 2 (22:23):
That's fantasm. Well, we'll talk more about this down the line. Uh,
give your your also brilliant husband a big high five
for me, and go ten to that adorable seven month
old baby. I'm gonna go change now my you know,
go change the milk for my baby in the bottle
or something. Anyway, great to see you talk.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
It's great to see you
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular 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
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.