Shownotes Transcript
Did you know that parents rank financial literacy as the number one most difficult life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families. With Greenlight, you can set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids' spending with real-time notifications. Kids learn to earn, save, and spend wisely. And parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight today at greenlight.com slash podcast.
Well, folks, a lot of news happening, a firehose of news. In fact, conflagrations racially at home, conflagrations in the Middle East, media conflagrations, tons of stuff going on. But here at Daily Wire Plus, we are not just watching, we are leading. We are on the front lines with hard-hitting investigations, explosive exposés, daily shows and commentary from the most trusted voices in conservative media, delivering the facts first. This is your moment. Join the fight at dailywireplus.com. All right, so...
We have now fallen into a bizarre and terrible cycle in the United States in which one side does something bad and the other side then does something similarly bad and then points to the fact that the first side did something bad as an excuse for doing it.
This is a problem. We used to call this whataboutism. Now, people have misapplied the term whataboutism over and over and over in the political context. It is not whataboutism to point out double standards. Whataboutism is when you do something wrong, and instead of you saying, yes, I did the thing wrong, but a double standard is being applied, it's when you say, I didn't do anything wrong at all, and it doesn't matter if I did do something wrong because the other side did it.
So, for example, if Hunter Biden is super duper, duper corrupt and then somebody on the right side of the aisle does something super duper, duper corrupt and then they're called on and they say, well, yeah, but Hunter Biden did something super corrupt. That's whataboutism because it's a non sequitur.
You can say there's a double standard being applied by the media that was willing to ignore and cover up Hunter Biden's activity for years. But now they're going after, say, Team Trump. They can say that the media have been disproportionate in their coverage of corruption. That is a fair point. It is not a fair point to say that corruption on one side of the aisle is justified by corruption on the other side of the aisle. If you do that sort of stuff, then you end up in a bottomless spiral.
That bottomless spiral gets worse and worse because everybody just reacts against the last bad thing that the other side did and justifies what they are doing now. And then the other side comes back and says, yeah, well, you just did something even worse. And so I'm going to do something even worse than that.
The reality is that calling out double standards is a good thing if you wish to uphold a standard. Calling out double standards as an excuse for doing bad things is not in fact calling out a double standard. It is just justifying doing bad things. The reason I'm bringing this up today is because one of the big stories that has now taken over the world of the social media
is this story of one named Shiloh Hendricks. So Shiloh Hendricks is a woman, a white lady, who was caught on camera this week calling a five-year-old boy the N-word. So allegedly, according to the New York Post, she allegedly caught this five-year-old boy rifling through her bag at a playground in Rochester, which is about 90 minutes south of Minneapolis. And she allegedly calls this five-year-old kid the N-word. And then a black man confronts her, films the incident, starts yelling at her.
And when she is asked if she called the kid, the N-word, she says, yeah. And she says, he took my son's stuff. Okay, so a few things are happening in this particular story, just from the very beginning. First of all, it's bad that a five-year-old kid is rifling your stuff. Second of all, five-year-old kids are five, like very little, and do bad things all the time. I have a five-year-old girl.
She's wonderful, and she's also extremely naughty and troublesome. And this sort of stuff with small kids, unfortunately, they do bad things all the time. Calling a little black kid the N-word, I think we can agree, is a bad thing to do. Now, if you have trouble with that statement, that calling a little black kid the N-word is a bad thing to do, I'm not sure why. That seems totally uncontroversial to me.
Whether you have broader concerns about racialized language in America, I don't see the necessity for having a debate over, for example, the use of the N-word in rap music, which is terrible, in order to say that it is bad for an adult white woman to call a five-year-old kid the N-word. That just seems bad on its face. Now, the reason this has become a national issue is because this woman was videoed and people basically started going after her on social media.
The kid's parents said the boy is autistic. The parents are from Somalia. They were apparently supervising three other kids on the playground at the time of the incident. So apparently Hendrix, this woman, apparently told the father and his wife that they shouldn't have more kids because they're a drain on the welfare system. So she seems like a delight. It just seems like a delightful person. And the reason this has become a big issue is because after this video went viral on the Internet,
She claims that another person who has a history with law enforcement proceeded to record me and follow me to my car. This is what she said. He posted these videos online, which has caused my family and myself great turmoil. My social security number has been leaked. My address and phone number have been given out freely. My family members are being attacked. My eldest child may not be going back to school. Even where I exercise has been exposed. And she asked for the Internet to provide her with money so that she could move.
And within days, she had raised over half a million dollars, like $525,000 had been raised. She herself has a troubled history with law enforcement, including DUI, disorderly conduct, and brawling. Okay, so again, a few things happening here. If somebody calls you the N-word in public or anything else,
running down the street with a camera and taping them and then putting that on the internet and then exposing every aspect of their life, their social security number, their address to public scrutiny. It is one thing to call people out for saying bad things, which is something that you should do. If somebody you see in front of you uses the N-word, you should say, don't do that. That's awful. Why are you doing that? Going to the extent of exposing social security numbers, following people home, trying to destroy their life, that is, I think, uncalled for.
With all that said, giving money in response to this, like raising half a million dollars, that is not a good thing to do. Now, why did this become such a scandal? Not just because people were giving this amount of money, but because the way people were justifying giving this amount of money is by referring to the case of Carmelo Anthony, which is a case that we talked about at length on the show. So Carmelo Anthony, you'll remember, is a 17-year-old black teenager from...
Texas. And he allegedly stabbed to death. I mean, he admitted it, but he allegedly stabbed to death another young person whose name was Austin Metcalf. And then he raised for his GoFundMe over half a million dollars for his defense fund. Some of the funds were supposed to be toward paying for a secure location for the family to live. So this has become sort of the go-to give me money tactic is you end up on the wrong side of a social media mobbing.
And you say at that point, I need to move. And so please, everybody give me money. Now, none of this stuff justifies each other. None of these facts justify step in order of priority of bad things in the world, because not all sins are created equal. Alleged murder is the worst alleged murder. And then probably giving money to alleged murderers.
is probably second on that list. And then third on that list would be using the N-word. And then fourth on that list would be giving money to somebody who uses the N-word. But none of these things justify each other. And this is part of the terrible slide into the bottomless pit of garbage that the United States seems to be embroiling itself in. The idea that you have to give money to Shiloh Hendricks because people gave money to Carmelo Anthony. You don't.
The idea that you have to justify the use of the N-word for a five-year-old kid because a black kid killed a white kid in Texas. No. How about all of these things are bad? They're not all equivalently bad. Some of them are way worse. Murder is way worse than using the N-word. And I understand that some on social media are pointing out and going crazy about the fact that one woman, a white woman, using the N-word for a five-year-old kid, the news media will treat that in the same way they would an actual racial murder or an alleged racial murder.
And I think there is truth to that. That's what I said before. Calling out the double standard in order to get the media to adhere to a better standard, that's not unjustifiable. That is calling on a person to do a more moral thing. But if you are calling on people to do less moral things with reference to other people doing immoral things, that's not doing anything productive. That is making the world a worse place one step at a time. And there is no bottom to that pit because the next time somebody does something terrible with the races reversed, then somebody will raise a million dollars.
And this is how you end up with a body politic that has no level of trust in one another. It's how you destroy the social fabric. Because then I think you should be able to hold all these thoughts in your head at one time. I don't think you need to engage in the reactionary rush to defend bad behavior because somebody else did a bad behavior. I don't think that's childlike logic. It's the same thing that your children do where your kid breaks a rule.
And then your kid, when caught, says, yeah, but my sibling also broke the rule, so it's okay if I do it. That's kid logic, and there's no reason to use it. It is not moral. It does not make the world a better place. It does not make America stronger. You can call out all bad behavior when you see the bad behavior. And the fact that this has even come into question now is not only bizarre, it is somewhat terrifying.
Because if you as a society cannot call out bad behavior, ranging from racialized murder to calling people the N-word, and again, those are not equivalent in any way, shape or form in terms of the moral gravity. And we can call out the media for treating them as similar. They're not. But if you can't at least say that these are bad things, all these things fall into the category of bad things people should not do.
and you find yourself justifying the behavior on the basis of what the other side did, you're making the world a worse place. We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, this July, there's a global summit of BRICS nations in Rio de Janeiro. The bloc of emerging superpowers, China, Russia, India, Iran, are meeting with the goal of displacing the U.S. dollar as the global currency. They are calling this the Rio Reset. Dedoalorization is a thing that absolutely is happening. As BRICS nations push forward with their plans, global demand for U.S. dollars continues to decrease, bringing down the value of the dollar in your savings. While
While this transition is not going to happen overnight, the Rio reset in July does mark a moment when Briggs' objectives move decisively from theoretical possibility toward inevitable reality.
Figure out if diversifying your savings into gold the way that I have done is correct for you. Birch Gold Group can help you move your hard-earned savings into a tax-sheltered IRA and precious metals. Claim your free info kit on gold by texting my name, Ben, to 989898. With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, tens of thousands of happy customers, let Birch Gold arm you with a free, no-obligation info kit on owning gold before July and the Rio reset. Text Ben to 989898 today. Again, smart strategy when it comes to investment diversification and investment.
in an uncertain market with de-dollarization actually happening all over the world, particularly smart strategy, ask my friends over at Birch Gold about it. Text them at 989898. Today, text Ben to 989898. Also, according to a recent ZipRecruiter survey, 76% of employers plan to expand their headcount in 2025. That is a lot of time spent hiring. So,
If you're the owner of a growing business, the way that we here are at The Daily Wire, it's essential to find a platform that provides an efficient format, allowing you to connect with several pre-screened, interested applicants all at once to streamline their recruitment process. Luckily, ZipRecruiter does just that. So if you're one of these employers who's ramping up hiring this year, don't miss out on this advice. Add ZipRecruiter's latest feature, ZipIntro,
to your hiring plan. It lets you post jobs today and talk to qualified candidates tomorrow. Best of all, it does most of the work for you, so you save time. Right now, you can try Zip Intro for free at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire. Zip Intro gives you the power to quickly assess excellent candidates for your job via back-to-back video calls. You simply pick a time. Zip Intro does all the work of finding and scheduling qualified candidates for you. Then you can choose.
who you want to talk to and meet with great people as soon as the very next day. Save time hiring for 2025 with new Zip Intro. Just go to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire right now to try Zip Intro for free. Again, that's ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire Zip Intro. Post jobs today, talk to qualified candidates tomorrow. Okay, meanwhile, the media continue to be bamboozled and distracted by everything that President Trump
Trump does. It is truly amazing how after a full decade of President Trump, they still have no clue how to handle the comments that are clearly facetious or joking. And they treat them exactly the same as when he is making a substantive policy argument.
So you'll recall that President Trump has spent the last few weeks joking about running in 2028. This is clearly a troll. The Constitution does not allow for this. And Steve Bannon, notwithstanding, this was never a serious program. And I understand what Steve Bannon is trying to do. One way that you're getting good with the Trump administration is by showing utter fealty to everything that Donald Trump says and taking it perfectly literally. If you do that and you're on the right, then you're likely to earn some plaudits from President Trump himself sometimes.
If you legitimately start justifying and making the case that President Trump should serve a third term, yeah, you might get some some winks and some nods and some laughter and some and some knowing, understanding that you are the most loyal of the world. But let's be real about this. Steve is too smart for that. He understands Trump is not serving a third term. That is not a thing that is happening. So the media tried to play this up because the media, of course, have an interest in suggesting that.
that President Trump is a threat to democracy, who is going to declare himself dictator of the United States and serve not only a third term, but a fourth, fifth, and sixth term. He will be the Vladimir Putin of the United States electoral system, ending democracy after the next election or something. Well, President Trump yesterday gave the lie to all of this because he was asked in a serious context about whether he was running again in 2028. And he said, well, give me a break. This is NBC's Meet the Press. Here's President Trump saying the obvious.
Who do you see as your successor, Mr. President? Well, it's far too early to say that. But, you know, I do have a vice president and typically we and J.D. is doing a fantastic job. He would be at the top of the list. Could very well be. I don't want to get involved in that. I think he's a fantastic, brilliant guy. Marco is great. There's a lot of them that are great. I also see tremendous unity there.
But certainly you would say that somebody is the VP. If that person is outstanding, I guess that person would have an advantage. So, yeah, again, this is President Trump actually putting to bed this stupid lie that he's going to run in 2028. He is not. It is fascinating that he's keeping the door open, which, by the way, is what he should do, because the American people have not sounded off on who should be his successor at this point. There's an open debate inside the administration on a wide variety of issues.
The Republican Party, as we'll talk about shortly, is split on many issues, particularly with regard to foreign policy, but also with regard to domestic policy, the involvement of the federal government in the economy and all the rest. But the media spent weeks. Remember, they cycled you up on the idea that President Trump was going to run again in 2028. He is not. Other stupid media tricks today. So over the weekend, same interview.
The media decided to go nuts over President Trump talking about the constitutional obligations for due process for illegal immigrants. They suggested that he doesn't care about the Constitution. That is not what he is saying here. This is the headline over at Drudge, over the New York Times, everywhere else, was the idea that Trump was basically dismissing the Constitution as a concern when it comes to due process for illegal immigrants. That is not what he says. Here we go.
We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on earth. Some of the worst, most dangerous people on earth. And I was elected to get them the hell out of here. And the courts are holding me from doing it. But...
Even given those numbers that you're talking about, don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president? I don't know. I have to respond by saying again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said. So again, that is, I think, him saying over and over and over that he actually will abide by his constitutional obligations. He says, I don't know what those obligations are.
He's saying that you don't need a trial to remove every illegal immigrant in the United States, which of course is true. It is also illegal.
Again, a bit of a red herring. The reality is that nobody, as far as I'm aware, is calling for a full scale criminal trial with juries and such in order to determine whether somebody ought to be deported or not. The question is, what are the due process considerations for illegal immigrants before they can be deported? But that is not Trump saying that he's going to ignore the Constitution. It's him saying, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, so I don't know what the obligations of due process actually are. And when the Supreme Court sounds off on it, then I will abide by the Supreme Court.
But the media ran with the headline that he just doesn't like the Constitution. Again, in service of a narrative, which is that Trump is a dictator, they are just fibbing to you. And then, of course, they went nuts over the weekend because President Trump, again, trolling, trolling, he is always trolling. President Trump put out a picture via the White House. It was an AI picture of himself as a potential Pope candidate. And I have to admit...
I laughed, but I'm not the only one who laughed. Matt Walsh laughed. He's a Catholic. Michael Mose laughed. He's a Catholic. In fact, most of the conservative Catholics that I know laughed at this because no one believes that Donald Trump actually wants to be pope. First of all, that would come along with some obligations such as chastity that I don't think that the president of the United States would be very much in favor of.
But the idea that the media went nuts over it. How dare he be so disrespectful to Catholics? Okay, I'm sorry. You guys do not get to do this routine. In the last election cycle, the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, literally did a video giving a Eucharistic Dorito to a female staffer kneeling on the floor.
you are the party of on-demand abortion and transing the children nope you do not get to sign into chats and now talk about how offended you are on behalf of catholics everywhere you are the party of barack obama suing the little sisters of the poor to make them involve themselves in abortion coverage nope you have no ground to stand on right here and obviously he is joking and no one takes this seriously at all of course and meanwhile
The true threat, as I've said over and over and over to the Trump administration, is not, in fact, the left. At this point, the left is basically prone. The true threat to the Trump administration is economic in nature. And again, there is a basic rule when it comes to the Trump administration. If you listen to Treasury Secretary Scott Besant and you follow his policies, the economy will recover. If you listen to Peter Navarro, who should be immediately and forthrightly fired, if you listen to trade advisor Peter Navarro, the economy will go down.
Well, the big story in the economy over the weekend was that billionaire Warren Buffett shocked an arena full of shareholders, according to the Associated Press, by announcing he will retire at the end of the year, bringing down the curtain on a six-decade run, leading Berkshire Hathaway that made him the most influential investor in the world. He appointed to success him Greg Abel, who is the vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. Again, he is...
94 years old, I believe. So the idea that Warren Buffett was not going to step down anytime is really silly. But the reason that Warren Buffett has been a historically great investor is because he is not gambling when he invests.
Warren Buffett follows the advice of Benjamin Graham, the inventor of a term called margin of safety, which is all about safe investment. There's this bizarre idea in the stock market that a lot of people who don't actually spend a lot of time investing have, that basically the stock market is a giant casino for day traders. That is not what the stock market really is. If you're a market maker, if you're a market mover, then you are doing deep research into both the geopolitical and economic conditions that
that undergird the economy, and also the specific companies and how they are run and whether they are underpriced or overpriced. The market is an amazing way of aggregating all information about particular companies. It doesn't mean that markets are right in the moment. As Graham said, and he was the sort of philosophical mentor for Warren Buffett, as Graham said, in the short term, the market is a voting machine. In the long term, it's a weighing machine. So over the long term, the market tends to get it right in the short term.
There's play in the numbers because you don't actually have all the information in the moment. However, when Warren Buffett, as he was stepping down, makes comments about the tariff regime that President Trump has been pushing, it is worth listening to because, again, he is the single most successful investor of our age. Trade should not be a weapon. And the United States, the United States, we've won. I mean, we have become an incredibly important country starting from nothing.
250 years ago, there's nothing that I didn't like it. And it's a big mistake in my view when you have 7.5 billion people that don't like you very well and you got 300 million that are crowing in some way about how well they've done. And I don't think it's right and I don't think it's wise. I do think that the more...
The more prosperous the rest of the world becomes, it won't be at our expense. The more prosperous we'll become. So the argument he's making there is that free trade benefits all who engage in it. Now, there may be, again, national security reasons why you want to tariff countries, but declaring trade wars on the entire world is not, in fact, a good strategy, as Warren Buffett.
points out. And the administration is sending a lot of mixed signals right now, and the markets are not dropping because of the mixed signals. If they were all universal in the Peter Navarro direction, the bottom would have fallen out of the market already. As the Wall Street Journal points out, Wall Street's best forecasters have been warning that tariffs could spark a recession. Goldman Sachs puts the chances at 45% in the next 12 months.
Apollo Global Management's top economist recently pegged it at 90%, but somebody forgot to tell stock traders the market is roaring ahead despite those gloomy predictions as investors put their faith in solid economic data, including Friday's jobs report and bank on a swift de-escalation of President Trump's global trade war. And again, President Trump is sending an enormous number of mixed signals.
when it comes to the tariff regime. So stock traders seem to be optimistic that he's going to follow the advice of the Treasury Secretary and radically deescalate, particularly with non-China countries, and then find a more moderate off-ramp with China as well. President Trump seems to be giving some of those signals. So over the weekend, he had a signal that he might lower tariffs.
At some point, I'm going to lower them because otherwise you could never do business with them. And they want to do business very much. Look, their economy is really doing badly. Their economy is collapsing.
Okay, so he is right that China is having severe economic trouble. The difference is that China's a dictatorship. So if things get really bad, they can just kill some people and oppress some people and they'll probably be fine. And if worse comes to worse, China can blockade Taiwan. So President Trump does look to be seeking an off-ramp, which is why the markets have not cratered. At the same time, he then makes comments that suggest maybe he's not so quick to look for an off-ramp. Now, maybe this is all a policy of strategic ambiguity. It has been suggested that President Trump is basically threatening tariffs in order to
reduce the tariffs. Okay, if that's the policy, again, I've said from day one, if that's the policy that we are threatening action in order to get other countries to lower their tariffs and their non-tariff trade barriers, I'm okay with that. I don't think that's necessary. I think if you go to Vietnam and just say that, they will lower their trade barriers without the sort of open threats to every country on earth.
With that said, President Trump, again, gives a lot of mixed signals here. So in the same interview with Meet the Press, he suggested that if, in fact, there are supply chain problems, kids don't need that many pencils. I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs that's 11 years old needs to have pencils.
Thirty dollars. I think they can have three dollars or four dollars because what we were doing with China was just unbelievable. We had a trade deficit of hundreds of billions of dollars with China. When you say they could have three dollars instead of 30 dollars, are you saying you're saying that Americans could see empty store shelves? No, I'm no, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying they don't need to have 30 dollars. They can have three. They don't need to have 250 pencils. They can have five.
But you're basically saying there could be some supply shortages because of the terror. We don't have to waste money on a trade deficit with China for things we don't need, for junk. Okay, this is not going to, as I said last week, President Trump should abandon this line immediately. This is an unsuccessful political line.
Retailing the idea that kids need fewer pencils or dolls is one of the worst approaches to this issue on a public relations level that I can imagine. I mean, President Trump himself is a particularly conspicuous consumer of very, very expensive things. So the idea that kids have to go without dolls or pencils or that parents should willingly accept higher rates on those things because they don't need cheap junk from China, it's easy for President Trump to say, and a lot of other people are going to say that if the economy continues to
Play footsie with recession. We'll get to more on that in a moment. First, when you're covering breaking news and political developments the way that we do, you can't always stick to a normal nine to five schedule. Stories break at all hours. Having the flexibility to manage my time effectively is not a luxury. It's a necessity. That's why I appreciate all the tools that let me handle business tasks on my own schedule, not someone else's.
Well, take shipping, for example. The post office only works certain hours, but if you use stamps.com, it changes everything. It's revolutionized how you and your business can handle all mailing and shipping needs. Whether you're sending out important documents, promotional materials, packages, you can do it all right from your computer or phone any time of day or night. No lines, no traffic, no problems.
No waiting. Plus, if you sell products online, Stamps.com seamlessly connects with every major marketplace and shopping cart. Here's what makes it even better. Stamps.com's rate advisor takes all the guesswork out of shipping costs. It automatically calculates the best shipping rates and shows you options you won't find anywhere else, including up to 88% off USPS and UPS services. All you need is a computer and printer,
It will even send you a free scale to get started. Have more flexibility in your life with Stamps.com. Sign up at Stamps.com. Use code Shapiro for a special offer that includes a four-week trial plus free postage and free digital scale. No long-term commitments or contracts. Just go to Stamps.com. Promo code Shapiro. Also, what does the future hold for your business?
Ask nine experts, you'll get 10 answers. Bull market, bear market, inflation up or down. We need a crystal ball. But until then, over 41,000 businesses have found a way to future-proof their operations with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one cloud ERP. Imagine having your accounting, financial management, inventory, and HR all seamlessly integrated into one fluid platform. That's NetSuite. With this unified business management suite,
Thank you.
Meanwhile, President Trump today put out an executive order suggesting that he was going to put a 100% tariff on foreign movies, which is a very important part of the
Which, yeah, like, why? Just why? I'm sorry. If Hollywood is unable to lower its costs, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to go elsewhere and produce your movies. All movies and TV shows now, this has been going on for decades, are basically produced outside of Hollywood. Hollywood has emptied itself out
And that has forced them to actually move their own businesses to places like Vancouver in Canada or go to other states like Georgia in order to film or go abroad to Romania or Hungary or wherever else in order to film. So President Trump thinks that by radically increasing the cost on movie production in a time when streaming is already eating out the profit margins,
So he's saying it's a national security threat.
For Romania to offer a tax incentive to film in Romania, I'm sorry, that is not even remotely a national security threat. It may be a threat to Tom Cruise's next paycheck, but that is not a national security threat. If Matthew McConaughey makes less money because films are being made or a key grip in Hollywood has to travel in order to go film over in Budapest, that is not remotely a national security threat. We are emptying the term national security threat of pretty much all content.
He says he was authorizing the Department of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative to immediately begin the process of instituting 100% tariff on any and all movies coming into our country that are produced in foreign lands. We want movies made in America again. Where is the demand for this? Seriously, it's just a stop to the Actors Union, right? It's a stop to the Writers Union and to SAG-AFTRA and to the rest of the big Hollywood unions. When he says, in addition to everything else, this creates messaging and propaganda, which is something that he says here.
If you want to stop the messaging and propaganda, President Trump should go back to actually shutting down TikTok. You want to end the foreign propaganda? How about the weaponization of social media by TikTok in order to generate support for a bunch of anti-American policies? Because that is a thing that is very much happening. In fact, according...
to a brand new report out of the Network Contagion Research Institute, TikTok's algorithm is currently suppressing content critical of the CCP, boosting pro-CCP content, and also actively weaponizing TikTok in order to undermine Trump's trade war. So if he's worried about propaganda and messaging, then he should probably stop postponing the implementation of the TikTok ban in the United States, forcing TikTok to sell. They are literally undermining his own trade agenda.
According to NCRI, following President Trump's April 2025 tariffs on Chinese imports, this is Reality's Last Stand.com reporting, TikTok was suddenly flooded with well-produced videos telling Americans to cut out the middleman and buy straight from Chinese sellers. What they don't show is how this effort hides the product's true origin. Sellers use shady tricks like routing shipments through third countries and setting up shell companies to dodge tariffs. Many packages also are mislabeled to sneak through customs.
According to the Network Contagion Research Institute, this is all part of a coordinated CCP effort called the Shopping in China campaign. It is not just a marketing push. It is a full-blown psychological operation using TikTok's algorithm and state-backed influencers to evade tariffs by messing with how Americans think, shop, and spend.
So, again, if the goal is to shut down propaganda outlets, TikTok would be like number one on that list. And yet yesterday, President Trump also suggested that he might give TikTok another extension. The sort of discombobulation policy is not well calibrated toward the success of the policies. President Trump told NBC's Meet the Press, quote, perhaps I shouldn't say this, but I have a little warm spot in my heart for TikTok. And then he said he'd like to see a deal, but he'd be willing to give a reprieve despite not having made a deal.
This is ridiculous. First of all, it is bucking constitutional congressional authority. Congress should actually push its own preserve here. Congress passed a law. It passed through both houses of Congress. It was signed into law. President Trump was in favor of the TikTok ban until he suddenly reversed himself. And TikTok is, in fact, spreading foreign propaganda. Meanwhile, by the way, both Russia and China are moving aggressively to counter President Trump's agenda abroad. According to the UK Telegraph,
Vladimir Putin and President Xi are now signing a series of agreements to work in coordination with each other. Those agreements are likely to span everything from economics to military agreements. One day ago, Xi Jinping said that he was entering into a mutual trust mission with Vladimir Putin in Russia in order to cement strategic ties in the face of new circumstances. Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin is threatening greater action in Ukraine.
He gave a speech in Moscow in which he said that they have the quote strength and means to bring their war on Ukraine to a quote unquote logical conclusion. He said we have enough strength and means to bring what was started in 2022 to a logical conclusion with the outcome Russia requires. He said there is no need to use nuclear weapons.
And of course, he has basically made clear that he wants to take the rest of Ukraine. So far, Putin has offered zero concessions in order to get to the table right now, which is why, by the way, it is good that the United States is doing the thing that it should have been doing all along, which is pressuring Vladimir Putin with the
with the reality that the West is not simply going to allow him to walk into Kyiv. According to the New York Times, Ukraine is now getting more help in its war with Russia. A Patriot air defense system that was based in Israel will now be sent to Ukraine after it's refurbished. Four current and former U.S. officials said in recent days, Western allies are discussing the logistics of Germany or Greece, giving another one, which of course,
would be necessary given the fact that Kyiv was hammered just a couple of weeks ago. We were in Kyiv to interview Vladimir Zelensky. I left the next day. There was a massive attack on Kyiv that ended up killing something like 12 people and injuring another 60. So the abandonment of Ukraine is a figment of the imagination. Ukraine is not, in fact, being abandoned, which is good. Meanwhile, in other foreign policy matters, the continued assault by Iranian proxies on Israel is quite real. So as you know, because we talked about it last week,
I was recently in Israel. I was given an honor to celebrate on Yom Ha'atzmuth by lighting a torch. And I left on Sunday morning very early from Ben-Gurion Airport in Tel Aviv. And approximately four hours later, three and a half hours later, a Houthi missile actually hit right outside Ben-Gurion Airport. This apparently was due to a failure of the FAD and Aero 3 anti-missile systems of Tel
of Israel. Here is some video, you can see it, of the missile hitting directly outside the airport. It's pretty scary stuff because it only missed by about 350 yards, like a direct hit on the center of the airport. Instead, it hit an unpopulated area. It blew up some of the ground near that. There's some slight injuries. Thank God the Houthis didn't actually hit the airport directly.
This is just another aspect of the Iranian terror war on America and its allies. And yes, it's a war by Iranian proxies on American shipping, on the American Navy, in the Red Sea.
It is a terror war against America's allies, ranging from Israel to Saudi Arabia. One of the signal failures of the Biden administration was attempting to curb Saudi Arabia's war on the Houthis by depriving them of the weaponry necessary to actually win in Yemen, leaving huge swaths of the country in control of the Houthis who now are firing long-range missiles. Iran, by the way, has announced that it has developed a new long-range missile that is capable of hitting Israel. Presumably, if they have a nuclear weapon, they will then put that nuclear weapon on top of the missile and fire it at Israel. Meanwhile,
Several Iranians were just arrested in the UK in two anti-terrorism operations. In one operation, according to the AFP, five men, four of them Iranian, were taken into custody on suspicion of preparation of a terrorist attack.
This is no surprise because the Iranians spread their terror tentacles all over the world, ranging from Latin America to Europe to the United States. Obviously, Iranian agents were planning to assassinate President Trump. President Trump, for his part, has been attempting to negotiate some sort of deal with Iran. The question inside the Trump administration has been whether they're attempting to
negotiate a deal that will completely dismantle the Iranian nuclear facilities or whether they will allow them to continue a quote unquote civilian program while opening up the sanctions, which would basically just be the Barack Obama program, but on steroids, because Iran is now significantly closer to a nuclear weapon than they were even when Barack Obama was president of the United States. That has been sort of an open debate inside the administration.
It's also been an open debate as to whether the United States is willing to do anything if some sort of nuclear deal is not signed with the Iranians. President Trump, for his part, has been very consistent and clear on this. Yesterday on NBC News, he said that the goal was total dismantlement of the nuclear regime in Tehran. The idea was get rid of the nuclear weapons and the nuclear facilities entirely, not the sort of special envoy Steve Witkoff proposal that was basically the Obama proposal, allow them nuclear development to 3.67%.
President Trump is saying no, total dismantlement is the goal. Is the goal of these talks limiting Iran's nuclear program or total dismantlement? Total dismantlement. That's all you'll accept? That's all I'd accept. Secretary Rubio has said that he would accept, or the idea is...
there is an openness to accepting peaceful, civil nuclear programs. - Well, that's what people, I didn't say anything contradictory. I said that people are talking about that, and this is something that's really pretty new in the dialogue.
And I'd have to be, you know, my inclination is to say, what do you need that for? You have a lot of oil. So you want total dismantlement, bottom line. I think that I would be open to hearing it. You know, civilian energy, it's called. But, you know, civilian energy often needs to leads to military wars. And we don't want to have them have a nuclear weapon.
Now, again, there is precedent for a peaceful civilian nuclear program. The United States signed an agreement in 2009 with the UAE on peaceful nuclear cooperation. But basically what that meant is that the UAE would forego all domestic uranium enrichment and reprocessing
of spent fuel, and they would have to be completely open to all sorts of inspections. That is the only kind of deal that will work here. Because remember, President Trump, as we've said on the show over and over, called the JCPOA, the Obama-Iran deal, the worst deal in American history. We have some more on this in a moment. First, you know, every time I go shooting, I think to myself, this is great. It could probably be a little better. Guess what? It can. Let me tell you how to make shooting more fun, safer, just overall cooler. If you've never used a suppressor before, you're missing out. Trust me. Once you shoot suppressed, you're not going to want to shoot
unsuppressed. Again, that's where my friends at Silencer Shop come in. They don't just sell silencers. They specialize in making sure your shooting experience is awesome. The experts at Silencer Shop will help you find the perfect silencer so you can enjoy your guns even more. And now is the perfect time to get one. Why not let your tax return work for you this year? Invest in a suppressor and completely upgrade your shooting experience. The best part? Silencer Shop makes the entire process ridiculously simple. They're the number one source for suppressors in America with the largest selection of top brands. Silencer Shop.
Helps handle all of the paperwork so you actually don't have to. With their nationwide dealer network and easy-to-use kiosk system, you can get started in minutes and have your suppressor faster than ever. So don't wait. Visit silencershop.com slash Shapiro. Turn your tax return into the ultimate shooting upgrade. That's silencershop.com slash Shapiro. Again, silencershop.com slash Shapiro. That's silencershop.com slash Shapiro.
Well, joining us on the line to discuss this, because this week is the anniversary of President Trump pulling out of the terrible, historically bad JCPOA, is Senator Tom Cotton. He's the United States Senator from Arkansas. He's author of the New York Times number one bestseller, Seven Things You Can't Say About China. Senator Cotton, thanks so much for taking the time. Really appreciate it. Hey, Ben. Thanks for having me on.
So this week marks the anniversary of the JCPOA's end, President Trump killing the JCPOA. That, of course, was the terrible, historically bad Iran deal that President Obama cut with Iran and President Trump killed it. Why don't we start with for people who don't actually know what the JCPOA was, why it was bad, what that was. And then we can talk about what President Trump is attempting to do or maybe attempting to do with negotiations with Iran right now.
President Obama's deal with Iran was so bad, as Prime Minister Netanyahu put it, because it didn't block Iran's path to a nuclear weapon, it's paved their path.
And the critical point in that deal was it allowed Iran to keep centrifuges and to continue enriching uranium. Uranium can get enriched at different levels. At a fairly low level is what's necessary for civilian nuclear power. That's at 3.67%. But if you have any enrichment capability, and if you have those centrifuges, then moving from 3.67% up to 20% and up to 60% and ultimately up to weapons grade really is not that hard. It's just a matter of time.
And that's one of the reasons why the nuclear deal with Iran that Barack Obama made was so terrible, because it left them that vast nuclear infrastructure. Of course, it did nothing to address their missile program either. And you see the consequences of that now. Iran is arming rebels in Yemen that are shooting at our ships and shooting at Israel. They just almost hit Israel's airport over the weekend. They're shipping out.
their missiles and drones to Russia to use for attacks on Ukraine as well. And they're not that far away from having missiles that could hit the United States. So this is a threat not just to our friends in the Middle East, but a threat to the American homeland imminently in just a few years.
President Trump, well, he withdrew from that terrible deal because it paved their way to a nuclear weapon. And what happened under the Biden administration is that they began to enrich uranium up to near weapons grade. And what President Trump has said as recently as his meet the press interview over the weekend is that we have to have the full dismantlement process.
of that nuclear infrastructure. We cannot have them with any centrifuges or enrichment capacity. And if they wanted civilian nuclear power, they don't need that. Lots of countries around the world have civilian nuclear power and they import uranium for their nuclear power plants at the appropriate level without any ability to turn it into weapons grade uranium.
So let's talk for a second about what threat does Iran actually pose to the United States, to Europe, to our neighbors in the Middle Eastern region? There's been a lot of talk recently about the idea that even if Iran were to gain a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't have any impact on the United States because the idea that Iran is going to fire a missile some 8000 miles and hit the United States is far fetched or that they would attack Europe directly is far fetched.
And that's true. I mean, the idea that Iran is going to directly launch a missile on the United States, for example, that's not something that's going to happen. But there are serious geopolitical threats that exist with the nuclear Iran ranging from the region to the globe. Maybe you can talk a little bit about the threat of Iran. What are its ambitions? What is it attempting to do?
First, Ben, I wouldn't discount the threat of them striking the United States if they had nuclear warheads and intercontinental missiles. We spend a tremendous amount of time worried about North Korea's nuclear arsenal and trying to deter it or trying to build missile defenses for it. And frankly, I'm more concerned about the crazed theocratic Ayatollahs in Iran than I am the Kim regime in North Korea. Yeah.
But that's just a few years away as well. Again, they're developing intercontinental missiles under the flimsy cover of a so-called space launch program. It's the same technology you need to develop ballistic missiles. But let's say that is a few years away. What in the interim would a nuclear weapon do? Well, look at what Iran already does, threatening Americans in the region. For that matter, threatening Americans here in the United States. They tried to assassinate Donald Trump and former administration officials, for goodness sakes.
They already armed terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and rebels in Yemen that are directly threatening our sailors and our troops today. And they do that without a nuclear umbrella. Imagine what they would do if they had a nuclear umbrella. And then, of course, there's the threat they pose directly to Israel as well.
Former Iranian leaders have said that Israel is a one bomb nation. They don't mean that Israel only has one nuclear weapon. They mean that they think they could destroy Israel with just one of their own weapons if they ever got it. And that's not just destroying Israel. That's destroying the state of Christendom around the world as well.
Another effect would be the nuclear proliferation throughout the region. If you're sitting in Riyadh or you're sitting in Abu Dhabi and Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it's hard to imagine how you could feel comfortable without getting your own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. And the more countries that develop nuclear weapons, and I think particularly the more countries...
in the Middle East, an incredibly volatile region that developed nuclear weapons, the much greater risks that those nuclear weapons are used or those nuclear weapons fall in the hands of terrorists who would like to use them against the United States or our interests around the world. I mean, there's also the major issue of the nuclear weapon as a threat. And we've seen this in the Russia-Ukraine war, where the fact that Russia is a nuclear armed nation means that the ability to push back against an invasion of eastern Ukraine or the Donbass region is limited by the fact that you're always worried about
the possibility of this escalating to nuclear war. Imagine an Ayatollah-run regime with a nuclear weapon using that nuclear umbrella with capacity to threaten Israel with terror attacks in Judea and Samaria or from the Gaza Strip or from its north, or terror attacks on the Saudi oil fields with the threat that if there's retaliation against Iran, then Iran will fire a nuclear weapon into Saudi Arabia and maybe take out Riyadh.
I mean, these are all major geopolitical issues in which the United States obviously has an interest. We have an interest in the Red Sea. We have an interest in the flow of oil. We have an interest in preventing the spread of terrorism around the region and in Europe as well. And pretending that the world isn't interconnected in this way is simply ignoring reality, especially considering the fact that Iran, Russia and China are all working together in tandem at this point in time.
no that's exactly right ben i mean if you can contrast for instance the difference between the war in ukraine versus the war over iraq's invasion of kuwait in 1990 one major difference is that iraq didn't have nuclear weapons at the time thankfully they would have had nuclear weapons if israel hadn't destroyed their nuclear weapons facilities in 1981 but any time a country develops nuclear weapons it severely limits
our freedom of action and our friends' freedom of action. It gives them much greater cover to do things like continue to support terrorism, terrorists that have killed thousands of Americans over the years. So this is just one of the cascading effects you'd see if Iran ever got its hands on nuclear weapons. And that's why President Trump has been very clear. Going back 10 years, the first time I ever spoke to Donald Trump, in fact, in the summer of 2015, he was a new candidate.
He was coming to Arkansas. We talked on the phone. He thanked me for my work against the Iran nuclear deal and said that we can never have Iran. Iran can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon or the vast nuclear infrastructure to develop nuclear weapons. And he hasn't changed a bit from that conversation I had with him in June of 2015 to where he is today in May of 2025.
So there's been a lot of mixed signals sent by the administration, not from President Trump directly, who's been actually quite consistent on this, but from, for example, the negotiator Steve Witkoff, special envoy to the region, who suggested that maybe Iran should have a civilian nuclear program and then seemed to walk that back a little bit. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, of course, has said they shouldn't be allowed any nuclear program at all. The nation of Qatar, which is trying to negotiate a lot of this,
Obviously, Qatar has some dicey connections, shall we say. They're the number one funder of Hamas. They're essentially an Iranian cutout in a lot of these negotiations. How should we view Qatar, which sort of plays this bizarre middleman role with one foot as sort of friendly to the United States and then the other foot as a very, very friendly with Iran and terrorist groups around the country, around the region?
Well, first, Ben, the point you make about President Trump being very consistent is correct. He has advisors in his administration. They're exploring other possibilities, like the possibility of a nuclear agreement that we have with other countries. We have with the United Arab Emirates, for example, that would kind of put the lie to Iran that says they only want civilian nuclear power. It's like, OK, fine.
we'll give you civilian nuclear power. You just can't enrich uranium. And if they say no to that, then we know what they really want. So I think that's part of where Secretary Rubio is coming from. But ultimately, in any administration, advisors advise and the presidents decide. It's just like me in the Senate. I've got a lot of great advisors on my team, but I'm the one that has to decide how to vote. And I'm the one that has to cast that vote and answer for it to the people of Arkansas. On the point of Qatar, you're right. The
they play both sides and unfortunately they play the other side a little bit more closely than we would like. They've long been close to Iran. They've long been much more sympathetic to the Muslim brotherhood, which is kind of the intellectual font of terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS. Uh,
They've been hosting Hamas for many years. Now, they might say like, oh, well, Israel and the United States tacitly asked us to do so. Okay, well, maybe, but we didn't ask you to put them up in a penthouse in the Four Seasons or to give them billions of dollars or to spread propaganda about Israel and what's happening in Gaza or around the world. Take, for instance, just a few weeks ago, there were widespread protests in Gaza by ordinary Gazans against Hamas.
And that led the news, not just in Israel, but in Saudi Arabia and the UAE and elsewhere in the Arab world. If you were in Qatar, you had no idea what's happening because Al Jazeera and Qatari media never broadcasted at all. There's just a few more examples of how they've been playing both sides for too long. And unfortunately, they played a little closer to the other side than we would like.
So there's been a lot of talk about what the United States involvement should be if the nuclear talks fail. The idea being, would the United States participate in some sort of strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities to destroy those facilities, push off their nuclear program by 10 or 20 years or maybe indefinitely? There have been some people suggesting that if the United States were to do that, it would launch a sort of all-out regional war. I see zero evidence of that.
The United States killed Qasem Soleimani under President Trump's first term. There was not an all-out regional war. The fact is Iran is massively weaker than it was during President Trump's first term, largely thanks to his maximum pressure campaign, but also thanks to Israel defenestrating Hamas, defenestrating Hezbollah, defenestrating an enormous number of Iranian proxy groups in the region, and then defenestrating Iran's air defense systems completely.
Completely. The skies over Tehran are completely open at this point. So if this were to actually eventualize, if the United States were to participate in a strike, and maybe we should, maybe we shouldn't, I'd like to get your perspective on that. But I think the basic notion that there will be a regional all-out war, if that were to happen, I see zero evidence that that is the case. And that seems like the same sort of false construct that
that Barack Obama was pushing during his presidency, this idea that if you didn't cut a bad deal with Iran, there would be all out regional war. That false binary was sort of the guiding vision of the Obama foreign policy. You see that being reflected on a lot of the left today and even some parts of the right.
Yeah, well, first off, Ben, you're right about the president, again, being consistent and clear on this. You know, he doesn't talk like a normal Republican president of the past. You know, they might have said, well, we'd like to have a deal. But if we don't, all options are on the table. No, I mean, Donald Trump, he speaks the plain truth. He says, you know, Iran can have a deal and live happily without death or there will be bombing. I mean, he couldn't be more blunt about it. And
The argument that, you know, striking their nuclear facilities, whether it's United States, whether it's Israel, whether it's some combination, it's going to lead to some, quote unquote, forever war. Again, simply belies the historical facts, some of which you laid out. President Trump authorized the killing of Qasem Soleimani, Iran's terrorist mastermind, in January of 2020.
And many of the same voices today who are hysterically claiming that strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities would lead to forever war were the same ones then in late 2019 and early 2020 saying that this was going to start another war.
I'm also reminded of the tanker wars in 1987 and 1988 when Iran was mining the Persian Gulf. It was threatening oil shipping out of the Gulf. It ultimately ended up destroying or severely damaging a U.S. naval vessel. And what did Ronald Reagan do? He didn't take it to the U.N. He actually sank half of Iran's navy.
He was asked on the walk to Marine One on the South Lawn of the White House one day in that period, if we were at war with Iran now. And he looked and he chuckled in his kind of Reagan-esque way. And he said, no, Iran wouldn't be so stupid.
So, again, it's many of the same voices in the past that said the forceful but discriminant application of military power to achieve national objectives is going to lead to a war that were wrong then that are wrong now as well. And as you put it, Iran is both.
unusually dangerous and unusually weak in this moment. Dangerous because of all the advances they made in their nuclear and missile program under Joe Biden, but weakened because Israel has destroyed their terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah. We're in the process of doing that in Yemen. And Israel also destroyed most of their air and missile defenses. Well, Senator Tom Cotton, really appreciate your time and your insight. Go check out his number one New York Times bestseller, Seven Things You Can't Say About China. Senator Cotton, really appreciate the time. Thank you, Ben.
Meanwhile, opposing President Trump's very consistent agenda with regard to Iran have been members of the administration itself, people inside the administration who've been pitching the idea that Qatar should broker a sort of nuclear deal with Iran. These are people on the right who will say that if the United States participates in a strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities, that this will lead to a widespread global conflagration, which is a lie. That is not true. There is zero evidence of that. The United States under President Trump killed Iranians.
the Iranian terror mastermind Qasem Soleimani, and not only did not lead to a regional war, it was part of crippling Iran's terror infrastructure. So it is just not true. It's obviously an agenda that is also being pushed by Qatar, which is half a cutout for the Iranian regime. America does have an airbase in Qatar. We could just as easily move it to Bahrain or UAE. I would recommend that actually the United States should do that because there is no reason why Qatar, which again does the work of both the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran, should be a recipient of the largesse of the United States territory.
in that particular way. But there is a bizarre horseshoe theory that is formed between left and right with regard to Iran, a sort of strange willingness to accept an Iranian nuclear regime. And again, I think there's an argument to be made over whether the United States needs to participate in a strike, even whether Israel should just do it itself. If the United States is unable to secure a deal with the Iranian regime in order to fully dismantle their nuclear nuclear
capabilities. And also, by the way, to dismantle their ballistic missile capabilities and also to get them to not use newly minted American money to pay their terror proxies all over the region, which is one of the big flaws of the JCPOA. It allowed Iran to open their economy, no restrictions on missile development, no restrictions on terror support, something that even the awful Secretary of State John Kerry admitted at the time. If you can do a deal that somehow achieves all those goals, well, congratulations.
But if you cannot, it is a one-day sortie for American B-2s. But even if you don't want to use American B-2s, if Israel should hit the Iranian nuclear facilities, no, that's not going to lead to an all-out regional war. By the way, that all-out regional war, from Israel's perspective, already exists. They've been attacked on literally every border they have by Iranian proxies. They're being attacked from the south by the Houthis. They're being attacked from the southwest by Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They were attacked from the north by Hezbollah. They were attacked from Syria by Hezbollah agents.
They've been attacked in Judea and Samaria by Iran-backed terror groups, ranging from Hamas to Islamic Jihad to the PFLP. So the idea that some sort of radical Iranian escalation is going to take place if Israel takes out the nuclear facilities is ridiculous. But this has now been promoted by people on the both left and the isolationist right. And it's sort of fascinating to see that horseshoe theory
playing out in real time. So, for example, Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, he says that the best way for Israel to stand up against Iran is for Israel to basically surrender in the Gaza Strip to Hamas, which, of course, is ridiculous. The best thing we could do
The stand up against Iran would be for Israel to end the conflict in Gaza, get the hostages back because, you know, starting to rebuild and giving the Palestinians some hope for life would allow Saudi Arabia and other nations in the region to frankly recognize Israel and then put an even more united front against Iran.
That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So you're going to reconstitute an Iranian proxy state in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, and somehow this will help the Abraham Accords and make the region safer? When people say there's a two-state solution or the Palestinians must have, who rules it? What does the territory look like? I think we know the answers to that because we've seen it actually happen since the Oslo Accords in the early 90s. And the answer has been terror states supported by Iran.
which are a threat not just to Israel, but also to the Saudis, to the Jordanian monarchy, by the way, to the Egyptians. There's a reason that Jordan is not allowing people to flow in Palestinians. 60% of Jordan is Palestinian. There's a reason that they are not letting more Palestinians come from Gaza Strip to Jordan or from Sudan to Syria to Jordan. There's a reason Egypt has rejected all refugees into its country from these areas.
And it is not because they think that it's more humane to keep people in a war zone. It's because they don't want those people in their country because they believe that they support terror and they are correct about that as a generalized matter. So this is incredibly stupid, obviously, but it's also supported by some people on the right. So Jeffrey Sachs is a great example. So Jeffrey Sachs is a globalist. There is just no way to describe the word globalist without talking about Jeffrey Sachs. Jeffrey Sachs is, of course, a professor, an American economist,
He has taught at Columbia University. He serves as the president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network and is a frequent guest with Tucker Carlson because he favors a isolationist foreign policy. But that isolationist foreign policy is connected to a globalist regime. What he actually wants is for the UN to rule the world, meaning a multipolar world ending American hegemony around the planet, curtailing American power and allowing America's enemies to have vast run over the globe.
It is bizarre that Jeffrey Sachs and Tucker Carlson seem to be in alignment on this agenda. Again, there is no way to use the word globalist without talking about Jeffrey Sachs. Jeffrey Sachs is a textbook globalist. Globalist does not mean that America should be involved in the world. That is not globalist. Globalist means that America's priorities should be reduced to a precinct of UN rule or the World Bank or the IMF. That's globalist. And that's all stuff that Jeffrey Sachs believes in. He believes in a sort of global agenda.
Green New Deal socialism that is bizarre in the extreme. Here he was over the weekend talking about global government. Remember, he's a frequent guest with some sort of isolationist types on the right. So you tell me why Jeffrey Sachs, who is, again, in the dictionary under the word globalist, there's a picture of Jeffrey Sachs, why he is on with people who declare themselves America first, spewing the same sort of nonsense. And there's one other concept that I find very, very useful.
and it's actually embodied in the European idea. It came from the Catholic Church originally, but it's called subsidiarity.
And the idea of subsidiarity is, let's get real. We need governments at all levels. We need a global government, that's the UN. We need a regional government, that's the European Union. We need a national government, that is the government of Cyprus. We need a local government, that is the Nicosia City Hall where we are right now. You have governments at all levels.
Okay, so the key there is not that there's a government of Cyprus. The key is a global government at the level of the U.N.,
Jeffrey Sachs has been quite warm, by the way, toward China. And there is a reason for that as well. Well, the sort of isolationist wing inside the Trump administration is now leaking. I mean, let's be very clear about this. The leakers inside the administration are not the people who are more in line with the Trump peace through strength agenda. All the leakers thus far have come from one wing of the Trump administration and is, in fact, more isolationist wing of the Trump administration. The latest leak.
comes courtesy of the Washington Post. Quote, President Donald Trump's decision to oust his national security advisor, Michael Walz, was the product of a slow accumulation of frustration with a former Green Beret officer who is seen as far more eager to use military force than his boss in the Oval Office. He had been clashing with other top officials since early in the administration, including over whether to pursue military action against Iran. Senior officials and Trump advisors said Friday, so I have a question. If the Trump administration does not want people leaking, maybe they should be investigating the leaks. We already know that there were leakers inside the Defense Department.
And they were allegedly fired over those leaks. And they were very much in line with the sort of isolationist wing of the of the Trump foreign policy regime. The article says that Walt supposedly upset President Trump after an Oval Office visit in early February by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when the national security adviser appeared to share the Israeli leader's conviction that the time was ripe to strike Iran. Two of the people said, who do you think is leaking that?
Again, if you don't like leaks from the administration to the Washington Post, maybe you should actually look at who's leaking and why they are doing that leaking. And the attempt is to use the movement of Waltz from NSA to UN ambassador in order to suggest that the globalists have to be stopped. Well, it's again, it's very weird that the isolationists and the actual globalists like Jeffrey Sachs are very much in line. The Israeli prime minister, by the way, denied the idea that there was intensive and exclusive contact with Mike Waltz.
The Office of the Prime Minister said, contrary to the Washington Post report, Prime Minister Netanyahu did not have intensive contact with Mike Waltz on Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu had a warm meeting with Mike Waltz and Steve Witkoff at Blair House in February prior to the Prime Minister's meeting with President Trump at the White House. Mike Waltz also joined VP J.D. Vance in a meeting with the PM before leaving Washington.
Since then, the PM, the former National Security Advisor and Steve Witkoff had one phone conversation that did not deal with Iran. But again, the people who are leaking to the press from the Trump administration are people who are very much in the sort of isolationist wing of the Trump administration. They also seem to be allied with the special envoy, Steve Witkoff. And there are a lot of people in this sort of wing of the party who suddenly over the
a strike on Iran involving the United States would lead to a broad regional war or that there was not even a threat to the United States if Iran were to gain a nuclear weapon. Again, there's this bizarre and peculiar and I think foolish idea in foreign policy that if something does not amount to an immediate threat, meaning like Cuba with a nuclear weapon pointed at American shores, that it's not a threat at all. And that's not how the world works. The entire business of foreign policy is attempting to game out
What is the most likely and worst possibilities to occur from actions that are occurring across the world today? That's how you shape a foreign policy. By the way, it's how you make good decisions in your own life. You don't let your kids randomly wander into the street because you think, well, you know, our street's pretty calm. The chance of a car actually hitting the kid pretty low. You keep your kid out of the street because you don't want your kid to get hit by a car.
You make decisions like this all throughout your life based on the probabilities, based on the risk factors, based on the reward, based on that risk reward ratio. The idea that you do foreign policy based solely on the question of whether Iran is going to fire a nuclear weapon directly at the United States, ignoring the regional ramifications, nuclear proliferation, control of the Red Sea, control of the Straits of Hormuz, control of the oil flow, the possibility of attacks on American allies, the possibility of widespread nuclear conflict in a region that then spreads outward. If you like India, Pakistan, man, how'd you like that in the Middle East?
If the way you do foreign policy is basically, if it's not happening right now in my living room, I don't care about that. Let's just say that that is a short-sighted way to do American foreign policy. Alrighty, coming up in Australia, the leftists win. We're going to ask the question as to whether President Trump's
trade war is actually benefiting the United States or not benefiting the United States when it comes to getting our allies elected, meaning like right-wing allies elected in countries all over the world. First, you need to be a member. And we have all sorts of great content, right? We've got the Gospel Series with Jordan Peterson and the Exodus Series with Jordan Peterson. We've got All Access Live where you can hang out with me. We've got Run, Hide, Fight. We've got the Matt Walsh movies. All sorts of great stuff happening behind the paywall. But if you're not a member, you're missing out. Become a member right now. Use code Shapiro at checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.