-
Tariffs and Trade Policies:
- President Trump's Tariff Announcement: On April 2nd, President Trump announced high tariffs on nearly every country, the highest since 1933. This caused significant market turmoil, with a $6 trillion loss in 48 hours.
- Debate within the White House: There is an ongoing debate about whether to use these tariffs as leverage to lower other countries' tariffs and then reduce U.S. tariffs or to keep them permanently.
- Impact on Manufacturing: The tariffs aim to bring back manufacturing jobs to the U.S., which have been lost over the past 50 years.
- International Reactions: Countries like Vietnam and Israel are eager to negotiate deals to reduce tariffs. Over 50 countries have reached out to the U.S. for negotiations.
-
Nationwide Injunctions:
- Judicial Activism: The discussion highlights the issue of nationwide injunctions issued by left-wing judges to block President Trump's policies. This has been a significant challenge for the administration.
- Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing: There was a hearing on the topic, discussing the threat to democracy and the rule of law posed by these injunctions.
-
Economic Strategies:
- Invest USA Fund: A proposal for an investment fund to encourage companies to build factories in the U.S. and receive tariff credits in return.
-
China and National Security:
- Decoupling from China: The discussion emphasizes the importance of reducing economic dependence on China for national security reasons, especially in critical supply chains.
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
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz
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 in his verdict with center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you as always, and Senator, it's nice to be
back in the studio with you. You've been traveling like crazy.
You guys have been really busy in Washington and adding
some days onto the work week as well. We're finally
back here together. We've got a big show.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
So it's something going on in Washington, right exactly. You know,
there's an old Chinese curse, may you live in interesting times.
We certainly live in those. Donald Trump has hit the
White House with speed and fury and velocity. There's never
been anything like it. They've never been a president like
this in the first hundred days. Last week, obviously, the
(00:38):
President announced on April second tariffs on just about every
country on Earth, the highest tariff level since nineteen thirty three.
It is a big, big deal. Every nation across the
globe is reeling. They're all trying to figure out what
do we do about it. The stock market, the stock
market collapsed, It went into free fall. Six trillion dollars
(01:01):
evaporated in forty eight hours. Now Monday, everyone's wondering, how's
the market going to open Monday morning? But there's a
lot of concern that the market isn't done going down,
and the question is where do we go from here?
And I'll tell you the reason President Trump is doing
this is important. The reason President Trump is doing this
(01:22):
is that we've seen of the last fifty years a
hollowing out of manufacturing in America. We've seen what used
to be the heart of the American middle class, the
heart of blue collar jobs going away, being pulled abroad,
going overseas, and the industrial Midwest just just being utterly
(01:44):
decimated by good paying jobs leaving America. And President Trump
was elected for many things, but heart and center to
fight for bringing those jobs back. That's right at the
core of this, bringing those jobs back to America. But
there is now a very active debate within the White
House which direction do we go next. Do we use
(02:07):
this as leverage to lower other countries tariffs and then
lower our own tariffs to reflect that, or do we
leave these tariffs up forever and ever and ever. And
I'll tell you there are different advisors in the White House.
There are angels and demons on each of President Trump's shoulders,
urging him use them as leverage or keep them forever.
(02:29):
We're going to break down that debate and what the
consequences are for you, what it means for you if
these tariffs are used as leverage to lower the tariffs
of our trading partners, and what it means for you
if these tariffs are simply a permanent economic feature of America.
We're also going to talk about nationwide injunctions. Nationwide injunctions
(02:50):
we have seen in the last three months. It is
the new incarnation of lawfare. It is how the left
is attacking Donald Trump. They are filing lawsuits, they are
looking for left wing radical judges who are issuing nationwide
injunctions to stop the president's agenda. We had a hearing
in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week on exactly this topic.
We're going to take you there and talk about what
(03:13):
the problem is and what the solution should be.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Yeah, it's going to be very interesting. I also want
to talk to you real quick about the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. Israel is still under attack. Missile
fire has resumed from the Huthis, from Hesblah and hamas
enemies seeking Israel's destruction. Here in America, we cannot imagine
living under constant threat of terrorism and rocket attacks. This
(03:36):
is the reality in Israel. Parents taking their kids to school,
falling to the ground to lay on top of their
small children, trying to comfort them as sirens blair. The
next attack against Israel is happening now with little time
to repair. And that's why your help is needed right now.
The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is helping provide
life saving aid and security essentials, and your urgently need
(03:59):
a gift today will help provide security essentials like bomb shelters,
flag jackets, and bulletproof vests for first responders. They're also
providing armored security vehicles, armored ambulances, and so much more.
So if you're proud to stand with Israel, you can
make your gift right now by calling eight eight eight
four eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight four eight
(04:23):
eight four three two five, or online it's easy to
get by going to support IFCJ dot org. That's one word,
support IFCJ dot org. Now center, I have a very
important question, a big question before we get into all
the politics. There's a game that's happening on Monday, and
(04:43):
your hometown team is in that game. How excited are
you to see Houston make it through the final four
of the championship game.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Look the Cougars. They played incredibly against Duke. They were
underdogs against Duke. It was a great victory. We're now
in the finals tonight. I got to say, Houston that
is going to win tonight, is gonna beat Florida. Florida
played well. They had a tough game against Auburn and
managed managed to just scrape it out. Florida is a
good team, but they don't have what it takes to
beat Houston. Houston's defense is too stifling. I'm gonna call
(05:14):
it Houston by six.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
I like Houston by six. I like the Bowl prediction.
Well done. All right, so let's talk about tariffs. You
and I we did a show on Friday. It was
a show that a lot of people listen to. It
actually kind of went viral over the weekend as well.
People just want to know what is going to happen
this week, next week. There's concern, there's the stress anxiety
watching the market, but there's also something that's happening right
(05:39):
now that's very interesting. Countries are lining up to meet
with the Trump administration. Vietnam is apparently at the front
of the line. They sent emergency delegation in the US.
They want to get a deal done as fast as
they possibly can. And now we're hearing there's dozens and
dozens of other countries are saying, Hey, we want to
talk too.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
No, there is an historic upper two to hear. And
if the White House capitalizes on this opportunity, it could
prove to be one of the most significant, one of
the most powerful moments for US economic interest for American
workers this country has ever seen. Right now, every country
that is on the receiving end of these tariffs, they're
freaking out, They're panicking. This is a great opportunity to
(06:22):
engage in. Let's make a deal here. Listen to Kevin Hasset,
who is the head of the National Economic Council, describing
how countries are coming to the White House right now.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
I got a report from the USDR last night that
more than fifty countries have reached out to the.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
President to begin a negotiation.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
But they're doing that because they understand that they bear
a lot of the tariff.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
More than fifty countries. And that's just in a few days.
And listen, I've had a lot of countries that are
reaching out talking to my office, and my advice to
them is, go cut a deal. Go cut a deal,
and the front half of your deal needs to be
the tariffs that we've imposed against US goods, against US crops,
against US livestocks, against used cars, against US manufacturing, against
(07:01):
US services. All of those tariffs we are going to
slash if we see Vietnam came in, Israel has come in.
Israel and Vietnam were right at the front. But you know,
it's interesting. Vietnam is a country that is worth talking
about a little bit because we have a very significant
trade deficit with Vietnam. Yeah, do you know why?
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Because America is winning? Why do we have a big
trade deficit with Vietnam? Because most of that manufacturing used
to be in China. And what happened is America, starting
under President Trump, leaned on manufacturers and said move your
manufacturing out of China. And so a whole bunch of
them moved them out of China and went to Vietnam.
(07:45):
So Vietnam was doing what we asked them to. We asked, hey,
can you take on this manufacturing instead of China? And
there was a massive move of American companies that pulled
manufacturing out of China and moved it to Vietnam. Look,
everything we do to delink from China is a good thing.
So moving those jobs out of China was a terrific victory,
(08:06):
and it was a victory for President Trump. It was
the Trump administration that urged moved those jobs to Vietnam.
Now Vietnam suddenly has a big trade deficit because all
those jobs came out of China to Vietnam, and now
Vietnam has a massive tariff that was levied on it
by President Trump. The question is are they going to
(08:29):
work a deal where they lower barriers on both sides.
I hope they will, But there's another path. Listen, there
are voices in the White House who simply believe in
tariffs as a permanent feature of the US economy. There
are voices in the White House that want these high
tariffs to be in place in six months, in a year,
(08:49):
in two years, in five years, in ten years, that
they want tariffs to be the main source of economic
revenue for the federal government. That is a very different philosophy.
And this is one of the things I'll tell you
within the Senate with my colleagues. A lot of us
are debating, Okay, how much of this is leverage to
get great deals from other countries.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
And how much of this is what you said, economic
revenue for the government.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
And by the way, you know, you get some people
that talk about, well, we'll do tariffs instead of the
income tax, and I got to say that sort of
reminds me of the old cartoon Popeye. Yeah, and you know,
I'll gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger. Today, I'm like, well,
wait a second. The last I checked, we still have
the income tax and we have these tariffs. That's just
(09:36):
a ton more taxes. If you want to get rid
of the income tax, then we can talk. But I
don't see anyone proposing getting rid of the income tax.
And so at the end of the day, in my view,
if the outcome from these tariffs is really high tariffs
from every country on Earth against American goods, and really
(09:57):
high tariffs from America against goods from every every other
country on Earth, that is going to be really bad
for Texas and really bad for America.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Let's talk about momentum. You mentioned the people coming to
the table, and you heard there in that comment fifty
nations are now lining up. You and I both know
that that one of the things Donald Trump does really
well is the art of the deal and loves when
there's something to celebrate celebrating it. Yes, I see in
our near future Vietnam America on stage White House. We
(10:28):
got a historic deal done, and that's where that move goes.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
So what I'm urging is for the President to come
and make major deals and make them quickly. Look to
calm the stock market down. A few major deals quickly
would really really help. I would love it if this week,
this week we had an announcement from the president, this
major country came in, they offered huge concessions. They slashed
(10:54):
their tariffs, and we're slashing ours. That would be a great.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Outcome, and that's momentum building as well.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Look, the stock market has a psychology to it. If
people start saying it's a bear markeage, people start saying
we're going into a recession, that feeds upon itself. That
means people are less willing to invest money, they're less
willing to take risks, and so it is important for
people to see the real tangible victories coming from this,
and those victories are not just cash. One of the
(11:23):
things you're hearing the White House say is, well, look
at all the revenue we're getting from tariffs. That's not
actually bringing jobs back to America getting those tariffs, that's
just raising prices. And if the immediate effect for voters
of these tariffs is serious inflation because the cost of
what they're buying is going up. I mentioned on Friday's
(11:44):
podcast how one of the big three American auto manufacturers
told me last week the effect of this tariffs is
they would increase the cost of the cars they sell
by four five hundred dollars a car.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
It's a lot of mind average Americans.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
That is a lot of money. That is a big hit.
And so we've got to see the upside. We've got
to see the benefit. Look one upside. Right now, Europe
has a ten percent tariffs on American cars, and prior
to April second, America had a two percent tariff on
European cars. Now, I can tell you the Europeans are
(12:19):
already back channeling. They are already putting on the table
zero and zero. They'll take their ten percent to zero,
we take our two percent to zero, and cars go
back and forth from Europe and America without a tariff.
That deal is there. The President could announce it this week.
That's a major victory. Getting rid of those tariffs in
(12:40):
Europe is a major victory. But it is important. So
they're different voices. So, for example, one of the voices
speaking out is Elon Musk. We had Elon on the podcast.
Elon said last week. Here's what he told Reuters. US
tech billionaire Elon Musk said on Saturday he hoped in
the future to see complete freedom of true between the
(13:00):
United States and Europe, speaking days after President Donald Trump
announced tariffs on trading partners Mosca. Trump advisor has been
working to eliminate wasteful US public spending. Spoke via video
link at a congress in Florence of Italy's right wing
Co Ruling Party Co Ruling League party.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Quote this is from US quote.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
At the end of the day, I hope it's agreed
that both Europe and the United States should move ideally
in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating
a free trade zone between Europe and North America. So
when I talked about angels and demons, Elon is one
of the angels. This is a good good voice that
(13:40):
is focused on US jobs that I hope the President
is listening to. I hope the President is listening to
Elon Musk. President Trump has an historic opportunity. The leverage
right now is massive. The question is will the White
House make the decision to use that leverage to try
to lower foreign tariffs. I mentioned something else. Very good
(14:02):
friend of mine works in finance, very very smart finance
here suggests it an idea for how to use this
leverage and get even more of a win win, which
is he said, Look, here's the problem. Let's say you're
an American company or your foreign company, and you've got
a factory somewhere. You've got a factory abroad, you've got
(14:23):
a factory in Vietnam, you've got a factory anywhere other
than the US, and you're contemplating do I move the
factory to the United States. The problem with that decision
making is that move takes years. You can't do it instantaneously,
even if you decide today, okay, let's build it in America.
In a lot of places, just the permitting takes years
(14:44):
to get a factory permitted, much less built. By the way,
that's why everyone should come to Texas. If you're going
to build a factory, come to Texas. Permit it fast.
We're not if you go to California, you deserve what
you get. Come to Texas.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
You should turn that into like a public service announcement,
right like you go there, you go me, you deserve
you want to get into business, Texas place to come.
I will tell you.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
As an aside, several years ago, a CEO came and
met with me in DC and he was thinking of
opening a new factory and he was looking at Texas,
he was looking at California. And he said, all right,
well tell me in Texas. What do you give me
to go to Texas? And I said, not a damn thing.
I said, but we won't tax you to death, won't.
(15:24):
We won't regulate you to death, and we won't allow
lawsuits just to tear you apart. And I said, you
know what, if you go to California, you deserve.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
What you get.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
So that being said, let's say you're you're a big
car company and you're trying to decide where do I
put my next car factory. Just the process of getting
it permitted, getting it built, putting the equipment in that
takes a minimum of two, three, four, five years. That's
just how long it takes.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
So the problem for your decision making is if you're
looking at this, if you're doing it based on the
Trump tariffs, you don't know how long they'll be place.
Sure you're trying to look at the math, you don't
know a is Trump going to lift them in a
deal where you may make a decision for the tariffs
and then suddenly the tariffs aren't there anymore, and the
math changes pretty substantially or be at a minimum in
(16:15):
three and a half years, Trump is not going to
be president, So you don't know if the next president
is going to keep the tariffs or eliminate the tariffs.
So the problem is by the time you opened.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Your factory, completely different group could be in charge.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
So the idea that my buddy from the finance world
came up with is for the president to announce a fund,
an invest USA fund that individual CEOs could make it
a commitment. Let's say you're the CEO of Mercedes Benz,
that you could make a commitment we are going to
open three new factories in America, all in Texas. We're
(16:52):
going to open three new factories in America, and we're
going to invest one hundred billion dollars in building these factories.
Now the piece that is, look that has some teeth
to what my friend suggested. Look, you can make that announcement,
you can put out a press release, and by the
way of circumstances change, you never spend one hundred million dollars.
It doesn't actually arrive. The idea is you're the CEO
(17:17):
Mercedes Bend. You announced three new factories one hundred billion dollars.
You deposit the one hundred billion dollars in the fund,
the Invest America Fund. You actually spend the money on
the front end. Now, two things happen when you invested
in the Invest America Fund. Number One, the United States
(17:38):
earns interest on the money while it's sitting there, So
it's benefiting the US just from the interest. If you
leave it there, we'll get interest while it's there. But
number two, as long as you have that money on
the fund, you get a credit that you can use
against your tariffs. Maybe it's a one to one credit,
maybe it's a two to one credit, but it's economically
(17:58):
you create an incentive to put the money there for
CEOs to invest in America, to create jobs in America,
and to actually deploy the cash, because if you make
the credit on the tariffs only dependent on the dollars
actually being in the fund Let's say you give a
two to one credit, so one hundred dollars deposit in
(18:19):
the funds gets you a two hundred dollars credit on
your tariffs. Yeah, that's pretty economically compelling to lean in
and invest. And what we want to see is what
President Trump talks about a lot, a golden age in
manufacturing where companies are profoundly incentivized to invest in.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
America, not only to grow, but to stay here so
we don't have to worry about them leaving in the future.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Yes, yes, and if that that has some real potency
and idea like that. But if the solution is simply
let's go back to the world in nineteen hundred, when
you had really high tariffs, when you had you know,
nineteen thirty three, you had smoot Holly that played a
(19:04):
major role in the Great Depression. When you put up walls,
it hurts America. We compete very well on the global level.
We just need to make sure we're competing fairly. And
I think the president has real leverage to do that
right now if he's listening to the angels and not
the voices in his administration that are saying more tariffs,
(19:24):
more tariffs, higher tariffs forever.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Let me ask you a final question on this, and
you talk about the two different viewpoints here. There is
a real debate. I'm having it with friends, I'm having
it with colleagues. I mean, I've witnessed this on TV.
There is, like you said, this core idea, there should
always be tariffs. I've heard people talking about Greg Zama
was China, we should always be at twenty percent or
thirty percent or forty percent, whatever that number is. And
(19:47):
there's others saying, no, you use this as leverage. You
get the better deal now, and then you have the
market stabilize and people understand what the new norm is.
That seems to be what you're advocating for, which is,
let the market know, the CEOs, know the people that
are pouring their dollars to decide what they're gonna do next,
give them whatever the new normal is going to be
so that we can move forward. Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (20:09):
You've got to have some modicum of certainty, because if
there's uncertainty. Business doesn't invest. No one invests if they
don't know what the rules are going to be. If
it's chaos, they sit on their cash and you don't
have jobs. We want people to feel confident. And by
the way, chaos under Biden came from regulatory chaos of
new and job killing regulations, one after the other after
(20:30):
the other. But if there is uncertainty, uncertainty is an
enemy of investment, and that means it's an enemy of jobs.
So some limited uncertainty can be helpful to incentivize a deal,
but we need to get to a deal a predictable outcome.
And I will say listen, China is different. I am
actually quite fine with tariffs against China because I think
(20:54):
dlinking from China their economy, they have us in a
position where they are single greatest geopolitical threat. They are
utilizing that economic interconnection as leverage against America, and so
I think everything we can do to move Moving those
jobs from China to Vietnam is a good move, is
an important move, and moving them from China to Mexico
(21:16):
that's a good move. Moving them from China to America
is a good move. But everything we can do to
d link from China's.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
Not just trade, it's also national security variations, right, And
I want to bonus question. I think a lot of
people when you mentioned this is a different mentality with
China and tarists are good there. I agree with you.
My reason for it is a lot of national security reasons.
I think that's something that's not been talked about as much.
Give me your thoughts on that, quickly said, people understand
the national security aspect of this.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
So look, we saw in the middle of COVID how
much our critical supply chains were dominated by China. China
is fighting a thousand year war against the United States.
When I arrived in the Senate thirteen years ago, I
said China is the single greatest geopolitical threat at America's
facing for the next one hundred years. When I started
saying that, almost nobody in the Senate agreed with me.
(22:08):
All the Democrats disagreed, and most of the Republicans disagree.
Most of the Republicans looked at China and they just
saw dollar signs as far as the eye can see.
A lot more people's eyes have opened up to the
threat China poses today. And I think COVID did an
awful lot of that. You know, in the middle of
the COVID pandemic, there was one major Chinese state owned
(22:29):
newspaper that advocated cutting off life saving pharmaceutical drugs manufactured
in China from going to America, because we've allowed much
of our pharmaceutical drug industry to be manufactured in China,
and they were literally threatening to take away heart medicine
and cancer medicine and diabetes medicine from Americans who needed
to live. That underscored this is stupid to let a
(22:54):
communist government who is our enemy.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Be in charge of her health in that way.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Likewise, critical minerals, critical minerals, China has a stranglehold on
the production of critical minerals, which are essential for semiconductors
and electronics and for defense and for all sorts of
We need to move all of that out of China.
We need to be able to stand on our own
And I got to say President Trump has been really
effective focusing on that threat. We need to accelerate the
(23:20):
delinking from China.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
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, we 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, with these
(23:42):
judges that are basically get to be activists, but their
injunctions are having a whole nationwide. A lot of people
didn't even know that was a possibility. Is an abusive power?
Is there a check and balance that we need to
have on that. Lit's dive into that as well.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
So it's an absolute abuse of power. It is worse
than it has ever been 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 years, the entirety of the Barack
Obama administration all eight years, the entirety of the Joe
(24:17):
Biden administration all four years. More in two months than
in those twenty years.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
We have two months and twenty years. 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 (24:34):
Well, and listen to Attorney General Pambondi talk about this.
Speaker 4 (24:37):
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 in junctions.
(25:00):
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
won on, and he's implementing that agenda at a rapid speed.
(25:23):
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 (25:34):
I talked to a judge this week and he described
it this way, because I was wanting to understand this subject. Obviously,
we were going to talk about it. It's important and we
haven't dealt with this a lot. He said. 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
(25:54):
a president in 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 (26:01):
Well, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden put left wing
radicals on the courts, and then this is Democrat state
attorneys general and left wing radical groups going and seeking
out these radical judges, many 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
(26:24):
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
(26:45):
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 justice our nation has ever seen. We
just heard the Senator from Rhye Island talk about the
imperative of protecting judges, and yet not a single Democrat
(27:10):
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 to
(27:30):
intimidate and threaten those judges, Professor Bray, Under our constitution,
who should decide elections the voters or on elected judges.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
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 (27:47):
And under our constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions?
Elected representatives elected by the people or unelected federal judges.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
I think the question of policy, Senator is a little
broader than the particular case. So the basic laws should
be enacted by Congress. That's where the fountain of.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
La policy 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 3 (28:24):
That's the question, I agree is not complicated. They do
not have that power.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere
in the Constitution?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
It is not first chart the.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
First one hundred and fifty years of our republic. How
many nationwide injunctions were issued?
Speaker 3 (28:40):
My view is that there were not any until nineteen
sixty three zero.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Now fast forward, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in
the entire twentieth century?
Speaker 3 (28:51):
It's a small number. I would I would think it
would be a dozen. Giver take it's not large.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Twenty seven actually, excluding Trump's first term. How many nationwide
injunctions were issued in the last twenty years far more
than that thirty two from twenty one to twenty twenty
four against Biden, Obama and Bush thirty two. And how
many nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two
(29:19):
months alone, there have been quite a few thirty seven.
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
(29:42):
terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama,
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
(30:06):
angry at the voters for re electing Donald Trump and
electing a Republican Senate in a Republican House, and they
engaged 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
(30:28):
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
(30:49):
immigration law concerning TPS being revoked. US law explicitly said
there's no judicial review for that. But hey, they found
a judge who says, you know what, 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
(31:12):
murderers and 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 acting as policy deciders, and it is
(31:35):
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 (31:49):
So here's my question you just teased at the end,
and 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 (32:03):
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.
(32:26):
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
(32:47):
that that one or more of the most egregious district
judges who are who are defying 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
(33:07):
the Democrats are not 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
(33:30):
of illegal aliens and 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
(33:51):
spoke next, and I think my comments rattled her because
she tried to respond, 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 5 (34:07):
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 (34:15):
Why don't you file him in red red districts?
Speaker 5 (34:17):
Senator cru Why what did you just say?
Speaker 2 (34:20):
Why don't you file him in red districts? Why are
the Democratic tonator generals seeking out Senator Cruz left wing.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
Senor Cruse's activity in this I'm just gonna ask for
a point of order. Clob center center, Moody.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
We have debates on this committee that that.
Speaker 5 (34:40):
Let's let her have her time and then we'll get
back to that. If you want to wait, we'll get
back to senator.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
Question ahead, choice, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (34:47):
So I was following Senator Cruise once again, but I
will excuse me, I didn't hear you. What did you
say to be following him? He and I have a
permitting you your time to continue. You would be following
him in order excuse me, go ahead, Senator klob during hearing,
Go ahead, Satric what I'm rehiring to go ahead? And
(35:07):
I will take more than my time since he's taken
more than his time to yell at me.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
Good, I'm not yelling. I asked a question, Senator.
Speaker 5 (35:16):
Crmes, Please, I'll give you time.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
I do have to say, I've seen you yell. 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
(35:40):
activists who used to work for the left wing groups
that are now bringing the lawsuits. Why are you only
filing them in their 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 power. This is not about the rule of law.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Don't forget. We do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Hit that subscriber auto download button if you're watching us
in the video on YouTube. Make sure that you subscribe.
You don't miss a single episode on YouTube. We put
out a lot of stuff on YouTube, so we want
to make you get all of that as well, and
grab my show, the Ben Ferguson Podcast on those in
between days. I'll keep you up today in the latest
(36:23):
breaking news because there's a lot happening in Washington the Senate,
and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.
Welcome in his verdict with center, Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
with you as always, and Senator, it's nice to be
back in the studio with you. You've been traveling like crazy.
You guys have been really busy in Washington and adding
some days onto the work week as well. We're finally
back here together. We've got a big show.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
So it's something going on in Washington, right exactly. You know,
there's an old Chinese curse, may you live in interesting times.
We certainly live in those. Donald Trump has hit the
White House with speed and fury and velocity. There's never
been anything like it. They've never been a president like
this in the first hundred days. Last week, obviously, the
(00:38):
President announced on April second tariffs on just about every
country on Earth, the highest tariff level since nineteen thirty three.
It is a big, big deal. Every nation across the
globe is reeling. They're all trying to figure out what
do we do about it. The stock market, the stock
market collapsed, It went into free fall. Six trillion dollars
(01:01):
evaporated in forty eight hours. Now Monday, everyone's wondering, how's
the market going to open Monday morning? But there's a
lot of concern that the market isn't done going down,
and the question is where do we go from here?
And I'll tell you the reason President Trump is doing
this is important. The reason President Trump is doing this
(01:22):
is that we've seen of the last fifty years a
hollowing out of manufacturing in America. We've seen what used
to be the heart of the American middle class, the
heart of blue collar jobs going away, being pulled abroad,
going overseas, and the industrial Midwest just just being utterly
(01:44):
decimated by good paying jobs leaving America. And President Trump
was elected for many things, but heart and center to
fight for bringing those jobs back. That's right at the
core of this, bringing those jobs back to America. But
there is now a very active debate within the White
House which direction do we go next. Do we use
(02:07):
this as leverage to lower other countries tariffs and then
lower our own tariffs to reflect that, or do we
leave these tariffs up forever and ever and ever. And
I'll tell you there are different advisors in the White House.
There are angels and demons on each of President Trump's shoulders,
urging him use them as leverage or keep them forever.
(02:29):
We're going to break down that debate and what the
consequences are for you, what it means for you if
these tariffs are used as leverage to lower the tariffs
of our trading partners, and what it means for you
if these tariffs are simply a permanent economic feature of America.
We're also going to talk about nationwide injunctions. Nationwide injunctions
(02:50):
we have seen in the last three months. It is
the new incarnation of lawfare. It is how the left
is attacking Donald Trump. They are filing lawsuits, they are
looking for left wing radical judges who are issuing nationwide
injunctions to stop the president's agenda. We had a hearing
in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week on exactly this topic.
We're going to take you there and talk about what
(03:13):
the problem is and what the solution should be.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
Yeah, it's going to be very interesting. I also want
to talk to you real quick about the International Fellowship
of Christians and Jews. Israel is still under attack. Missile
fire has resumed from the Huthis, from Hesblah and hamas
enemies seeking Israel's destruction. Here in America, we cannot imagine
living under constant threat of terrorism and rocket attacks. This
(03:36):
is the reality in Israel. Parents taking their kids to school,
falling to the ground to lay on top of their
small children, trying to comfort them as sirens blair. The
next attack against Israel is happening now with little time
to repair. And that's why your help is needed right now.
The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is helping provide
life saving aid and security essentials, and your urgently need
(03:59):
a gift today will help provide security essentials like bomb shelters,
flag jackets, and bulletproof vests for first responders. They're also
providing armored security vehicles, armored ambulances, and so much more.
So if you're proud to stand with Israel, you can
make your gift right now by calling eight eight eight
four eight eight IFCJ that's eight eight eight four eight
(04:23):
eight four three two five, or online it's easy to
get by going to support IFCJ dot org. That's one word,
support IFCJ dot org. Now center, I have a very
important question, a big question before we get into all
the politics. There's a game that's happening on Monday, and
(04:43):
your hometown team is in that game. How excited are
you to see Houston make it through the final four
of the championship game.
Speaker 2 (04:51):
Look the Cougars. They played incredibly against Duke. They were
underdogs against Duke. It was a great victory. We're now
in the finals tonight. I got to say, Houston that
is going to win tonight, is gonna beat Florida. Florida
played well. They had a tough game against Auburn and
managed managed to just scrape it out. Florida is a
good team, but they don't have what it takes to
beat Houston. Houston's defense is too stifling. I'm gonna call
(05:14):
it Houston by six.
Speaker 1 (05:17):
I like Houston by six. I like the Bowl prediction.
Well done. All right, so let's talk about tariffs. You
and I we did a show on Friday. It was
a show that a lot of people listen to. It
actually kind of went viral over the weekend as well.
People just want to know what is going to happen
this week, next week. There's concern, there's the stress anxiety
watching the market, but there's also something that's happening right
(05:39):
now that's very interesting. Countries are lining up to meet
with the Trump administration. Vietnam is apparently at the front
of the line. They sent emergency delegation in the US.
They want to get a deal done as fast as
they possibly can. And now we're hearing there's dozens and
dozens of other countries are saying, Hey, we want to
talk too.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
No, there is an historic upper two to hear. And
if the White House capitalizes on this opportunity, it could
prove to be one of the most significant, one of
the most powerful moments for US economic interest for American
workers this country has ever seen. Right now, every country
that is on the receiving end of these tariffs, they're
freaking out, They're panicking. This is a great opportunity to
(06:22):
engage in. Let's make a deal here. Listen to Kevin Hasset,
who is the head of the National Economic Council, describing
how countries are coming to the White House right now.
Speaker 3 (06:29):
I got a report from the USDR last night that
more than fifty countries have reached out to the.
Speaker 2 (06:34):
President to begin a negotiation.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
But they're doing that because they understand that they bear
a lot of the tariff.
Speaker 2 (06:39):
More than fifty countries. And that's just in a few days.
And listen, I've had a lot of countries that are
reaching out talking to my office, and my advice to
them is, go cut a deal. Go cut a deal,
and the front half of your deal needs to be
the tariffs that we've imposed against US goods, against US crops,
against US livestocks, against used cars, against US manufacturing, against
(07:01):
US services. All of those tariffs we are going to
slash if we see Vietnam came in, Israel has come in.
Israel and Vietnam were right at the front. But you know,
it's interesting. Vietnam is a country that is worth talking
about a little bit because we have a very significant
trade deficit with Vietnam. Yeah, do you know why?
Speaker 1 (07:24):
Why is that?
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Because America is winning? Why do we have a big
trade deficit with Vietnam? Because most of that manufacturing used
to be in China. And what happened is America, starting
under President Trump, leaned on manufacturers and said move your
manufacturing out of China. And so a whole bunch of
them moved them out of China and went to Vietnam.
(07:45):
So Vietnam was doing what we asked them to. We asked, hey,
can you take on this manufacturing instead of China? And
there was a massive move of American companies that pulled
manufacturing out of China and moved it to Vietnam. Look,
everything we do to delink from China is a good thing.
So moving those jobs out of China was a terrific victory,
(08:06):
and it was a victory for President Trump. It was
the Trump administration that urged moved those jobs to Vietnam.
Now Vietnam suddenly has a big trade deficit because all
those jobs came out of China to Vietnam, and now
Vietnam has a massive tariff that was levied on it
by President Trump. The question is are they going to
(08:29):
work a deal where they lower barriers on both sides.
I hope they will, But there's another path. Listen, there
are voices in the White House who simply believe in
tariffs as a permanent feature of the US economy. There
are voices in the White House that want these high
tariffs to be in place in six months, in a year,
(08:49):
in two years, in five years, in ten years, that
they want tariffs to be the main source of economic
revenue for the federal government. That is a very different philosophy.
And this is one of the things I'll tell you
within the Senate with my colleagues. A lot of us
are debating, Okay, how much of this is leverage to
get great deals from other countries.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
And how much of this is what you said, economic
revenue for the government.
Speaker 2 (09:15):
And by the way, you know, you get some people
that talk about, well, we'll do tariffs instead of the
income tax, and I got to say that sort of
reminds me of the old cartoon Popeye. Yeah, and you know,
I'll gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger. Today, I'm like, well,
wait a second. The last I checked, we still have
the income tax and we have these tariffs. That's just
(09:36):
a ton more taxes. If you want to get rid
of the income tax, then we can talk. But I
don't see anyone proposing getting rid of the income tax.
And so at the end of the day, in my view,
if the outcome from these tariffs is really high tariffs
from every country on Earth against American goods, and really
(09:57):
high tariffs from America against goods from every every other
country on Earth, that is going to be really bad
for Texas and really bad for America.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
Let's talk about momentum. You mentioned the people coming to
the table, and you heard there in that comment fifty
nations are now lining up. You and I both know
that that one of the things Donald Trump does really
well is the art of the deal and loves when
there's something to celebrate celebrating it. Yes, I see in
our near future Vietnam America on stage White House. We
(10:28):
got a historic deal done, and that's where that move goes.
Speaker 2 (10:32):
So what I'm urging is for the President to come
and make major deals and make them quickly. Look to
calm the stock market down. A few major deals quickly
would really really help. I would love it if this week,
this week we had an announcement from the president, this
major country came in, they offered huge concessions. They slashed
(10:54):
their tariffs, and we're slashing ours. That would be a great.
Speaker 1 (10:58):
Outcome, and that's momentum building as well.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Look, the stock market has a psychology to it. If
people start saying it's a bear markeage, people start saying
we're going into a recession, that feeds upon itself. That
means people are less willing to invest money, they're less
willing to take risks, and so it is important for
people to see the real tangible victories coming from this,
and those victories are not just cash. One of the
(11:23):
things you're hearing the White House say is, well, look
at all the revenue we're getting from tariffs. That's not
actually bringing jobs back to America getting those tariffs, that's
just raising prices. And if the immediate effect for voters
of these tariffs is serious inflation because the cost of
what they're buying is going up. I mentioned on Friday's
(11:44):
podcast how one of the big three American auto manufacturers
told me last week the effect of this tariffs is
they would increase the cost of the cars they sell
by four five hundred dollars a car.
Speaker 1 (11:56):
It's a lot of mind average Americans.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
That is a lot of money. That is a big hit.
And so we've got to see the upside. We've got
to see the benefit. Look one upside. Right now, Europe
has a ten percent tariffs on American cars, and prior
to April second, America had a two percent tariff on
European cars. Now, I can tell you the Europeans are
(12:19):
already back channeling. They are already putting on the table
zero and zero. They'll take their ten percent to zero,
we take our two percent to zero, and cars go
back and forth from Europe and America without a tariff.
That deal is there. The President could announce it this week.
That's a major victory. Getting rid of those tariffs in
(12:40):
Europe is a major victory. But it is important. So
they're different voices. So, for example, one of the voices
speaking out is Elon Musk. We had Elon on the podcast.
Elon said last week. Here's what he told Reuters. US
tech billionaire Elon Musk said on Saturday he hoped in
the future to see complete freedom of true between the
(13:00):
United States and Europe, speaking days after President Donald Trump
announced tariffs on trading partners Mosca. Trump advisor has been
working to eliminate wasteful US public spending. Spoke via video
link at a congress in Florence of Italy's right wing
Co Ruling Party Co Ruling League party.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
Quote this is from US quote.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
At the end of the day, I hope it's agreed
that both Europe and the United States should move ideally
in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating
a free trade zone between Europe and North America. So
when I talked about angels and demons, Elon is one
of the angels. This is a good good voice that
(13:40):
is focused on US jobs that I hope the President
is listening to. I hope the President is listening to
Elon Musk. President Trump has an historic opportunity. The leverage
right now is massive. The question is will the White
House make the decision to use that leverage to try
to lower foreign tariffs. I mentioned something else. Very good
(14:02):
friend of mine works in finance, very very smart finance
here suggests it an idea for how to use this
leverage and get even more of a win win, which
is he said, Look, here's the problem. Let's say you're
an American company or your foreign company, and you've got
a factory somewhere. You've got a factory abroad, you've got
(14:23):
a factory in Vietnam, you've got a factory anywhere other
than the US, and you're contemplating do I move the
factory to the United States. The problem with that decision
making is that move takes years. You can't do it instantaneously,
even if you decide today, okay, let's build it in America.
In a lot of places, just the permitting takes years
(14:44):
to get a factory permitted, much less built. By the way,
that's why everyone should come to Texas. If you're going
to build a factory, come to Texas. Permit it fast.
We're not if you go to California, you deserve what
you get. Come to Texas.
Speaker 1 (14:57):
You should turn that into like a public service announcement,
right like you go there, you go me, you deserve
you want to get into business, Texas place to come.
I will tell you.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
As an aside, several years ago, a CEO came and
met with me in DC and he was thinking of
opening a new factory and he was looking at Texas,
he was looking at California. And he said, all right,
well tell me in Texas. What do you give me
to go to Texas? And I said, not a damn thing.
I said, but we won't tax you to death, won't.
(15:24):
We won't regulate you to death, and we won't allow
lawsuits just to tear you apart. And I said, you
know what, if you go to California, you deserve.
Speaker 1 (15:33):
What you get.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
So that being said, let's say you're you're a big
car company and you're trying to decide where do I
put my next car factory. Just the process of getting
it permitted, getting it built, putting the equipment in that
takes a minimum of two, three, four, five years. That's
just how long it takes.
Speaker 1 (15:51):
Wow.
Speaker 2 (15:52):
So the problem for your decision making is if you're
looking at this, if you're doing it based on the
Trump tariffs, you don't know how long they'll be place.
Sure you're trying to look at the math, you don't
know a is Trump going to lift them in a
deal where you may make a decision for the tariffs
and then suddenly the tariffs aren't there anymore, and the
math changes pretty substantially or be at a minimum in
(16:15):
three and a half years, Trump is not going to
be president, So you don't know if the next president
is going to keep the tariffs or eliminate the tariffs.
So the problem is by the time you opened.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Your factory, completely different group could be in charge.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
So the idea that my buddy from the finance world
came up with is for the president to announce a fund,
an invest USA fund that individual CEOs could make it
a commitment. Let's say you're the CEO of Mercedes Benz,
that you could make a commitment we are going to
open three new factories in America, all in Texas. We're
(16:52):
going to open three new factories in America, and we're
going to invest one hundred billion dollars in building these factories.
Now the piece that is, look that has some teeth
to what my friend suggested. Look, you can make that announcement,
you can put out a press release, and by the
way of circumstances change, you never spend one hundred million dollars.
It doesn't actually arrive. The idea is you're the CEO
(17:17):
Mercedes Bend. You announced three new factories one hundred billion dollars.
You deposit the one hundred billion dollars in the fund,
the Invest America Fund. You actually spend the money on
the front end. Now, two things happen when you invested
in the Invest America Fund. Number One, the United States
(17:38):
earns interest on the money while it's sitting there, So
it's benefiting the US just from the interest. If you
leave it there, we'll get interest while it's there. But
number two, as long as you have that money on
the fund, you get a credit that you can use
against your tariffs. Maybe it's a one to one credit,
maybe it's a two to one credit, but it's economically
(17:58):
you create an incentive to put the money there for
CEOs to invest in America, to create jobs in America,
and to actually deploy the cash, because if you make
the credit on the tariffs only dependent on the dollars
actually being in the fund Let's say you give a
two to one credit, so one hundred dollars deposit in
(18:19):
the funds gets you a two hundred dollars credit on
your tariffs. Yeah, that's pretty economically compelling to lean in
and invest. And what we want to see is what
President Trump talks about a lot, a golden age in
manufacturing where companies are profoundly incentivized to invest in.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
America, not only to grow, but to stay here so
we don't have to worry about them leaving in the future.
Speaker 2 (18:42):
Yes, yes, and if that that has some real potency
and idea like that. But if the solution is simply
let's go back to the world in nineteen hundred, when
you had really high tariffs, when you had you know,
nineteen thirty three, you had smoot Holly that played a
(19:04):
major role in the Great Depression. When you put up walls,
it hurts America. We compete very well on the global level.
We just need to make sure we're competing fairly. And
I think the president has real leverage to do that
right now if he's listening to the angels and not
the voices in his administration that are saying more tariffs,
(19:24):
more tariffs, higher tariffs forever.
Speaker 1 (19:27):
Let me ask you a final question on this, and
you talk about the two different viewpoints here. There is
a real debate. I'm having it with friends, I'm having
it with colleagues. I mean, I've witnessed this on TV.
There is, like you said, this core idea, there should
always be tariffs. I've heard people talking about Greg Zama
was China, we should always be at twenty percent or
thirty percent or forty percent, whatever that number is. And
(19:47):
there's others saying, no, you use this as leverage. You
get the better deal now, and then you have the
market stabilize and people understand what the new norm is.
That seems to be what you're advocating for, which is,
let the market know, the CEOs, know the people that
are pouring their dollars to decide what they're gonna do next,
give them whatever the new normal is going to be
so that we can move forward. Is that fair?
Speaker 2 (20:09):
You've got to have some modicum of certainty, because if
there's uncertainty. Business doesn't invest. No one invests if they
don't know what the rules are going to be. If
it's chaos, they sit on their cash and you don't
have jobs. We want people to feel confident. And by
the way, chaos under Biden came from regulatory chaos of
new and job killing regulations, one after the other after
(20:30):
the other. But if there is uncertainty, uncertainty is an
enemy of investment, and that means it's an enemy of jobs.
So some limited uncertainty can be helpful to incentivize a deal,
but we need to get to a deal a predictable outcome.
And I will say listen, China is different. I am
actually quite fine with tariffs against China because I think
(20:54):
dlinking from China their economy, they have us in a
position where they are single greatest geopolitical threat. They are
utilizing that economic interconnection as leverage against America, and so
I think everything we can do to move Moving those
jobs from China to Vietnam is a good move, is
an important move, and moving them from China to Mexico
(21:16):
that's a good move. Moving them from China to America
is a good move. But everything we can do to
d link from China's.
Speaker 1 (21:23):
Not just trade, it's also national security variations, right, And
I want to bonus question. I think a lot of
people when you mentioned this is a different mentality with
China and tarists are good there. I agree with you.
My reason for it is a lot of national security reasons.
I think that's something that's not been talked about as much.
Give me your thoughts on that, quickly said, people understand
the national security aspect of this.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
So look, we saw in the middle of COVID how
much our critical supply chains were dominated by China. China
is fighting a thousand year war against the United States.
When I arrived in the Senate thirteen years ago, I
said China is the single greatest geopolitical threat at America's
facing for the next one hundred years. When I started
saying that, almost nobody in the Senate agreed with me.
(22:08):
All the Democrats disagreed, and most of the Republicans disagree.
Most of the Republicans looked at China and they just
saw dollar signs as far as the eye can see.
A lot more people's eyes have opened up to the
threat China poses today. And I think COVID did an
awful lot of that. You know, in the middle of
the COVID pandemic, there was one major Chinese state owned
(22:29):
newspaper that advocated cutting off life saving pharmaceutical drugs manufactured
in China from going to America, because we've allowed much
of our pharmaceutical drug industry to be manufactured in China,
and they were literally threatening to take away heart medicine
and cancer medicine and diabetes medicine from Americans who needed
to live. That underscored this is stupid to let a
(22:54):
communist government who is our enemy.
Speaker 1 (22:57):
Be in charge of her health in that way.
Speaker 2 (22:59):
Likewise, critical minerals, critical minerals, China has a stranglehold on
the production of critical minerals, which are essential for semiconductors
and electronics and for defense and for all sorts of
We need to move all of that out of China.
We need to be able to stand on our own
And I got to say President Trump has been really
effective focusing on that threat. We need to accelerate the
(23:20):
delinking from China.
Speaker 1 (23:22):
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, we 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, with these
(23:42):
judges that are basically get to be activists, but their
injunctions are having a whole nationwide. A lot of people
didn't even know that was a possibility. Is an abusive power?
Is there a check and balance that we need to
have on that. Lit's dive into that as well.
Speaker 2 (23:56):
So it's an absolute abuse of power. It is worse
than it has ever been 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 years, the entirety of the Barack
Obama administration all eight years, the entirety of the Joe
(24:17):
Biden administration all four years. More in two months than
in those twenty years.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
We have two months and twenty years. 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 (24:34):
Well, and listen to Attorney General Pambondi talk about this.
Speaker 4 (24:37):
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 in junctions.
(25:00):
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
won on, and he's implementing that agenda at a rapid speed.
(25:23):
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 (25:34):
I talked to a judge this week and he described
it this way, because I was wanting to understand this subject. Obviously,
we were going to talk about it. It's important and we
haven't dealt with this a lot. He said. 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
(25:54):
a president in 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 (26:01):
Well, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden put left wing
radicals on the courts, and then this is Democrat state
attorneys general and left wing radical groups going and seeking
out these radical judges, many 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
(26:24):
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
(26:45):
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 justice our nation has ever seen. We
just heard the Senator from Rhye Island talk about the
imperative of protecting judges, and yet not a single Democrat
(27:10):
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 to
(27:30):
intimidate and threaten those judges, Professor Bray, Under our constitution,
who should decide elections the voters or on elected judges.
Speaker 3 (27:40):
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 (27:47):
And under our constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions?
Elected representatives elected by the people or unelected federal judges.
Speaker 3 (27:58):
I think the question of policy, Senator is a little
broader than the particular case. So the basic laws should
be enacted by Congress. That's where the fountain of.
Speaker 2 (28:08):
La policy 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 3 (28:24):
That's the question, I agree is not complicated. They do
not have that power.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere
in the Constitution?
Speaker 3 (28:33):
It is not first chart the.
Speaker 2 (28:35):
First one hundred and fifty years of our republic. How
many nationwide injunctions were issued?
Speaker 3 (28:40):
My view is that there were not any until nineteen
sixty three zero.
Speaker 2 (28:44):
Now fast forward, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in
the entire twentieth century?
Speaker 3 (28:51):
It's a small number. I would I would think it
would be a dozen. Giver take it's not large.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Twenty seven actually, excluding Trump's first term. How many nationwide
injunctions were issued in the last twenty years far more
than that thirty two from twenty one to twenty twenty
four against Biden, Obama and Bush thirty two. And how
many nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two
(29:19):
months alone, there have been quite a few thirty seven.
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
(29:42):
terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama,
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
(30:06):
angry at the voters for re electing Donald Trump and
electing a Republican Senate in a Republican House, and they
engaged 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
(30:28):
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
(30:49):
immigration law concerning TPS being revoked. US law explicitly said
there's no judicial review for that. But hey, they found
a judge who says, you know what, 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
(31:12):
murderers and 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 acting as policy deciders, and it is
(31:35):
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 (31:49):
So here's my question you just teased at the end,
and 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 (32:03):
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.
(32:26):
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
(32:47):
that that one or more of the most egregious district
judges who are who are defying 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
(33:07):
the Democrats are not 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
(33:30):
of illegal aliens and 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
(33:51):
spoke next, and I think my comments rattled her because
she tried to respond, 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 5 (34:07):
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 (34:15):
Why don't you file him in red red districts?
Speaker 5 (34:17):
Senator cru Why what did you just say?
Speaker 2 (34:20):
Why don't you file him in red districts? Why are
the Democratic tonator generals seeking out Senator Cruz left wing.
Speaker 5 (34:28):
Senor Cruse's activity in this I'm just gonna ask for
a point of order. Clob center center, Moody.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
We have debates on this committee that that.
Speaker 5 (34:40):
Let's let her have her time and then we'll get
back to that. If you want to wait, we'll get
back to senator.
Speaker 2 (34:45):
Question ahead, choice, go ahead.
Speaker 5 (34:47):
So I was following Senator Cruise once again, but I
will excuse me, I didn't hear you. What did you
say to be following him? He and I have a
permitting you your time to continue. You would be following
him in order excuse me, go ahead, Senator klob during hearing,
Go ahead, Satric what I'm rehiring to go ahead? And
(35:07):
I will take more than my time since he's taken
more than his time to yell at me.
Speaker 2 (35:12):
Good, I'm not yelling. I asked a question, Senator.
Speaker 5 (35:16):
Crmes, Please, I'll give you time.
Speaker 2 (35:18):
I do have to say, I've seen you yell. 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
(35:40):
activists who used to work for the left wing groups
that are now bringing the lawsuits. Why are you only
filing them in their 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 power. This is not about the rule of law.
Speaker 1 (36:02):
Don't forget. We do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Hit that subscriber auto download button if you're watching us
in the video on YouTube. Make sure that you subscribe.
You don't miss a single episode on YouTube. We put
out a lot of stuff on YouTube, so we want
to make you get all of that as well, and
grab my show, the Ben Ferguson Podcast on those in
between days. I'll keep you up today in the latest
(36:23):
breaking news because there's a lot happening in Washington the Senate,
and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.
Host
Ben Ferguson
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
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
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.