Transcription
Thank you, Steve, for, well, for walking on stage with an FT. It's my comfort blanket. And I said to somebody earlier, uh, you're the only person I remember at least being photographed going into jail with an FT. That was prison. Prison? Yes. No, no, I appreciate the distinction. Um, and did prison radicalize you or were you already radicalized? I was radicalized, but it opened my eyes to a lot, to a lot.
Prisons, these prisons are very dangerous, extremely dangerous for the nonviolent, uh, young drug offenders put in there for 10, 15, 20, 25 years. Danbury is a very small place. When you have to live the next 20 years of your life in a prison that's 100 years old, that's supposed to have 800 inmates, that has 1,200 because of the overcrowding, because so many foreign nationals, it's very dangerous, and the prisons have to be reformed. I'm working with, uh, Jared and Peter Navarro to get the the BOP, uh, candidates in and start to do some serious prison reform. And I mean Jared, I mean, and I know this is actually, this is a a rare cross-party issue. Um, Jared hasn't had jail experience, but you and, well, his father went to prison. That's why Jared, Jared's in back of the First Step Back. First Step Back is revolutionary. It hasn't been implemented. The thing I found shocking has been implemented. I don't want to say it's because it was Trump's bill. I think a lot of it was incompetence or just lethargy. But the First Step Act is, you know, it can cut people, could cut inmates, nonviolent criminals' time in half, and it hasn't been implemented. So Jared is the really the author of that. He did a brilliant job. I wasn't that into it when he first did it. I got into it late, to get it, helped get it passed because of the politics, but it's brilliant. And we're trying to do so much more. The prisons are a disgrace in this country. Absolute disgrace.
Um, I think a lot of people would agree with you. Um, the, the, um, I want to get into the meat of what MAGA is and what the real end game is beyond the trolling. If, if there is a beyond the trolling, I mean, which is sort of my suspicion, and you can allay it if you like, but let me start with current affairs, which is that Cardinal Pvost, who is now, of course, Leo I 14th, you said a couple of weeks ago, or no, 10 days ago, whenever it was, that he was the dark horse candidate, uh, and then he became pope. So you, you've got a pretty good predictive record. I, I mean, I have to say, I, I find, you know, there is a, there is a sort of Trump reaction going on around the world, and I see it as Canada, Australia, the Vatican, um, because, and you've described him as a, you know, basic, I think a cultural Marxist. Can you, well, from from Bergoglio, remember Bergoglio was anti-Trump from the beginning in the '16 campaign, uh, he criticized when he did the mass down on the on the border, he criticized our building the wall, President at that time, candidate Trump, and I recommended he come back strong in that, and Bergoglio the entire time has been violently anti-Trump, but that's not the, it's not just being anti-MAGA, anti-Trump, that's the politics of it, right, and, and Pope is the continuation, but it is for the traditional Catholics in the crowd, the Latin Mass Catholics, the pre-Vatican II Catholics, we're close to a schism in the church between Bergoglio in this kind of radical way he's taken it, and Pope. What my research found, we have lots of contacts in the curia. We have lots of contacts in the Vatican. You know, I've spent a lot of time in Italy. We had a, we had a monastery that we actually owned before the government took it away from us to be kind of a counter to what was going to the Vatican. So, we have a broad network of the traditionalist, and, uh, Pope, and, and I'm saying this, the conclave for the pope was more rigged than the 2020 election. Now, why, why do I say? Let me back it up with some facts. On Piers Morgan's show, 10 days before the Conclave started, I called, I said Pope is the dark horse. He wasn't in any betting pool. If you look at Italian TV, nowhere. The reason is, is not only is the, uh, he's only been a cardinal less than two years. He was the perfect acolyte for Bergoglio to continue his thing. In the front page of the New York Times says that today, if you read the whole huge front page story. More importantly, because of our efforts and other, because the traditional church in America is on fire with vocations and young people and vibrancy and urgency that we help cut off the money going to the Vatican. And so the Vatican, the Wall Street Journal had a huge article this week that showed the Vatican has tons of assets, but they're illiquid. They need the American cash. They would never put a traditional American in that role because they think the American church has too much power. Pope is going to be the contact for the big American donors. So I know, I mean, there was a joke at the time, a couple of days ago when he got, um, Mayor Pope, uh, that Mayor Daley had rigged another election, Chicago Cardinal, but I mean, his brother did, his brother did say he's not underestimating the the reaction against Trump here and the influence of Pope Francis on having appointed two-thirds, three-quarters of the cardinals, whatever that's true, but he was, it is, and he worked, he worked in the dicastery for the archbishops, however, he was virtually totally unknown. The American Cardinals came out today and said, you know, he's the least American of the Cardinals and we don't really know him. This was a true dark horse. And it only took three ballots, folks. It took one day. They had one vote late in the afternoon. Next day came back. It is impossible. And he, the Daily Mail reports, he talked to his brother the two days before the conclave and they were talking about picking Leo. The, they wanted, he wanted to pick Leo, but he thought it might be the 13th, and then they figured out it was the 14th. How would you talk to your brother about that? This was totally rigged by the curia to be both anti-Trump and, and, and, and, and to drive, we're going to have a schism in the church because the traditional Catholics are not going to go along with the continuation of Bergoglio. So we get, let's park the pope for a moment. I, I want to get, No, no, I asked, I asked you, I asked you about the pope just to be clear. Um, I told you not to go there. Let's start with it. Let's start with taxes. I'm not yet regretting having gone there. Uh, but let's park him.
Um, I want, I want to get into, I think it's fair to say that you are the best explainer of MAGA, particularly to audiences like this, and you know, you read the FT for a reason. Um, and that you present a theory of the case, and I was trying to think, you were strategist during the 2016 election and then in the White House in Trump's first term. Um, and you, you know, have been a chief explainer of MAGA to many, many audiences. Uh, who is the equivalent of you in the, the answer I came up with from past eras of figures who aren't necessarily elected but have a sort of command over shaping the zeitgeist was Grover Norquist, and Grover Norquist had a huge influence, very different, but a huge influence over Republicans in Washington by getting them to sign the anti-tax pledge, which, you know, was, was binding and sort of militantly enforced, and he really shaped the Republican party into being purely a party of tax cuts. You're quite different, but I want you to explain first before I sort of follow up on why you're different. I mean, you don't believe in, in tax cuts, right? I believe in massive tax cuts for the middle class and the working class and permanent. I believe if we can't cut federal spending that the wealthy in this country, the at least the millionaires, ought to be at 40%. As a start. The country's in a financial crisis. The people have made, we've had the greatest concentration of wealth under President Obama because of the bailouts in 2008. How, how they were done. And now because of COVID, we have a tremendous concentration of wealth in this country. Such, we have a capitalist system with very few capitalists. I think 75% of the people don't own any real assets or financial assets. So we have to have fundamental change in this country. Part of that has to come from the tax structure. I think you see from Grover Norquist, they're playing from a playbook. We've changed the electorate in the Republican party. We are a working-class and middle-class party. And the reason is the Democrats, the credential class completely abandoned the Democratic party. I come from a Democratic family. We were Irish, you know, people, firemen, phone workers, cops, that type of thing, union people, and the Democratic party abandoned us. And that's why, you know, 10 and some days into this, there's no real theory of the case on the Democratic side. Bob Reich, the labor secretary, wrote this brilliant piece in the Guardian the other day calling for a left-wing populism, but there's no left-wing populism until you start talking about economic issues. You can watch MSNBC or these things all night long and you never see, getting Ro Khanna is never on. Feingold, they're trying to run out of the party. Sherrod Brown's defeated. They never talk about the core issues of economics that are important to the American people. And we're going to get into that just, I mean, quickly, how often do you talk to President Trump? I, I think if you watch the show, we're four hours a day. He gets clips every day and I think you can see that a lot of the Truth Socials or things come out of some of the stuff we say, but it's, it's frequently enough. Frequently enough. I don't want to listen. He's got the weight of the world on his shoulders. The last thing he needs is a Steve Bannon calling him up all the time. Hey, here are my thoughts. My thoughts are out. My thoughts are on that show every day. The reason the show is so powerful, it's a working-class audience and a middle-class audience who are activists. We, it's all about using your human agency and, and, and so, and so by doing that he sees it. Is it sort of daily, weekly? No. No. No. I don't call, I don't talk to him once a day. No, because he's got the weight of the world on his shoulders. Why isn't he banned? Why isn't he banned, bugging him for, on the reason I ask in this context is there's a budget before the house and that budget says we will pay for the tax cuts with cuts to Medicaid, essentially 880 billion, whatever it is, to the middle class. Well, hold it. He's not on, and he's clearly Trump is clearly conflicted on this. He's got Elon Musk on this shoulder and Steve Bannon on this, or maybe it's Tucker Carlson. I don't know. But he has, well, Tucker not on the economics. He has different perspectives on the economics on both Medicaid and the tax cuts. He, he watches the show. He knows where I stand. We send the staff a lot of information and the Jason Millers in the world that are not in, remember there, there many prominent people that, uh, that give advice to President Trump. Boris Epshteyn, Jason Miller, who are not in the administration. Uh, you know, Scott Bessent was a contributor on our show. Navarro was a co-host, Russ Vought was a contributor. So, it's not that we lack for these things. And President Trump, I think that shows you the difference. The Republican party that, that you talk about with Grover Norquist is dead. Okay. The electorate has totally changed. We haven't changed the apparatus on Capitol Hill. That's why we still have these fights. They want to cut 880 billion dollars out of Medicaid. You can't do it because MAGA, MAGA is on Medicaid because there's not great jobs in this country. Okay. So, let's say that it happens that, let's typify it as a Grover Norquist bill because that is a Grover. I would rather, I'd rather say I was Mark Rylance in Cromwell in Wolf Hall than Grover Norquist. Uh, it's certainly, it's certainly more gripping to watch. Well, no, no, it's not. This is this is gripping to watch. Um, and, and right now it looks like a Grover Norquist bill is going to be passed. I totally, I totally disagree with, Okay, first off, Grover Norquist doesn't want no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime. He's a protector of what the Republican party was and it kind of still part of it is, is a big donor party. It's one of the problems with the Democrats. The big dem, the big donors run the Democratic party also. Everything you see on MSNBC and Fox is all pro wrestling. It's not the heart of it. The heart of it is money and power. And that's what we're trying to do. And we're trying to do this by breaking the Grover Norquist mentality, uh, on Capitol Hill and is a struggle. But I think if you see this bill right now, that's why they didn't, they haven't put out whether the upper brackets are going to be permanent. There's all types of moving pieces on this, and, and the date you have to look at is the debt ceiling in August. This is going to be fought, negotiated, marked up, debated, uh, intensely over the next couple of months. Uh, now, I, I take it you would support a tax increase on the very wealthy. Oh, definitely. A serious one or a symbolic one? No, seriously. The math doesn't work unless you do that. You have to, for the upper bracket, I think the entire upper bracket, but I would go to a million dollars and above have to pay it to 40%. Have to pay it 40%. They don't get per, they, and they definitely don't get a tax cut permanently. And if, if they can't help on cutting the spending, which they're one of the drivers of, eventually taxes may have to go up from, from that. But you can't, we, the system we have is unsustainable. You can't have $2 trillion deficits annually and continue to try to finance those where the, where the world's reserve currency now, but the BRICS nations and the rest of the world are getting, you know, smart to, to the scheme.
The reason I'm sort of pressing you on this is because you are really, I mean, you diagnosed, I agree with your diagnosis of what's happened to the middle class in the last 40 years or so. Um, they have been squeezed, and there has been a rising inequality, and there has been populist resentment. Some of it comes from that, not all of it, but, and we can get on to the other bits, but, um, some of it comes from that. Um, and so you identify inequality as an issue, but the sort of simple way of looking at this thing is if you want to redress inequality, you're going to have to reduce freedom. Freedom and equality are a zero-sum game. Yet your freedom for the billionaires is that my trade-off? Oh, well, that might be, but that's rhetorical. Let me finish my, I'll, I'll hit the bid on that. Um, uh, okay. Um, but the freedom and equality thing is generally seen as a, as a trade-off. Um, and yet your solution to the, the, I think correctly diagnosed, for what it's worth, um, middle-class problem is for more freedom, is the deconstruction of the administrative state. Yes. Which makes life easier for billionaires. That there's a real tension there. Yes. But, okay, but hang on. Let's be specific right now. And this is what populist nationalism is doing right now in this city. We have the oligarchs up against the wall. We have Google. This is the, the, the FTC under President Trump, Ferguson, uh, Gail Slater and the team over the antitrust division at, at, at, uh, at DOJ, at Main Justice. Uh, the FCC. And hey, we're all advocates of, of, uh, Lina Khan, who was one of the best chairmen of the FTC we ever had and let hung out to dry by the Democratic Party because they're owned by the oligarchs. We have the oligarch. We have Google. We're breaking up Google. We have the search engine in one court in Northern Virginia. We have the ad sales apparatus in the other. Facebook, he went and begged Trump in the Oval Office multiple times, don't send me to trial. He's in trial right now. Are you sure this isn't a shakedown and that at some point Google, Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai will be able to call off these antitrust actions by going to Trump and saying we'll give you a billion dollars of free legal advice? Or look, President Trump, by selecting this team, this team, we are neo-Brandeisians like Lina Khan, this is the most aggressive antitrust apparatus we've ever had, this goes back to like Teddy Roosevelt, or you're confident that this, I, here's where I'm comfortable. I'm, I'm confident that they all came and begged for mercy. They all came and begged for mercy, and they're all in federal court and getting broken up right now. Now, are they going, the city people know this. The city's run by the by big pharma, big tech, and the big defense industry. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's have an adult conversation. They own it. They own the law firms. They own the c, they, they're partners with the private equity firms. They own all the lobbyists. They own the media except for the Financial Times and a few brave others. Oh, but you know this, and so yes, it's an uphill struggle, and I think President Trump's been particularly heroic in this and hasn't gotten any credit. But look, every day in the Oval Office is a pressure cooker, right? Where they're coming at him from every different angle. And you know, the Broligarchs, uh, you know, Elon Musk wrote a big check to back a ground game that without that check, we would have won, but it would have been a much tougher tractor pull. I don't think we would have heard about it at 10:00 at night on the 5th. Okay. So they, they get, they get some runway, but Trump is crushing the oligarchs right now. You described Elon Musk as, um, I think a parasitical illegal immigrant. Is that right? Or words to that effect? Words to that effect. Yes. And being, I'm very proud of the fact that I'm the only person except for some folks on the left that stood up to him because of the H-1B visas. That's where it started. Which is a total scam to do nothing but take jobs away. This is why we have no minorities, no Blacks and Hispanics in Silicon Valley because of H-1B visas. We're bringing indentured servants over here from other countries who shouldn't be. It's outrageous we're doing that. But that was just one. Elon Musk and I had many, many fights. But Elon Musk is gone, right? Elon Musk is gone. And, uh, and I'm still here. You are? I will concede that point. Um, I, I mean, uh, and you also, you called him a racist and said he should go back to South Africa. Um, and what we are seeing though on the other side of the ledger is that the only refugees being admitted to this country are Africanas, Aboas, or whatever, that I disagree with that totally. Um, I, it does look, I mean, if I, I understand that there is a sort of fortress America element to MAGA, but do you see how the rest of the world sees this? I look, there's, I don't agree with everything. You're not going to agree with everything. There's so many huge things going on, and President Trump on so many different levels is delivering so far beyond, uh, you know, whether it's national security strategy, America First economics, or the deportation, the sealing of the border in 60 days when people told it's going to take 10 years and two million more invaders. He's doing so much. Some of the stuff I don't agree with. I think a lot of that's on the margin. I'm a believer that right now to protect the African-American and Hispanic community in this country, working-class and middle-class people, that we ought to cease, at least temporarily, all visas into the country. All right. Well, I don't care if you're from Norway, South Africa, or wherever. Just work, all work visas or no work visas. I, I when President Trump said he wanted to put a green card staple to every college degree, I said, and I said, "Look, I love the president. I know what he wants to make this the best and the brightest. I would staple an exit visa that gives them 30 days to go back home. The, the American kids in this country under 30 can't get jobs, they can buy houses on. The only way you're going to do that is start, stop having the world come to their country and compete against them. And so I'm, I'm, I'm a hardcore, we have to stop it temporarily. Get all the scams out of these visa programs because they're riddled with scams by
The corporations. We have to make them for the American citizen first, and the country first, and then open it back up. Uh, so has Doge been a failure? Doge was not a—Here’s look, I was deconstruct the administrative state and destroy the deep state. What Doge did, I think you did have to give kind of a trauma blow to the administrative state to get their attention. What I didn’t like about Doge, and I said it from day one, it’s getting the people on Capitol Hill off the hook on the on the smart cuts we have to make to federal spending. We spend about a 1.7 trillion discretionary before you get to the entitlements, because you’re never going to get to the entitlements. The American people will never trust you until they they see what you can do on on uh discretionary. And discretionary has to start in the Pentagon. We can’t afford and we don’t need a $1 trillion defense budget. Okay? And but you have to do it smartly. Look at all these all the congressmen were running around like little kids thinking he’s some fairy godmother that’s going to give him a trillion dollars in fraud. That’s not going to happen. There is fraud in the system. There’s plenty of fraud over in the Pentagon, of which they didn’t turn—at least they didn’t expose any. So it gave people off the hook.
So now we’re in May with a debt ceiling that’s going to come due, and Scott Besson’s as smart as you get with a debt ceiling that’s going to come due in uh in in August. And if you look at these cuts, it’s kind of ephemeral. It’s 163 billion, but they didn’t touch defense. You don’t know if they’re really real cuts. We’ve wasted in that regard, I think, you know, three or four valuable months because Doge didn’t deliver. And if they have, I would love to do it. I keep asking Russ vote every couple of days. Have we codified the waste, fraud, and abuse that are supposed to be seen by by Doge? I saw yesterday on the hill, I think the Senate voted against some some bill to actually codify the Doge cuts in one department. So, no, I think overall what it’s done is okay, but it’s it’s been like an IT department.
So, one of your um most quoted comments is uh deconstruction of the administrative state. Yeah. Uh, you want to cut the fiscal deficit, right? I mean, you you’ve just been outlining what a—it’s 6 and a half percent of GDP right now. We have to get down to three three. Is the IRS part of the administrative state? Yes. So, how you going to cut the deficit if you’re not collecting tax? Well, I did say, listen, it’s it’s do you cut blindly? No. The administrative state is become a fourth branch of government that’s not elected. Whether AOC, and I saw it up close and personal in the in the White House, whether AOC’s president or Donald Trump’s president, the administrative state and the deep state run this town. Okay? They don’t really. You’re just passing through. That’s what we have to break up. This this fourth branch of government that was never conceived in the Constitution.
This is where I’m confused though. I mean, so I mean, is the DOJ and the FTC that are prosecuting Google, are they the deep state? The the the other—No, the deep state is the—No, that’s the administrative state. And we fought—Well, the administr—the administrative state is the bureaucracy in the administrative state that runs things. The deep state is the kind of rogue pritorian guard of certain elements of the defense department, intelligence, FBI, DOJ that run the deal and have to be and have to be rooted out—root and branch. The administrator of state, we fought the other day on the show. We lit up Jordan’s office when it came that they wanted to do away with the FTC. They magically want to do with the FTC and make one agency, right, as a cost cutting—just when FTC’s got Zuckerberg, you know, in in in in court and we came on and said, “No, you can’t do it.” And they backed off the other day. I’m not I’m not an anarchist and we’re not libertarians. We don’t say you can’t have any state. What you can’t have is an administrative state that has a $7 trillion budget that is out of control. You have to deconstruct that. You have to get down to the limited government. Conservatives have talked about it forever. We’re actually doing it now, and you can do it and you can keep an FTC, you can keep an FCC, uh you can keep a DOJ, FBI, quite frankly, I think the FBI should be eliminated, and and Cash Patel is a very close friend of mine and Cash Patel clearly has other ideas because he went to Congress yesterday and asked for a billion dollars more than President Trump put in the budget. So, no, there are aspects of this that have to be taken apart. There are other aspects that have to be streamlined for more efficiency, more effectiveness, but we’re not anarchists. We don’t want to get a—we won’t we don’t want to do a waiver with all of the state. So I’m I’m aware of the time and I’ve got tons of questions but I’m aware it would be selfish to take up all the remaining time and so there will be some left for the audience.
The other phrase that you’re most quoted as having said is flooding the zone with—Now flooding the zone with implies some of the stuff you’re flooding isn’t—Right. Um, so I promised I I promised I’d get back to the pope. Clearly, clearly Trump, you know, picturing himself setting out a picture, a meme of him as the pope, that right? And we all get outraged and our outrage is part of the pleasure of politics. It’s two or three. It’s two or three thing. It was in the first term because we didn’t, you know, we came from behind. We had no team, no organization, there was no bench. And I said at the time to PBS, we were trying to put up two or three things a day. So the media jumps on one and the other two. They’re not trolling. We get—now this is why it was so—well that was trolling though—I mean it worked—right—I mean I’d like to be po—I’d be a great pop—per me—clearly the reaction was outrage and and it’s quite—I was amused—but that’s how the left—the left kills himself because they jump all over this—that’s trolling—that’s trolling—but then some of the stuff isn’t—some of the stuff’s real—do you know instinctively when Trump—however often you talk to him—do you know instinctively which and which is not—no—because you can see this is project 2025 five, the the phrase that shall not be used, right? It in the—this is why the providential win in 16, the steel in 20 was actually just as providential from our perspective. We could see just how radical this government would be. Remember all of us in in Trump’s inner circle and Trump himself—debarked, deplatformed, uh IRS audits, eventually prison. They tried to send Trump to prison for 700 years. So in—but in doing this—in coming back as Trump did—in understanding what they’re going to do—we had two—a political strategy was the precinct strategy to get people active—to use your agency to go take over every precinct—to take over the Republican party and build a real base of mag for Trump. Other was these public intellectuals—Steven Miller uh at America First Law, America First Policy Institute with Brooks Rollins, uh Russ Vote at CRA, uh De Mint and Meadows over at CPI and the kind of overarching was the heritage—Dr. Roberts in project 25 that was to take every vertical that we had to hit the deck plates and we had not done it in the first term and actually when you hit this time instead of two or three things you’re going to have five executive orders—you’re going to have five executive actions—you’re going to have actual things that you’re going to flood the zone and so overwhelm the opposition they can’t come up—and that is what the first 100 days I think has shown you—to—there’s been some trolling—you know—you can you can decode what Trump really means from what—I mean presumably trade wars are easy to win. Something he’s believed for many decades. Um, or that at least trade wars are worth fighting. Um, that trade deficits are a measure of how much we’re being ripped off. That’s not flooding the zone with—right? That is something that he actually believes. Whereas—Yes, we believe that to the core of our being, our movement believes that. Can you tell—because there’s stuff in between? Can you tell—I don’t know—when he says uh Garcia has MS-13 on his knuckles? I mean, we know that’s photoshop. No, but hang on. But when you when you’ve got—he’s a Maryland man and you know that he worked for a human trafficker in Houston. He was picked up in his car in Tennessee. We have police reports about that and the media is going to sit there like he’s some innocent victim. Stop it. This guy’s a hardened criminal and he’s leaving the country. And if the Democratic party wants to argue about a guy like that coming back from El Salvador from a prison, go ahead and argue it. It’s a 9010 issue and you only—This shows me how out of touch the Democratic party is because that issue is about protecting Hispanics and African-American working class in this country. That you might be right about him. I don’t know. But I mean, I think that the argument is also—does he get due process? That’s the real argument. But a guy here, hold it. You don’t get—there is no due process. If you’re not an American citizen, you’re here illegally. There’s no due process. And I’m telling you, you’re—this is coming to a head because President Trump, we started it on the show and this is how it picks up momentum. We are going to suspend the writ of habius corpus if the sup—if the courts keep ruling against this and don’t allow these mass deportations to to continue—just like President Lincoln. This was an invasion. The country is at war. He’s commander-in-chief. It’s article two power. And this predict—are you predicting that will happen—or—I’m predict—first off there is going to be a constitutional crisis before the court leaves. You know this—you just saw the federal judge judge in in in San Francisco last night ruled against him—his article 2 power to basically uh rearrange and and and take—you know—fire people in these agencies etc. There’s a challenge. The only way the Democrats are even winning right now is to delay—is to to deny—is to delay. They have no political operation. They have no counterargument. They have no populist economics. So, what they’re doing is getting more and more radical on these raids like they did in New Jersey yesterday. And and the judges are are trying to stop him. The the Supreme Court’s going to have to make a decision about President Trump’s article 2 powers. And we’re going to see it. And I believe if the courts keep trying to slow him down, you’re going to see him, as Steven Miller laid out pretty well yesterday, and it’ll be, I’m sure, developed over time, suspension of the writ of habius corpus, just like President Lincoln did in the Civil War. But if um—and and this is I’m asking for a prediction. If the Supreme Court votes the wrong way from your point of view, do you predict that Trump will ignore it? I think we’ll have to wait till that time. That’s what I’m saying. What’s your instinct? I don’t think—first I don’t think we’ll lose. We’ll win at least 54, probably more, but I I don’t want to I don’t want to, you know, handcuff President Trump on what he’s going to do and what his possibilities are. He’s the commander-in-chief. He is uh—we are—have been invaded. This is the easy part, too. These are the criminals and the terrorist. We have 10 million more people that have to leave the country or we don’t have a country. We have to do it humanely. We have to do it with the Judeo-Christian values, but they have to go. And this is what the Democrats know by jamming us up in court right now and making this so painful—how tough it’s going to be. But before the Supreme Court leaves for their summer break, there’s going to be there’s going to be a constitutional crisis.
Can we have like a 4-minute rapid fire round before I—I’ll open it to the audience. Uh, will Trump run for a third term? Uh, yes. So, and he’ll win the third term and he’ll be court—think about that. I mean, we’ll have to see at the time. Okay. I mean, it does. The 22nd Amendment is pretty clear on this, right? There’s—It’s pretty clear what his article 2 power is. And I think we have 250 lawsuits in federal court right now. So, when people tell me that, it’s pretty clear. It’s pretty clear what the president’s power is. It’s pretty clear what his power is to basically uh reprogram. And he had a federal judge yesterday said it—gave a temporary restraining order for the entire nation on 21 different agencies. So when I hear that argument, I say, “Hey, the Supreme—the the Constitution’s clear on a lot of things until it’s defined. President Trump will run again. He will run again and he will win again, and he’ll be the president on the afternoon of 20 uh January 2029.” But you’re you’re justifying him breaking the 22nd Amendment by saying you think you’re you’re questioning judges orders on various executive actions—as saying—I didn’t say we’re going to break—I’m going to say we’re going to break the 22nd amendment. There are multiple workarounds. You mean running his—de—running his money? There’s many—there’s multiple at the at the appropriate time—probably after the 22 midterms. I will lay out the case of the President Trump has nothing to do with this. He’s already said, “Hey, look, I want to be here four years and do a great job.” And you can tell the pressure on him every day. He’s leaving for Saudi Arabia. What? Tomorrow. The pressure on him every day. This is something that we’re totally doing on the outside, but it’s a very serious effort. And the reason it’s a serious effort, a guy like Trump comes along once in a country’s history. We’ve had General Washington at the at the birth of the country. We’ve had Lincoln at the rebirth. We’ve had President Trump. This is the age of—folks, you can like it or not like it. Let me give you a fact. You’re living in the age of Trump. This is the age of Trump. He’s totally redefined American politics. He’s totally redefined politics going forward. He’s saved our nation from going down at the hands of these globalists. So, let’s get back to rapid fire. I mean, and I was going to move—as the question was going to be, is um Vladimir Putin a force for good? No, he’s KGB agent, not not a force for good. The Russian people, you saw the the ceremony the other day. Russian people were our great ally in World War II. 35 million gave their lives fighting the Nazis—like Lao Baing, the Chinese, and we abandoned both of them at the end of the war and threw them to the dogs. And then in ‘89, when both of those systems collapsed, we threw them to the dogs again. Those are our allies. No, Putin’s not a good guy. He’s not a not a force for good in the world. He’s a he’s a KGB guy. Um, if uh was Joseph Stalin a force for good in the world? Are you asking me? No, I was saying because we were partnered with Joseph Stalin. He’s right up there with Hitler. Okay. We part—we’ve partnered with very bad people in the past. And what you saw happening in Moscow the last couple days was she and Putin looking like uh two uh teenagers on a first date is not good for this country. We had every opportunity to try to have a Russian raproman and pull Russia out of that uh out of that relationship with China and this is going to have now a massive terrible impact not just for our current generation but for future generations. Are you turning a bit on Putin because—No, I’ve never I’ve I’ve never been a a pro Putin guy. Do you think Trump is turning a bit on Putin? I don’t think so. I think, look, he understands these guys are the moolas. She—the the criminals in Beijing in uh in Moscow. These are bad ombres. Nobody says they’re good guys. They’re bad ombres. Trump knows that they didn’t cross Trump. They wouldn’t have gone to Ukra. They didn’t go to Ukraine when Trump is there because they’re not going to cross him. But President Trump’s seeing it right now and trying to get to some solution in in Ukraine. He sees exactly how they act. They’re going to do what’s in their interest, right? And this is going to be a grind. And that’s I think with President Trump going to the Gulf Emirates this week is a start, right? He just—they had some sort of involvement in this Kashmir thing. I think what people don’t understand—that arc of instability from Ukraine all the way down through Turkey—that arc of instability is like a tinder box right now. You’re one one misstep away from the whole thing going up. This is this is the kinetic part of the third world war. It’s much bloodier what’s happened the last since Ukraine than what happened from Poland to June of 41 with the Vermont going into to Russia. It’s much bloodier. It’s five times bloodier. We’re in a kinetic part of a global struggle right now.
So two very final and I mean rapid—if possible—more rapid than it’s been. Um, uh, which Democrat do you most fear? Right now, none really because they haven’t embraced economic populism and economic nationalism. There’s a lot of talent over there. It just seems to kind of wander around. You have a lot of governors that could be very competitive, although I think we’re past that era. You’ve got—maybe it’s a Mark Cuban, you know, you you don’t know how Newsome is going to reposition himself and we’ll have to see. It’s going to be—they have to get a idea of how to turn the country around economically. And the final one then we’ll go to the floor. Um, the um comment that Trump made the other day with Terry Moran of ABC that um no, he’s not going to run for a third term. He’s not going to take your advice and it should be Vance or Rubia—that sounded to me like a classic. Set your underlings against each other. Are you set among others? Um, but you know if it if if if you were to choose who would Trump’s successor be—who would that be? Trump. It’s gonna be Trump because otherwise you’re going to get around all the court intrigue. We have to focus. We have to manag—we have a—we need a sense of urgency on what we’re doing and that to me is the best way is to just focus on—it’s going to be Trump. We’ll figure out how we get there. We’re already way down the road on that. Focus on now—between now and the midterms—of everything that has to happen. uh national security-wise, the economy, uh the deportations, you got so many huge—Think about it. Every day there’s some historical event going on. We have to focus on that. And and if we get caught up in the court intrigue, and that’s what the media wants. The media wants a horse race. They want court intrigue inside the White House between Marco and JD. It’s not relevant. It’s irrelevant. It’s—Trump wanted that though. That I mean, that was my point. Um, so, sorry, I’ve been stealing time—first of all here and then there and then Demetri. Yes. Um, one, two, three. Steve, can you preview—Hello. Uh, can you preview what’s going to happen locally in DC if the Bowser Act passes and home rule goes away? You have any knowledge on that? Well, how could how could it get as a resident of DC, how could it get any worse under home rule? I mean, home rule has been a disaster. Think—I think this—that’s why I wanted Ed Martin to be DC attorney. But G—and those people who didn’t like Ed Martin, Judge Janine will be 10 times of a bigger hammer. But you know they already took down the crime—I think 20 or 25 percent. This is one of the most beautiful cities in the world. It ought to be one of the safest cities in the world and it’s a very unsafe city. I’d live right in back of the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill and it’s very unsafe there. And so we we have to do something and I think it’s got to be pretty dramatic. Second then third. So the gentleman there and then and then Dmitri. Hi Steve. I’m James Laddyy Williams. Would you say the American people have a common narrative or perception of how well the country is doing or not doing? And secondly, would it be advantageous to the president’s success in leading the—
Is there a need for a shared national narrative on the country's progress, or lack thereof? And what role does the media play in shaping this narrative, assuming it's beneficial or desirable?
I think the shared narrative, if you consider working-class people—nine million people holding two jobs, $1.4 trillion in credit card debt, 10% of which is non-performing—reveals a harsh reality. The lives of working-class people—black, Hispanic, white, Asian—who work every day are terrible in this country. They barely make ends meet, falling behind daily. This is why they don't want to be on Medicaid. The reason MAGA is on Medicaid is because of the high-value manufacturing jobs shipped overseas by Wall Street and private equity firms, enabling the use of cheap slave labor. So, a common narrative exists, but the media doesn't seek it out. This explains Trump's surprising continued success. Why does Trump keep winning? Why does he have increasing support among black men? Why does he have Hispanic support? Starr County in Texas, 97% Hispanic, was lost by 60 points in 2016 and won by 16 points in 2024. The Hispanic community is coming our way. The black community is coming our way. That's the common narrative. It's right there, before the eyes of the Democratic Party's credentialed class. If they simply observed reality, they would understand that the working and middle classes are being exploited by the nation's elites.
Steve Dmitri from the FT, how do you defend to the MAGA camp your fondness for a newspaper beloved by America's credentialed class? That's my simple question. In recent decades, two of the Supreme Court's most conservative justices, Scalia and Ginsburg, disagreed on much, yet both agreed that US citizens and non-citizens alike, even an Irishman like me, are afforded the same constitutional rights. Why was Scalia wrong? I don't believe foreigners are afforded the same rights, but I'm not a constitutional scholar. It's my personal belief, though this will likely be tested again with the 14th Amendment.
Regarding my first question, how is War Room so effective with blue-collar and working-class audiences? We analyze this newspaper daily. We pull Ed's clips from Morning Joe. It's interesting; the Financial Times is only discussed on MSNBC during Morning Joe or Stephanie Ruhle's early morning or late-night segments. The rest is pro wrestling—utterly irrelevant. This explains the Democratic Party's stagnation—grievances and Trump dominate their discourse. This newspaper—you are globalists, I understand that and don't fault you. The best way to educate a working-class audience about how the nation truly functions, not the Fox News fabrication, is to demonstrate how money and power operate, to show them capital markets, the importance of the 10-year bond, why Liz Truss was ousted by the bond market, and why Americans will face a similar fate. Because this August, with the debt ceiling, we don't have unlimited options. We either postpone the problem or let the elites decide, and our options are dwindling daily. Therefore, we must cut discretionary spending. That will hurt. And guess what? That's just the beginning. It's going to hurt much more. I even used the FT when teaching my prison class. [Applause]
I didn't see any hands. I can't believe there are no questions. I see a hand there. Sorry, it's a bit bright. Thank you, Steve.
Can you address deregulation, AI, and their effects on the electorate, and how the administration might reconcile achieving those goals with assisting American workers?
It's the most serious issue we face. I respect the Pope's statement yesterday; he cited Leo XIII because of his focus on social justice during the Industrial Revolution, aiming for a similar approach to artificial intelligence. Currently, a nail salon in Washington, D.C., faces more regulations than these four individuals wielding immense power over artificial intelligence. We lack understanding of what is happening. Remember, the Democratic Party struck a deal with oligarchs in 2000 when Obama ran, promising no antitrust action. Facebook, Google, Twitter—the big five. What happened? China launched TikTok, demonstrating years of social media advancement. We're like Model T cars compared to their addictive social media. Then Deep C emerged, whether of Chinese origin or not, revealing the inadequacy of our artificial intelligence methods. And what did the oligarchs request immediately? A bailout. They want $500 billion and control of our national weapons labs. Their greed is insatiable. They are developing things we cannot control. I advocate for extensive artificial intelligence regulation. Don't use China's advancement as an excuse. We can solve this. We may need military intervention in data centers to manage uncontrolled AI's destructive path, a dangerous trajectory.
Time for one, maybe two more questions, depending on length. We haven't had a woman ask a question yet.
Hi Steve, thank you. I have a question about jobs. You mentioned bringing good jobs back to America. Two-part question: If you deport all illegal immigrants, who will mow lawns, clean kitchens, pick fruit? These aren't good jobs. Second, regarding good jobs—low-skill jobs like iPhone assembly and middle-class tech jobs—many claim a shortage of skilled Americans. Tech companies hire H-1B visa holders because of their skills. There aren't enough skilled Americans.
No. Stop. That's false. That's the false narrative they spread. I've challenged the millions of H-1B visa holders here. Show me one, not two or three, with higher education or better job training than an American citizen. It's a scam. This is all Wall Street—Americans are lazy and uneducated. American people have freed more people and built more wealth than any other nation. I'd bet on them, and we'll win. Yes, we have indentured servants who entered the country illegally, cutting grass for less than an American, which is unacceptable. We've destroyed working-class jobs. Mowing lawns isn't a great job. I started mowing lawns. If worker visas are needed later, that can be addressed. Let's determine if there's a labor shortage. There aren't enough qualified American engineering graduates to fill Silicon Valley jobs? They're paid 50% less, working in slave-like conditions. It's indentured servitude. This must end. We won't show African-Americans and Hispanics a path in a modern industrial society until we make these changes. It won't be easy, but we're America. We won't accept that Americans are too dumb or lazy to fill these jobs.
Are there any more questions? It's been quiet for a while. We could end on lawn mowing...
All right. Mark.
Mark: Steve, longtime listener, first-time caller. I agree with your diagnosis, but we disagree on certain points. We shouldn't celebrate people mowing lawns for two dollars. It's ridiculous. But demographics matter. We don't have enough children. The population is aging. Look at the average age in this room. Immigration is part of the human experience. I'm a naturalized citizen from Scotland. I love this country. Do you want to deny this to everyone?
Of course not, but we must fix our own problems first. Let's discuss demographics. Why are we having fewer children? Because economic stability comes later. Young men lack good jobs. Young women... My dad was a foreman, we had five kids in Catholic school, and a stay-at-home mom. That's the country we need to return to. I didn't say the wife had to be a homemaker. This shows you're not serious. We have a demographic problem due to an underlying economic issue. Solve the economic problem. People under 40 are like Russian serfs; they own nothing. We haven't endured 14 generations for this. Immigration has a process. We should eliminate visa scams to prioritize American citizens. We can return to a situation where one parent works, the other stays home to raise children. Laugh if you want, but that's our goal—the family unit.
I have to end; it's been quiet for a while.
It's been engaging. People managing institutions nearby don't engage this way, so thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for having us.