Ep. 2204 - Rubio BLOWS UP Senate Democrats
01:12:39 Share

Every day, local businesses open their doors with more than just a plan. They bring persistence, ambition, and a vision for what's next. And America's banks bring the tools and strategic guidance to get there. From storefronts on Main Street

to warehouse floors, businesses are leading the way with support from banks. Banks are providing what it takes for businesses to operate today and plan for tomorrow. Building opportunity, fueling economic growth. Paid for by United for a Strong Economy.

Folks, we have a ton to get to on today's show. Marco Rubio tearing up the Senate, the latest on the big, beautiful bill with both the head of the OMB, Russell Vogt, as well as the head of the House Budget Committee. We'll get the latest on those negotiations and Golden Dome coming to America. But first.

Our Daily Wire Plus Memorial Day sale is happening right now. Get 40% off an annual Daily Wire Plus membership with code DW40. That includes ad-free shows from the most trusted voices in conservative media. You know, me, Matt Walsh, Michael Knowles, and more. You'll also get access to our full entertainment library and the premiere of Dr. Peterson's new series, Parenting, premiering this Sunday exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. Join now at dailywireplus.com, code DW40 to save 40% on all new Daily Wire Plus advertisements.

annual memberships. Well, yesterday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio went before a Senate hearing and Senate Democrats went after him. And the reason that they went after him is because they're very concerned about President Trump's policy, both with regard to immigration and also with regard to generalized foreign policy. And that is because Trump is, in fact, a break from the past on both of those issues.

President Trump has created consensus around illegal immigration, or more realistically, Joe Biden created consensus around illegal immigration that was largely dependent on him opening the borders wide. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has taken a lead role in helping to enforce President Trump's vision of immigration in the United States, which is to say, close the southern border. And also, if people come here as guests, they do not get to stay here if they are interested in overthrowing the American system, in supporting terrorist groups or

or all of the rest. Democrats, of course, have a much more open borders view of what America ought to be. They believe that for some odd reason, the United States owes it to literally everyone on earth to let everyone on earth in. The same exact perspective that wrecked large parts of Europe has been accepted for a very long time by Democrats. Some of the more effective Democrats are now realizing that that's bad policy, but not apparently the Senate Democrats who are questioning Marco Rubio. And then when it came to sort of broader American foreign policy,

Senate Democrats can't seem to get their head around what President Trump is doing on broader foreign policy. And that's because President Trump does not actually have a thoroughgoing doctrine when it comes to his own foreign policy. Everybody keeps trying to forge a philosophy around what President Trump is doing. What is the consistent principle that always holds with regard to President Trump? And the truth is that President Trump's foreign policy is very much ad hoc. It's very situational. That's true of him generally. He makes moves. There's a reaction to the moves. He reacts to the reaction. And then he...

sticks and moves. That is how he operates in the foreign policy realm. It's how he operates in the deal-making realm. And Democrats have a very difficult time with that because they would prefer

a consistent but wrong view of the world to an inconsistent and more often right view of the world. So Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has become one of the most popular members of the Trump administration, I would say kind of surprisingly, because when he went in, there were a lot of MAGA fans who were not big Marco Rubio fans. They figured that he was too interventionist in his view of foreign policy. Instead, he has retained wide popularity while at the same time echoing many of the central planks of the sort of MAGA hymnal. When it

when it comes to foreign policy. So yesterday, he basically just wrecked Democrat after Democrat. It began with one Democrat demanding yes or no answers from Senator Rubio. This would be Senator Jackie Rosen out of Nevada.

She tried to scold Marco Rubio about the actions of the Trump administration, suggesting that she was disappointed in him and then suggesting that he needed to answer questions. Yes or no. How do you square your past views with your present representation of the Trump administration? And the answer, of course, is that Rubio hasn't actually changed many of his past views with regard to the Trump administration.

And there is this desire, I think, all sides to claim Trump as their own. And Trump is none of those. Just in terms of foreign policy speak, you have a bunch of different camps inside the Republican Party at this point, ranging from the very interventionist to the not only isolationist, but sometimes side with people who have typically been our enemies. There are a bunch of different strands inside the Republican foreign policy camp.

kind of vacuum. And it is a vacuum at this point because, again, President Trump does not have a thoroughgoing ideology and there's a sort of Game of Thrones that's happening with regard to what foreign policy looks like in any given situation and on any given day. It's why you've seen a bunch of flip flops on Ukraine, a bunch of flip flops with regard to Gaza, a bunch of flip flops on Iran, a bunch of flip flops in the Middle East more generally, a bunch of flip flops on TikTok in China.

All of that is because the battle is ongoing. And Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, has been tasked with sort of putting forward a more consistent face to that. Just to sum up where the Republican Party is in terms of foreign policy, again, there are a bunch of strands. There's one strand that no longer exists that is sort of the

pinata for everybody else in the Republican Party. That is the Wilsonian interventionist strand that no longer exists in the Republican Party. The idea of creating democracies in Afghanistan or Iraq, the very Wilsonian notion that Western principles could simply be implanted in foreign soil and then would grow there.

That is gone in the Republican Party. It was killed by the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War. So that's no longer there. And very often you see people in the Republican Party using that as sort of the foil for their own positions. But realistically speaking, nobody holds that. And pretty much nobody in the Republican Party has held that since about 2008. And then there are a wide, a wide variety of strands of what you would call realism, you know, pursuing America's interest in the world.

And there are, I think, a bunch of different varieties of that, ranging from the dovish variety of realism that suggests, well, if we withdraw from the world a little bit more, then the world will be friendlier to us, to the more hawkish version, which suggests that if we leave a vacuum, then somebody is going to fill that vacuum. I'd consider myself, full disclosure, in the sort of hawkish realist category. And then you have people who are full-scale isolationists who say we should just withdraw from the world totally.

These are not dovish realists who believe that from time to time, the United States must be involved and that our involvement can be financial in terms of sanctions, but not military. These would be people who say we shouldn't be involved in any of this stuff, period.

So you have full-scale isolationists who basically say, don't want to do anything ranging from military action to foreign aid to building up the military at all. Let's just withdraw within our own borders. And then you have a group of people who have sort of horseshoe-theoried all the way around to the left and suggested that actually America's historic alliances are bad and we ought to be pursuing alliances with pariah states like, say, Russia or Iran. We should be making nice with China.

We should be making nice with Qatar in more favorable ways, right? That is a strand of Republican foreign policy thought as well. So all of those are battling it out. And it's Marco Rubio's job as Secretary of State to sort of articulate where the administration is on all of this. And he does an excellent job because the truth is that's a pretty tough job. That is. And the Republican Party at this point is very, very fractious. The administration itself is very fractious when it comes to foreign policy. Clearly, there are a lot of ongoing arguments, but President Trump is the central decision maker. And again,

His sort of foreign policy philosophy is much more ad hoc than it is a sort of thoroughgoing, principled version of American foreign policy. In any case, here was Senator Jackie Rosen going up against the secretary of state, Marco Rubio. I have a few questions, so I would respectfully ask for a yes or no. Don't you think that women's participation...

It's important and has allows for better outcomes. I'm not going to, this is not a game show. I'm not going to ask that with a yes or no. That's an important question. And I can answer it. We're not abandoning women's issues. Okay. So again, it is funny to me that democratic senators think that the chief concern of the American people at this point is, you know, how many women are going to be in the state department or women's issues in Afghanistan. I mean, it just is not a central, it is not been a central plank for Democrats either. The difference is that president Trump doesn't tend to do these sort of

sycophantic appearance-based foreign policy in which you claim that you're for women's rights while abandoning 19 million women to the predations of the Taliban in Afghanistan the way Joe Biden did. Senator Chris Van Hollen, who may be the dumbest member of the United States Senate outside of Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, he suggested that he regretted voting for Rubio. Rubio, of course, sailed through as Secretary of State with flying colors, selling 99 votes in the Senate. Here was Van Hollen saying he regrets voting for Rubio, and Rubio's like, good, I wear that as a badge of honor.

And I have to tell you directly and personally that I regret voting for you for Secretary of State. I yield back. Can I respond? You may, sir. Well, first of all, your regret for voting for me confirms I'm doing a good job based on what I know. That's just a flippant statement, Mr. Secretary. Can I respond, Mr. Chairman? You may. I didn't ask the question. Senator, please let the Secretary have the floor. I'd be happy to, but then I can respond to his response. Your time's up, Senator, and woefully used, I might add. Your remarks do not represent the view of this committee.

By the way, what I love about Chris Van Hollen is Chris Van Hollen says something scummy like that. Rubio comes back at him. Now he's playing the victim. And Rubio continued to own Van Hollen throughout, like over and over and over. So Van Hollen, of course, had traveled down to El Salvador to visit with the accused wife beater, Kilma Abrego Garcia, accused MS-13 member.

who was deported. Van Hollen went down and had drinks with the guy. And Marco Rubio was like, let's talk about Camargo Garcia, Senator.

In the case of El Salvador, absolutely. Absolutely. We deported gang members. Gang members, including the one you had a margarita with. And that guy is a human trafficker, and that guy is a gangbanger, and the evidence is going to be clear in the days to come. Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Rubio has the floor. Mr. Chairman, he can't make unsubstantiated comments like that. Secretary Rubio has the floor. You've had your time. Secretary Rubio should take that testimony to the federal court of the United States because he hasn't done it under oath.

Okay. Okay. Well, it didn't go well for Chris Van Hollen. Rubio also slammed Chris Van Hollen on traditional overreach. Here he was.

There is a division in our government between the federal branch and the judicial branch. No judge and the judicial branch cannot tell me or the president how to conduct foreign policy. No judge can tell me how I have to outreach to a foreign partner or what I need to say to them. And if I do reach to that foreign partner and talk to them, I have under no obligation to share that with the judiciary branch. Just like a judge cannot order me to negotiate with a foreign minister of Russia, they cannot order me to negotiate with a foreign minister or the president of El Salvador.

OK, when it came to immigration, again, this is where Rubio was the strongest. And that, of course, is because that is an area where the Trump administration is incredibly consistent. So Rubio was asked about the visas of people who are here as guests and whether they should be revoked based on things they say. And here's what he had to say.

We're going to do more. There are more coming. We're going to continue to revoke the visas of people who are here as guests and are disrupting our higher education facilities. People are paying money. These kids pay money to go to school, and they have to walk through a bunch of lunatics who are here on student visas. Simple as that. I want to do more. I hope we can find more of these people.

In fact, the other day, some guys led a riot. I forgot what university it was. And I asked, please, can you find the arrest records of all the people that were arrested at that riot at that campus? Because if any of them have a visa, we're going to revoke it.

So, again, there's Marco Rubio going up against Chris Van Hollen and saying, listen, we don't have to let anybody into the country we don't want in the country. If you're admitted here as a student and then you are working in cahoots with organizations that support terrorist groups, then, yeah, we are going to deport you. As he says, again, quite correctly, we admit people to this country or we should based on the national interest.

Our immigration policy should be based on the national interest of the United States. Period. End of story. If there is a subset of people that are easier to vet, who we have a better understanding of who they are and what they're going to do when they come here, they're going to receive preference, no doubt about it. There are a lot of sad stories around the world. Millions and millions of people around the world. It's heartbreaking. We cannot assume millions and millions of people around the world. No country can.

Of course, he's exactly right about that. We'll get to more on this in just one moment. First, despite all the stuff happening in Washington, ultimately, you have to take responsibility for safeguarding your own financial future. That's why I just bought more gold from Birch Gold. In the past 12 months, the value of gold has increased by 40%. With central banks buying gold in record quantities, demand does not appear to be subsiding anytime soon. Again, when you look at the bond markets, when you look at the fiscal future of the United States, when you look at our burgeoning national debt, uncertainty in the world,

Gold has always been a safe haven. Birch Gold, as I've personally experienced, makes the process of owning physical gold remarkably simple by offering convenient options to either transform your existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA backed by physical gold or to acquire gold for safekeeping in your home safe. Just text my name, Ben, to 989898. Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold. There's no obligation, only useful information.

with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers, including me. Take control of protecting your own savings today. Text the word Ben to 989898 right now. Again, text my name, Ben, to 989898. Get all the information. Ask all your questions.

Get all your answers. And then when you feel comfortable, think about diversifying into precious metals with my friends over at Birch Gold. Also, did you know that over 85% of grass-fed beef sold in the United States is imported? Luckily, Good Ranchers holds themselves to a higher standard. At GoodRanchers.com, products are 100% born, raised, and harvested right here in the United States from local family farms. So you can rest easy knowing exactly where the meat you're eating comes from. Plus, there are no antibiotics ever, no added hormones, no seed oils. Just one simple ingredient you can read. That's meat. Best

Best of all, Good Ranchers is tariff-proof due to their 100% American supply chain. So while new tariffs make grocery store prices unpredictable, Good Ranchers stays consistent and predictable, even delivering straight to your door for ultimate convenience.

A lot of my friends have been using Good Ranchers. I know that producer Savvy, her son basically goes through a giant shipment of Good Ranchers almost every day. That kid is a, that kid's a monster. He's huge. Better meat, stable prices, less waste. That's just smarter shopping for you and your family. Lock in a secure supply of American meat at a steady price today and support American farmers and ranchers.

Subscribe right now at goodranchers.com. Get free meat for life and 40 bucks off with code Ben. That's 40 bucks off plus free meat for life with code Ben. Good Ranchers, American meat delivered. Now, again, the more fraught questions were not even about illegal immigration because Democrats are just in the wrong here and they are getting destroyed over this issue politically speaking. It's one of the reasons why President Trump retains

his high popularity rating at this point. The bigger issues are about overall American foreign policies. And as I've suggested, there's a lot of competition inside the Trump administration for what happens on a variety of issues. Rubio has asked about whether the United States is withdrawing from the world. Here's what he had to say.

You're not going to like all the changes, but I want you to know what the intent of the changes are. It is not to dismantle American foreign policy, and it is not to withdraw us from the world. Because I just hit 18 countries in 18 weeks. That doesn't sound like much of a withdrawal. And I see some of these foreign ministers, including individuals from Ukraine, more than I've seen my own children.

And I talk to them at least three times a week. We are engaged in the world, but we're going to be engaged in a world that makes sense and that's smart. And that isn't about saving money. It is about ensuring that we are delivering to our people what they deserve, a foreign policy that makes America stronger, safer, and more prosperous.

Now, again, as an aspect of this, Rubio was asked about aid to Ukraine because there have been some mixed signals coming out from the administration about what happens next if Vladimir Putin does not come to the table. Jeanne Shaheen, who's the senator from New Hampshire, she asked him about arms shipments to Ukraine. And here was Secretary of State Rubio's response.

The leverage that we've given up is taking NATO membership off the table, taking away a commitment to continue to help the Ukrainians with intelligence sharing and with military equipment and arms that they need to help fight this war. That continues.

There was a pause for one week. All of that was restarted. That was intelligence sharing, though, but it doesn't cover the equipment and arms. Oh, absolutely. That program has not been rescinded. They continue to receive armaments from the United States.

Okay, so again, that should be the perspective of the administration. I think it remains an open question as to which direction the administration takes. Again, that's because President Trump's policies are quite ad hoc. Now, I understand that when it comes to President Trump's foreign policy, the sort of madman theory of politics has been posited by President Trump and members of his administration. The idea that unpredictability is an asset when

when it comes to foreign negotiations, for example. And there is certainly truth to that. There's certainly truth to that. If, for example, China doesn't actually know whether we are going to go to war with them over Taiwan, they are less likely to go after Taiwan than if we're going to be like Joe Biden and make non-credible threats or if we make no threats at all. The sort of man-man theory of politics certainly applies there. However, when it comes to, for example, an intransigent enemy who's already at war with a third-party country with whom we are allied, then actually,

Unpredictability and mess in the system leads to perception of weakness. And this is one of the problems with regard to Ukraine. So for example, the New York Times reporting today

Thank you.

just days after saying that only he and Putin had the powers who broker a deal. And he backed away from his own threats to join a European pressure campaign that would include new sanctions on Russia, according to six officials who are familiar with the discussion. They spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation. Now, again, it is unclear what it means when President Trump or J.D. Vance, vice president, have said that we are going to walk away from negotiations. Does that mean we also walk away from Ukraine in general?

Not clear at all. And again, I understand that it's Pepsi over that because we should be clear what the results of Vladimir Putin's intransigence actually are. You can certainly read it as the United States going more isolationist. You can also read it as the United States will continue to support Ukraine in the absence of a negotiated end to the war. And again, there are lots of mixed signals here.

President Trump recently wrote on Truth Social that the conditions to end the war will be negotiated between the two parties, as it only can be, because they know details of a negotiation nobody else would be aware of. But then he said, Russia wants to do large-scale trade with the United States when its catastrophic bloodbath is over. And I agree. There's a tremendous opportunity for Russia to create massive amounts of jobs and wealth. Its potential is unlimited. Now, again,

He's saying after the war. So unclear whether that means that if Russia refuses to come to an end of the war, the United States still pursues some sort of economic off ramp with Russia while curbing its support to Ukraine. Here is where Congress should fill the gap, by the way. Congress should, in fact, fill the gap. And one of the saddest things that's happened over the course of my lifetime and before is the turning of the legislature of the United States into a vestigial branch of American government. This did not start under President Trump. This was true in large scale under Barack Obama.

who after he lost the congressional elections of 2010, suggested that he was going to govern by phone and pen. And then it was exacerbated under Trump won. And then it was certainly exacerbated under Joe Biden in massive ways, necessitating, by the way, our company literally suing the federal government to stop centralization of power by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to force 80 million people to vax.

And then that has continued until today, where the legislature seems to basically be the sign-off organism for the executive branch, which is never what it was intended to be. When it comes to Russia-Ukraine, the legislature should step in. And the legislature should say that the United States is committed to, in the absence of any evidence that Putin wants to negotiate, supporting Ukraine sufficient so that Russia doesn't finish off Ukraine. This is the point made by the editorial board over at the Wall Street Journal correctly.

Mr. Putin's intransigence has been the status quo for months. It is abundantly clear the KGB alumnus will need more pressure to come to the table. The first step would be secondary sanctions on Russian oil. Senators Lindsey Graham and Tom Cotton have put together a bipartisan sanctions bill with Democrat Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut. That measure has north of 70 Senate co-sponsors, a total usually reserved for naming post offices. One particular target here would be China, against whom, again, President Trump is very much oriented.

China has been feeding Putin's military with machine tools and legacy computer chips, and they've also been buying oil at a discount. Senator Graham said the world needs to understand without China buying cheap Russian oil, Putin's war machine would come to a grinding halt. That is right. The House would still have to pass the sanctions bill. Obviously, whether there is support

in the House for that is largely dependent on what happens with the tax bill. But this is where Congress should make its opinions clear because Congress is still, last I checked, the major organ of policymaking in the United States, not the executive branch, not the executive branch. The founders designed this system for a reason.

And meanwhile, in foreign policy news that actually is quite excellent, President Trump has now unveiled his plans for the Golden Dome missile defense system. Now, it's funny that people are treating this as some sort of break with American foreign policy. I'm old enough to remember when Ronald Reagan was talking about this with regard to Star Wars. I was very young, but then it was talked about again with regard to the George W. Bush administration. Ballistic missile defense is a big push under the Bush administration. And now Donald Trump is doing it again.

Here he was announcing and explaining what Golden Zone would be. - I am pleased to announce that we have officially selected an architecture for this state-of-the-art system that will deploy next generation technologies across the land, sea, and space, including space-based sensors and interceptors. And Canada has called us and they want to be a part of it. So we'll be talking to them. They want to have protection also. So as usual, we help Canada do the best we can.

This design for the Golden Dome will integrate with our existing defense capabilities and should be fully operational before the end of my term. So we'll have it done in about three years. Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles, even if they are launched from other sides of the world and even if they are launched from space.

And we will have the best system ever built. As you know, we helped Israel with theirs and it was very successful. And now we have technology that's even far advanced from that. But including hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles and advanced cruise missiles, all of them will be knocked out of the air.

We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland. And the success rate is very close to 100 percent, which is incredible. When you think of it, you're shooting bullets out of the air. OK, meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he joined that press conference and he explained the Golden Dome is indeed a game changer.

Mr. President, add this to the long and growing list of promises made and promises kept. Ultimately, this right here, the Golden Dome for America is game changer. It's a generational investment in the security of America and Americans. Mr. President, you said we're going to secure our southern border and get 100% operational control after the previous administration allowed an invasion of people into our country.

President Reagan 40 years ago cast the vision for it. The technology wasn't there. Now it is, and you're following through to say we will protect the homeland from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, whether they're conventional or nuclear.

That, of course, is an excellent development. The reason it's an excellent development, the reason that China is freaking out is because were the United States to be able to successfully complete Golden Dome, what that would essentially mean is that the United States would have a massive systemic advantage against China in any war. Because in the end, the real threat that China has against the United States is a missile threat. And they are quite far from the United States. If the United States were able to shoot that stuff down, then imagine a situation in which the United States

And China went to war over Taiwan. Not completely far-fetched at this point in time. Imagine that that escalated. Well, China's immediate sort of option to back the United States off would be a threat to hit the American homeland. What if the United States had the capacity to hit the Chinese homeland, but China had no capacity to hit the American homeland? That is the reason why China is freaking out today. China put out a statement via its foreign ministry spokesman, Mao Ning, who said that this carries strong offensive implication and heightens the risks of militarization of outer space and an arms race.

Mao said, the United States in pursuing a U.S. first policy is obsessed with seeking absolute security for itself. This violates the principle that the security of all countries should not be compromised and undermines global strategic balance and stability. China is seriously concerned about this. I mean, what they're really concerned about is the fact that they won't be able to make serious offensive moves against other countries without the American deterrent.

And the sort of mutually assured destruction that currently exists between the nuclear armed countries of China and the United States, that mutually assured destruction goes away the minute the United States can protect itself and China cannot. That is why China is freaking out. This is a good deterrent to stopping China from going after, say, Taiwan. Meanwhile, in other good moves from the military side of the Trump administration, Pete Hagseth has now ordered a review into the disastrous Biden-Afghanistan withdrawal.

one of the most colossal, epic foreign policy failures of my lifetime, probably the most epic foreign policy failure of my lifetime. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth is going to be and has instructed the Pentagon to launch a comprehensive review into the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021. In this new memo, Hegseth says Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell will be convening a special review panel

to thoroughly examine previous investigations to include, but not limited to, findings of facts, sources, witnesses, and analyze the decision-making that led to one of America's darkest and deadliest international moments.

OK, so again, this is a good thing. It is a necessary thing. Obviously, people should be held responsible for the disaster that was the Afghanistan withdrawal. Electorally, the Biden administration was held responsible, which is why, again, Kamala Harris is not the president of the United States anymore. People forget. And there's a good warning to the Trump administration as well. Foreign policy disasters that happen on the watch of any president redound to the detriment of that president.

Americans don't tend to care too much about foreign policy until disaster arrives. Once disaster arrives, there's only one thing Americans like less than foreign involvement, and that's losing foreign wars. We do not actually like being humiliated. It turns out that is a longstanding tradition in America.

And again, when we design our foreign policy, that's something that we should absolutely keep in mind. We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, you ever wonder what gives elite athletes, business moguls, high performers their edge? Many are turning to Armra Colostrum. This remarkable superfood is nature's original whole food supplement containing over 400 bioactive nutrients that work at the cellular level. Armra helps build lean muscle, speeds up recovery time and enhances overall performance without relying on artificial stimulants or synthetic ingredients.

Whether you're running a company, pushing your limits in training, or simply looking for a natural advantage in your daily life, Armra Colostrum optimizes your body's systems for peak performance and sustained energy. Research has demonstrated that colostrum does more than just strengthen performance. It actually enhances your body's ability to absorb essential nutrients

supports the development of lean muscle mass and improves endurance. At the same time, it works at the cellular level to accelerate repair and regeneration, helping you bounce back faster after intense physical exertion. Plus, Amra Colostrum can also support your microbiome and balance and strengthen immune defenses throughout the body. And who doesn't want a stronger immune system?

Right. We've worked out a special offer for my audience. Receive 15 percent off your first order. Go to try Armra dot com slash Shapiro or enter Shapiro. Get 15 percent off your first order. That's T-R-Y-A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Shapiro. Also, tax day may have passed, but for millions of Americans, the real trouble is now just starting. If you miss that April 15th deadline or you still owe back taxes, the IRS is now ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait only makes things worse.

With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies, wage garnishments, the IRS is now applying pressure at levels we have not seen in years. Increased administrative scrutiny means collections are moving fast. The good news, there's still time for Tax Network USA to help. Self-employed or a business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track.

Fast. Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control. Your consultation is completely free. Acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Shapiro. You might have missed April 15th, but you haven't run out of options.

Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes their next move. You don't want to face the IRS alone. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Shapiro. That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit TNUSA.com slash Shapiro.

Meanwhile, negotiation continues over the so-called big, beautiful bill. Yesterday, President Trump went to the Hill to try to cudgel various reluctant members of Congress into supporting the so-called big, beautiful bill. Again, this is a version that they're trying to pass in the House. Then there will be a different version passed in the Senate, and then they will go to reconciliation where both sides kind of come together to repass a revised version of whatever is the compromise bill. Republicans have been

running up against systemic obstacles, including the fact that there are some sort of purple Congress people, Republicans in purple districts who want higher deductions because they are in high tax states like New York or California. That's one wing of the party. Another wing of the party are deficit cutters. They're saying that this bill adds to the deficit. It doesn't cut the deficit enough. President Trump is like, listen, we just got to get it done. Like, don't worry, we have unity. Here was President Trump yesterday.

I think we have unbelievable unity. I think we're going to get everything we want. And I think we're going to have a great victory. And this man has done a great job. And I think this was a tremendous session.

Again, President Trump's hammer is the thing that is going to get this thing across the finish line. No question. President Trump did, by the way, unleash his hammer against certain members of Congress, including Thomas Massey. Of course, the Republican congressman from Kentucky, Thomas Massey, his basic goal is to vote against pretty much everything. I agree with many of his principles when it comes to lowering government spending. It also happens to be the case that voting no on everything isn't actually an electoral strategy. Here's President Trump smashing Massey yesterday.

No, I don't think Thomas Massey understands government. I think he's a grandstander, frankly. He'll probably vote. We don't even talk to him much. I think he should be voted out of office. And I just don't think he understands government. If you ask him a couple of questions, he never gives you an answer. He just says, I'm a no. He thinks he's going to get publicity. Again, he is a representative, Massey, of a tax...

cutting, but also spending cutting wing. And I agree with him on principle. But the problem is you do have to get a majority here. Here is Massey talking about the debt increases. Here's the reality. Massey is right on the issue. There is not the support in the United States for a

for a massive cut to the national deficit or debt. That's just the reality. Both parties are complicit in this. The only question between the parties when it comes to tax cutting and deficits is which party wants higher taxes and which party wants lower taxes. Both parties seem perfectly willing to run this car directly off a cliff. Here is where Massey is right.

I've got a lot of people in the MAGA base who realize that we could have done this differently. We could extend the tax cuts and paid for them, but instead we're not. I mean, over here, the people in favor of this bill say that under the policies of this bill, we're going to add $20 trillion to debt over the next 10 years, which is $3.5 to $5 trillion more than would have been added to the last.

So, again, he's not wrong on principle, but in terms of actually getting a bill across the finish line, Thomas Massey will never allow a bill to get across the finish line if he has anything to say about it, which is why President Trump has been going after him. Similarly, President Trump has been basically telling the sort of left wing Republicans they also need to sit down and shut up. He says, listen, we're not trying to destroy Medicare and Medicaid. This is a pretty moderate bill in terms of spending at best. Here's President Trump on Medicare and Medicaid yesterday.

I said waste, fraud, and abuse for Medicaid. If you find waste or fraud or abuse, we want to strengthen Medicaid. We want to strengthen Medicare. Waste, fraud, and abuse. Okay, so again, he is making the case, basically, that we shouldn't really restructure entitlements, but also we should not give away everything to the salt deduction guys in the House.

Well, as I've talked about when it comes to bills like this one, the reality is the American people are not ready to do the thing that would actually drive down the national debt. They're just not ready to do it. I asked our friends and sponsors at Perplexity how much of our national debt is actually driven by Social Security and Medicare as opposed to the kinds of

means-tested welfare programs Republicans are trying to change when they talk about putting work requirements on Medicaid, for example. And here's what perplexity tells me. The national debt is projected to grow significantly over the next decade, driven primarily by mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare. A

According to the Congressional Budget Office, federal debt held by the public is expected to rise from 100% of GDP in 2025 to 118% of GDP by 2035, with annual deficits increasing from $1.9 trillion to $2.7 trillion. Structural factors like aging demographics, health care costs, growth, and rising interest payments are key contributors.

And then it points out that obviously our aging population means that the number of Americans age 65 plus will grow by 47% by 2054. Medicare spending alone is projected to rise by 73% over the next decade alone. Social Security and Medicare account for nearly 80% of the projected deficit increase between 2023 and 2032. Means-tested welfare programs are a much smaller percentage of the growth of the national debt.

Obviously, you do have dedicated taxes that go to pay things like Social Security, but they do not make up for the growth in the cost of Social Security over time. The Republicans have a very narrow majority here. As I've said a million times, the Big Beautiful Bill is going to be big. It's not going to be quite so beautiful. That's just the way that it is. Mike Lawler, for example, the purple congressman from New York, he's saying that he might continue to oppose the Big Beautiful Tax Bill if he doesn't get his SALT deductions. This is the coalition that Mike Johnson somehow has to hold together here.

I respect the president. I know how important it is to pass this bill. Allowing the tax cuts to expire would be catastrophic. It would be the single largest tax increase in American history. But I'm not going to sacrifice my constituents and throw them under the bus.

in a bad faith negotiation, which is what this has been by leadership and Jason Smith. But the fact is, we need to come to an agreement. We need to provide real and lasting tax relief. And that's what I'm fighting for for my constituents. So I respect the president, respect the Wall Street Journal, but I'll respectfully disagree.

Well, joining us online to discuss the big, beautiful bill is Representative Jody Arrington of Texas. He, of course, is the chairman of the House Budget Committee. Representative Arrington, thanks so much for the time. Really appreciate it. You bet, Dan. Good to be with you.

So why don't we first talk about the various competing interests inside the Republican caucus? Obviously, you guys have an incredibly narrow majority in the House. You can only afford to lose a couple of votes and still pass the so-called big, beautiful bill. President Trump stepped by yesterday. He had some criticism for specific wings of the sort of resistance to the big, beautiful bill. What are the critiques of the bill from which sides? How do you guys plan to overcome those?

Well, I think that one of the critiques is we're not doing enough to reduce spending. Obviously, spending lit the fuse on the cost of living crisis. We're also dangerously close to a sovereign debt crisis if you look at the bond markets and our Treasury 30-year bond yields. So we do cut more spending than we ever have in the history of the country by two times.

But there's always more waste and opportunity for structural reforms in a balance sheet that's going to add $125 trillion in cumulative debt over the next 30 years. So I think it's a legitimate concern from fiscal hawks.

Of course, you've got the New York delegation and California, the SALT caucus, as they call themselves. They want to lift the cap on state and local tax deductions. And that's a problem for a lot of red states.

a lot of low tax states like Texas. We don't think it's good policy to enable and subsidize big government, bad policies, high taxes in states and locales around the country, but they need a

political win. I think dialing that in to the working people to give a break to folks at the lower end, not the rich guys with a second home in the Hamptons. I think there's a path forward there. You also have folks who want to accelerate the green energy tax credits. This cost us $4

500, $600 billion. And it's distortionary, regressive. It raised the prices of energy for everybody, made us more energy dependent. So that's gotta go. But the question is, how do you responsibly phase those out? That's a debate within the conference. Those are just some examples, but on the Medicaid side, this is an example of, I think, a no-brainer.

We put a work requirement in for able-bodied adults. It's the only welfare program, means-tested welfare program, that doesn't have such a requirement. And the phase-in of that or the implementation date was like four years out.

That's been moved up. So there's a lot of cleanup and tweaks like that that I don't quite understand why they were in place the way they were in the first place, but we're making those changes.

So I think that one of the things that you're pointing out here is the difficulty of making the sausage here. I mean, the reality is that, you know, as somebody who is a deficit hawk, somebody who really believes that the national debt is driving us to our doom, the reality is that the kind of major structural change that would be necessary in order to conquer the deficit and the debt

is not in this bill. And it's not going to be in any future bill until the American people actually shift their mindset about the deficit and the debt, which will require touching many of the entitlements that nobody apparently in either party actually has the desire to do. You've written before about touching means-tested welfare programs. Obviously, there's some of that happening with regard to Medicaid, as you mentioned, the idea that it actually should have to work

If you're an able-bodied person in order to receive Medicaid, the amount of work is something that's actually relatively negligible. It's like 80 hours a month, which is at best a kind of part-time job. But, you know, I think that when we see, you know, some of the fiscal hawks, people I agree with on principle,

maybe Thomas Massey or Chip Roy, talk about the idea that we're going to completely redo the way that spending is done in the country in this bill. I mean, what you're really talking about that's realistic is cuts around the margins. You're not really talking about getting to the heart of the matter because frankly, the American people and their elected representatives are not up for that at this point. So the question is, do you want your taxes to rise or do you not want them to rise? I think that's,

A great summary, actually. What we set out to do as fiscal hawks and members of the Budget Committee, certainly as the chair of the Budget Committee, was to say, look, we have to extend the tax cuts. We have to grow the economy. We have other pro-growth policies.

like the largest deployment of federal energy assets in the history of the country. So there's work incentives, tools to help the president deregulate this economy after trillions of dollars of regulations that have hamstrung mostly the medium and small businesses. So

Growth is a part of the equation to restoring fiscal health and bringing down the debt to GDP. And I think this bill will have a meaningful impact on our growth. But what we did from the outset is say, we're not just going to cut taxes and not offset the cost. There are not all tax cuts are created equally. And some tax cuts are created equally.

We'll return some revenue to the Treasury because of economic growth. Some won't. And then, of course, we do make the largest investment in strengthening our security, border security and defense. But we need to offset that. We need to be responsible. So this bill does those things on security, does those things to promote growth, but

but does not add to the deficit. In fact, modestly reduces the deficit over the 10-year budget window. And because of growth, reduces the debt to GDP by 10 percentage points. Again, Ben, this has to be...

done repeatedly for probably two decades. This is the same pattern or model for getting out of the debt hole after World War II. So it's going to take persistence and discipline, but we're cutting a path that hasn't been cut before, and we're doing it in a responsible way. And I'm very proud of this product. Not perfect, not far enough for a deficit hawk, but certainly a good, big, and meaningful step in the right direction.

So let's talk about the process from here. Obviously, let's assume that it passes through the lower house of Congress and now a version has to pass in the Senate. I mean, there's only a framework is my understanding in the Senate at this point. So they have to pass their own version of the bill. Then the two sides have to get together and negotiate what will be the final version of the bill that actually passes. There's pretty substantial objections in the Senate to many of the moves that are currently being made in the house. This is still a very complex process. What does the timeline look like?

The Senate says that they could get their work done by July 4th. I don't know if they will or not. I know this. They have a better chance of doing that because of the several months of work that has been put in this. By the way, long before President Trump was sworn in or we...

you know, we started this 119th Congress. So we're going to get this package done, whether we get it done this weekend or not, I think the chances are good. If not, it'll be soon thereafter. And if we get the product there in the Senate, I think they'll make some modifications, hopefully not material changes, and that will help expedite it to the president's desk. But I don't think they're going to get

much more in terms of deficit spending reduction. I don't think they're going to give away any more in terms of tax breaks for special interest. That's what I would put in the column for the SALT cap increase. And I don't know that they're going to be able to do any more than we're doing on the growth side. I think that's sort of been maximized. So I

The House is driving it. All of our work, I think, will help facilitate a seamless, relatively for Congress, seamless path to the president's desk. And then most importantly, making it a reality for the American people so that we truly make America safer and more prosperous again. And I think this bill will do that.

I was doing Congressman Jody Arrington, the House Budget Committee chairman. So Congressman Arrington, when you look at the possibility of passage, obviously there's going to have to be pressure brought to bear to make sure this gets over the finish line. President Trump was doing some of that yesterday, I think actually quite effectively. The markets have already priced in the passage of the bill. If this bill were to fail, if this were not to pass, the consequences could be pretty disastrous on the American economy, on investment, on everything else.

I think that's sort of the unspoken pressure here is that taxes and a massive tax increase in this sort of fragile economy that spells doom for a lot of folks.

Oh, it does. I couldn't agree more. I think CBO missed the mark again on predicting a 1.8% annual average GDP. That's the growth rate on average for the next 10 years, while assuming that the tax cuts would expire. The

The tax cuts expiring were a $4.5 trillion tax hike on the American people and our job creators would be devastating. We would certainly be in a recession. And we're talking about 26 million small businesses not getting the comparable treatment to the corporate rate that was reduced. We took their 20% deduction to 23%, but just on individual basis.

91% of the American people take the standard deduction. That would be cut in half. 45 million people get a child tax credit. That would be cut in half. On average, the American people would receive a 22% tax increase. So look, the bottom line is, as you said, and I think you said it well,

We've got to extend the tax cuts. We put a few more in place that are targeted on working people in this country. I think after about, I think it was a 20% regressive inflation tax over the last few years, that's appropriate. So it's about bringing the prices down. It's about getting our economy off high center. If you grow the economy, Ben, by one percentage point,

Over the next 10 years, over the budget window, we will reduce the deficit by $3 trillion. So it's important, again, that we get our economy growing, create those conditions, unleash prosperity, build on that, and

Also build the political will and the support from the American people to understand that all this, all these entitlements that are on auto spend that represent 90% of the increase in spending over the next 10 years that will drive us from World War II levels of debt to

$125 trillion on top of that, which is unsustainable, it's the biggest threat to the economy, to our security, to our global leadership, our children's future in the world. But we've got to sell that. We have to have the American people, as Abraham Lincoln said, if you have the public sentiment, you can do anything. If you don't, you can't do anything. And so we've got some work to do there. But again, we're starting to turn the battleship. This is a responsible bill I'm very proud of.

Well, that's Congressman Jody Arrington. Really appreciate your time, sir, and good luck on the bill.

Thank you, Ben. It's an honor to be with you. This is Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. Watch Parenting, available exclusively on Daily Wire Plus. We're dealing with misbehaviors with our son. Our 13-year-old throws tantrums. Our son turned to some substance abuse. Go to dailywireplus.com today. Alrighty, folks. Also on the line to discuss the big, beautiful bill, we have the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vogt. Director, thanks so much for joining the program. Really appreciate the time. Yeah, you bet. Thanks.

So let's talk about this bill. Obviously, there's been a lot of heartburn, particularly by fiscal hawks about this bill's suggestion that the bill doesn't do enough to cut the national deficit. It adds to the deficit or adds to the debt. What's the truth about that?

Well, I think, look, this is the most historic level of mandatory savings that we've had ever, $1.6 trillion. And just to give people a little bit of context, for 30 years, we've had virtually no efforts to cut mandatory savings, which are the things that are hardwired into permanent law, welfare benefits, things like Medicaid. And we've had

nothing of consequence since the 1997 balanced budget agreement, which included the work requirements with the Republican Congress and Bill Clinton. This bill essentially doubles that with $1.6 trillion, begins to have sizable savings to get illegal immigrants off of

Medicaid to have a work requirement in Medicaid to take those reforms from 1997 and apply them to more of the federal program to get people back into the labor force. So it does sizable things at the same time as being in addition to the economic growth that we think will come from this because

you know, my view as a budget guy, you can't cut spending if you don't have a growing economy. And so the last thing you want to do is not preserve these tax cuts, get them extended. That rule is really just what current law is. There's a unique thing in budget land where you allow for

programs to be permanent, but tax relief sunsets. So all that we're doing is extending what is essentially current law and then adding $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings. We think it's actually historic and something this town has even begun to approach. And we're working with members to be able to tell that story.

So, Director, one of the things that I think is kind of interesting about this debate is that many of the fiscal hawks seem to be railing against what the bill is not rather than what the bill is, meaning would it be great if the bill actually took on mandatory entitlement programs in a far bigger way that actually move towards solving our systemic national debt problem, which, of course, is going to accrue over the course of the next 10, 20 years? The cost curve is being bent here, but it's not being bent to the extent that it totally solves our national debt or deficit crisis. But of course,

It never was going to. The Republicans have a two vote majority, essentially, in the House. They have a three vote majority, if you include the vice president in the Senate. The sort of idea that there is going to be a widespread rejiggering of the entire way that America does its welfare state in this bill. I think that that is asking a little much. I assume that's why President Trump has been a little bit upset with, for example, Representative Thomas Massey, who's out there basically saying that unless we completely hamstring the entire welfare state, he's against.

Well, we definitely have very slim majorities, and this is what we believe that we can accomplish. And the way I look at it is we have had no successes at all for so many years. We've been living in this town and working and laboring fiscal conservatives all among us and had no victories. And this has massive victories, not just on the policy securing the border, national defense, the tax relief, but $1.6 trillion in real mandatory relief, not gimmicks.

And so our biggest problem, Ben, is that we have not been able to achieve any successes over 30 years. This one would, and it allows us to then go to the next vehicle and make more progress. And once you get in the business of having things that,

passed and are enacted into law, now you've got the country moving in the right direction and we can get more of the way down the road with regard to restoring our fiscal house to order. But I think you summed it up very, very, very importantly. This was not originally the debate to be able to fundamentally balance the budget. This was to figure out how much we could do on a critical leverage point to make sure that we weren't hurting

the fiscal situation and to make as much progress as we could. And we're trying to communicate, look, we've got a lot of different levers. We haven't even talked about what's happening in the appropriations process. We sent up a budget that is 20% below non-defense cut from last year, which is the lowest level since fiscal year 17. If you adjust for inflation, it's the lowest since 20,

since 2000. So that's something that you have to even, you have to zoom out to be able to look at what's going on here and tell that story about all the moving parts.

So, Director, one of the other things that you've been working on, obviously, is you've been working closely with Doge with regard to going through the federal government, looking for cuts, waste, fraud, abuse, restructuring of the administrative state. What are your goals there? What should we be looking for from Doge in the future? Obviously, the first few months, there's been a lot of action. It's kind of unclear how many of those cuts are going to be made permanent, what actually can be done just purely at the executive level, as opposed to requiring some sort of confirmation from Congress. What's your view on what Doge is capable of doing

In and of itself, what can be done just within the executive branch to stop spending, cut regulation, and what does require the help of Congress? Well, it depends on the specific funding that we're talking about. But we've identified $160 billion of waste, abuse, of reforms and savings that we are trying to make permanent. And so we will use the Impoundment Control Act, which Congress put in law in the 1970s. We're not big fans of it. We think it's unconstitutional. But there are

processes in place that allow us to be able to evade the filibuster in the Senate. And if we can get a majority vote on some of our rescissions bills, we're very happy to work with Congress. Our first rescissions bill on foreign aid and NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcast should go up very soon. And I think that's going to be passed. I really do. We're now also working to think through what are the other things that can go through the various features of the Impoundment Control Act.

at different parts of the year. And also impoundment continues to be on the table. Like we, 200 years of presidents had the ability to spend less than the congressional appropriation. The constitutional principle is that Congress puts that ceiling in, but it was never meant to be a floor. And in the aftermath of Watergate, the lowest point of the presidency, Congress stepped in and said, no, we're gonna make this a floor and we're gonna make it so if we give you $100 million for water,

apprenticeships and you feel like you could do it for 75 million, we're going to make you spend that extra 25 million. No one in the country operates that way. The country didn't operate that way for 200 years. We don't think it's the right way to approach the federal government from a separation of powers perspective. And that is very much on the table as we move forward with fiscal year 25. So you're asking the question in the middle of our back and forth with Congress, are you willing to pass our

recisions, we want to have that debate. If you're not, we're going to definitely keep these things, I call them executive tools, to reduce spending beneath the appropriation from Congress. Those are very much on the table.

Director, one of the other questions obviously that's arising right now, Moody's recently downgraded the American debt, basically suggesting that obviously many of the problems we're talking about are systemic and on into the future. The timing of that Moody's decision obviously may be politically suspect. Moody's is not known for being particularly apolitical. With that said, much of what you're worried about over at OMB is specifically that. You are worried about the long-term national debt. What do you think are the next steps beyond that?

this big, beautiful bill in the future for the rest of the Trump administration in terms of moving toward bringing America's fiscal house back toward order.

I think it's using every leverage point that we possibly can fiscally to make progress. And there's kind of some big the big moving parts are economic growth numbers, tariff revenues that are coming in. It's discretionary cuts that I just talked about. That hundred and sixty billion dollars in the first year over 10 years is four trillion dollars of the answer. And it's mandatory reforms. And so, you know, we need more than one point six trillion.

trillion, but 1.6 trillion is a sizable amount of what is needed to get us back towards balance. And so a combination of all of those different moving parts will get us there over time. We can do a lot of it executively. We're going to need Congress on, on more of these, uh,

particularly on the mandatory side of the reforms and the savings. And we'll just keep using leverage points to move forward. But I think when you look at what we've done on the tariffs, even what is already right now in place, not just kind of being negotiated as part of the reciprocal tariffs, those have sizable impact over 10 years that we never really assumed for in years past.

Well, that is the director of the Office of Management and Budget, one of the most transformative people in the American government, Russ Vogt. Really appreciate your time, sir. Thanks, Ben. Well, meanwhile, Elon Musk has now announced that he is likely to step back from his political involvement over the course of the next couple of years. He announced this at the Qatar Economic Forum in an interview with Bloomberg. Here was Elon Musk yesterday. I think in terms of political spending, I'm going to do a lot less in the future. And why is that? I think I've done enough.

Is it because of blowback? Well, if I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I do not currently see a reason.

Okay, so there are a couple of things that are happening here. One is that Elon happens to be correct, actually, that when he injects himself into any political controversy in, say, a purple state, it actually sometimes creates the opposite effect. So, for example, he spent an awful lot of money on a key Wisconsin Supreme Court race last month, but the negative publicity that emerged from him spending on that race actually may have outweighed the signal contribution that he made to the race.

When it comes to presidential races, obviously, that is a different thing. And Democrats have attacked Musk. They've attacked his businesses. It is not a great shock that he's moving out of that realm. Obviously, many of his major businesses have suffered as a result of his contribution to the public discourse, his involvement in Doge and all the rest. And this is a reminder that Democrats do not have the same incentive structure, that a lot of Democrats who have involved themselves, you know, we're talking about people in business at a very high level and continue to do so

volubly with huge amounts of money, and they've never received the kind of public blowback that Elon Musk has received for having gotten involved in the political arena in that way. Now, to be fair, Elon is obviously a lot more voluble than many of those other Democrats. Many of these Democrats are sort of behind the scenes contributing money. They're not out in front. They're not as publicly going out there and holding chainsaws or flamethrowers or anything like that.

However, it is a reminder that while the right will constantly say the legacy media are dead, the impact of the left dead, that is obviously not totally true. And we should keep an eye out for it in the future because the pressures that were unleashed on Elon Musk here are very much still in play for other corporate heads.

I think the right sometimes declares victory a little bit too early on fronts like this one. Meanwhile, all the controversy has not abated with regard to Joe Biden's health. We are now finding out from Joe Biden's team that his last known prostate cancer blood screening test, his last PSA, was performed in 2014.

2014. That's insane. I also am not sure I believe that. And the reason I don't believe that is because the Biden family has actually a pretty long and storied history of covering up actual cancer among members of its family. The new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson, Original Sin, which has a lot of fascinating parts of it. One of the parts of the book is a section where they talk about how the Biden family covered up Bose cancer, actually.

The book explains, quote, Bo's cancer treatment also demonstrated the Biden's capacity for denial and the lengths they would go to avoid transparency about health issues, even when the person in question is an elected official, in this case, the sitting attorney general of Delaware. So in summer of 2013, Bo Biden had surgery because he had a stage four tumor removed from his brain afterward. And he started looking very sick, obviously. He started looking very gaunt. In November 2013, Bo told a local reporter he had a clean bill of health after an exam.

He remained the sitting attorney general of Delaware for the entirety of 2014, even while the family was secretly flying him all over the country for a variety of experimental treatments. In April 2014, he began having difficulties with speech. He would often enter hospitals under an alias, George Lincoln. Apparently, Bo's wife's Hallie didn't like this, but Joe Biden insisted on it.

According to the book, making it public likely would have led people to rally around the family who's an elected official. But both Biden and Bo opposed the disclosure. At times, Biden also instructed his team to mislead the media about his whereabouts. They would publicly say the vice president was going to Delaware for the weekend, then returning to D.C. the next week. That was technically true. But sometimes Biden flew to Houston, where Bo was receiving treatment to be with his eldest son over the weekend.

That, again, all the questions that are being asked right now about the coverup of Joe Biden's health are perfectly legitimate. Like every single bit of it is perfectly legitimate. Do I believe that he just found out about his cancer last week? I have a very difficult time believing that. Why in the world would his last PSA be in 2014, 11 years ago in the interim, he was vice president of the United States and president of the United States.

And by the way, these sort of old guidance that you don't bother doing PSAs for older people because the cancer develops so slowly that if they're really old, they probably die of old age before the cancer kills them. The rates of survival of prostate cancer have increased dramatically over the course of the last 30, 40 years. And so, you know, my parents, my dad, obviously, as he gets older, he has a routine prostate exam and routine PSA, obviously, as he should.

It is ridiculous not to. And when you're talking about the vice president and president of the United States, why would you not? Why would you not? This is insane. Well, Tapper and Thompson are making the rounds. And Tapper and Thompson said yesterday that even Biden's top aides were astonished by the fact that the media were so complicit in the cover up.

And Alex and I are here to say that conservative media was right and conservative media was correct. And that there should be a lot of soul searching, not just among me, but among the legacy media to begin with, all of us, for how this was covered or not covered sufficiently. 100%. So, I mean, I'm not here to defend coverage that I've already acknowledged. I wish I could do differently.

And that was on Megyn Kelly's show. Megyn really held Jake's feet to the fire with regard to his coverage of Joe Biden's health conditions, suggesting that he should have done more. And Tapper himself acknowledged that he certainly should have done more. And that goes to deeper questions about why the legacy media were so complicit in Biden's health cover up when it was perfectly obvious to everyone with the naked eye that Joe Biden was in the middle of a health decline. Would they have been quite as conciliatory to the Trump administration if Trump were in the middle of a of a real health collapse?

Well, according to Tapper, the person driving the decision making in the White House was Hunter Biden, which is just insane. That's just crazy towns. If you're wondering who the real president was, the answer was combo of Jill and Hunter appears to be the answer. Here was Jake Tapper explaining.

How big a factor was the Hunter stuff? I think it was considerable. I think Hunter was driving the decision making for the family in a way that people he was almost like a chief of staff of the family. Does that strike you as pretty bizarre? It's bizarre because I think he is provably, demonstrably unethical, sleazy and prone to horrible decisions. Tell me how you really feel. Yeah.

Well, I mean, I just look at the record. I mean, after his brother died, he cheated on his wife with his brother's widow and then got her addicted to crack. That's just one thing I could say. I mean, I don't have a lot of personal regard for him. And just based on having nothing to do with, I barely have ever met him. I've met him like once or twice.

But but I knew Bo. Bo was a great, upstanding guy. I knew him, too. Really a real loss for the country, too. Not just for his family, for the country. But Hunter is not that. And the idea of letting him drive the family car, as it were, is just really, really questionable.

Okay, so again, all this was out there. The big unanswered question, of course, that we all know the answer to is why didn't the media cover it better? The answer is because they wanted Joe Biden to win. What's amazing is watching some of the left-wing members of the media not do what Jake Tapper is doing. Tapper, at least, is doing a mea culpa. Jake is at least going out there and saying, yeah, I should have covered this better. My mistake. And again, you can take or leave the...

You can either take it or leave it, what he's saying, but at least he is saying the thing. That is not the case with, say, Joe Scarborough. Joe Scarborough, like a couple of weeks before Joe Biden went on national TV and died, said that Joe Biden was at his best ever and you were crazy if you didn't think so. He is still kind of holding by that now, which is just wild. In fact, when I finished talking to Biden on, I guess it was 22, late 22nd,

I hung up the phone and I said to me, I go, you don't have dementia. Whoa. Because again, it was not just cogent. It was a better really analysis of the situation than I'd heard from

From most people, unless it was, let's say it was Chairman McCaul or somebody running a permanent committee. And you're confident if someone heard the audio of that conversation, they would come away with the same conclusion. Oh my God, yeah. Anybody, anybody, anybody. But looking back at that, do you say, well, it was misleading to say best Biden ever without caveating and say, except on the days when he's not the best Biden ever?

Well, but I never saw those days personally. Well, you did. You did because you saw him address a dead congresswoman and you saw him in South Carolina. A dead congresswoman, yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Well, more than that. I mean, I can show you the RNC clip reels. There were plenty of days in public when he when he was not the best Biden ever. And of course, he stumbled and he stumbled. He stumbled and bumbled around, Mark. I mean, yeah, he he certainly did. Donald Trump did. Other politicians did. But but but it and it's actually the same case as a lot of times when I've gone in and talked to Donald Trump. Oh, no. Oh, no. Again, like.

Am I allowed to ask about bias now? I mean, now we all know. Like, really? Seriously? Again, when people change their opinions based on new facts or when they apologize for screwing it up in the first place, that is better than this. Whoopi Goldberg, by the way, continues to claim that there was no way, there were no outside indicators that Joe Biden was ever in decline, except for your own eyes, lady. Here she was. Listen.

He's 83. So he's a little stumbly. He's a little rumbly. I can't point to anything that he's done as president, that he did. No, he's been running for the next four years. But I'm saying, I want, not you, but I want somebody to tell me, well, when did you know it was bad? When did I know that it was bad? When I watched him do things. That is the answer to that question. That's when we all knew that it was bad.

Come on. Come on. But the deeper the Democrats dig this hole, the harder it's going to be for them to get out of it. They really should just say we were wrong. We thought he could get through it. We thought maybe he would recover. It was a cover up. Our bad. That's the that's the best they can do. Seriously. But they're not actually doing it again. Just another reason I should point out why I think AOC continues to do well in the polling, because AOC is sort of outside the Democratic Party.

I've cited Matt Continetti, the political commentator to the point before that people who tend to be successful electorally in presidential politics first run against their own party and then only afterwards they run in a general. AOC is well positioned to do that. She's sort of from the Bernie Sanders wing, certainly not inside the Biden wing. Well, apparently a brand new coefficient survey conducted May 7th to May 9th found that 26% identified Ocasio-Cortez as the face of the Democratic Party. 26% said

said there is no one currently leading the party. 22% chose other. Ocasio-Cortez was ahead of the second place finisher. That second place finisher was Bernie Sanders, who is likely to be her supporter. Jasmine Crockett placed third in the survey with 8%. All these so-called establishment Democrats are stuck 6, 5, 4%. Cory Booker, despite his bizarre Mr. Potato Head routine on the Senate floor, is stuck at 4%.

I think people are underestimating AOC at their own peril. And let's be real about this. Democrats right now are complaining about AOC will get behind her if they are forced to do so. James Carville, who is way too smart to get behind the sort of AOC bizarro wing party, he says that he would back AOC.

I don't think the party is in near as bad shape as it's being portrayed to be. We lost the election. I don't like the party. I don't blame the party reputation for being low. But I think if AOC wants to run for president, she gets to nominate, and God bless you, you are the leader of the Democratic Party. Whoever gets that nomination is going to be it. That's all I'm waiting for.

You know, it's going to if they can't stand the way AOC, it's gonna be very difficult for them to stop her. She's got one entire lane of the Democratic Party to herself, that far left lane. She's got huge name recognition. She's got Bernie Sanders' base of support. She's probably got finance from that wing of the party. Everybody on the right is very sanguine about this, by the way. Oh, we'll definitely beat AOC.

I'd just like to recall a person named Barack Obama who was running against the establishment Democrat, Hillary Clinton, and ended up being a two-term president. So don't be sanguine about anything, I think should be the message of the last 20 years in American politics at the very, very least.

Meanwhile, the Europeans are apparently angry at Israel for trying to destroy Hamas. That continues to be the pattern. That's nothing new, by the way. The Europeans were very angry at Israel for surviving the 1973 war. They were angry at Israel for attacking the OCRock reactor. They've been historically angry at Israel for defending itself. Now, the British government, which, again, is subject to a very large Muslim population and also is very left-wing government, and the French government, run by the absolutely ridiculous and

politically vile Emmanuel Macron is also calling on Israel to stop its final moves against Hamas in the Gaza Strip, despite the fact that Hamas is not surrendering the hostages and continues to wield enough authority in the Gaza Strip to kill people who oppose it. The same from the Canadians. None of this is a giant shock.

According to the EU, EU foreign policy chief Kaha Kalas announced that the bloc of 27 countries would begin a formal review of its trade accord with Israel. A huge majority, Kalas said, of EU foreign ministers backed a proposal to reconsider the deal, which includes provisions on international human rights law. A spokesperson for Israel's foreign ministry said that this reflects a total misunderstanding of the complex reality Israel is facing. Now,

To be fair, part of this is Israel's fault. Israel should have moved faster. We are now 19 months in to the October 7th war.

Israel should not have had itself stopped by the Biden administration. Certainly since President Trump took over, they should have moved faster in Gaza. They should move fast now. The reality is that large swaths of the West do not understand how war works. They do not understand what Hamas is. They do not understand the notion of trade-offs. They don't understand that war is necessarily ugly, particularly when one of those sides is a terrorist regime hell-bent on civilian casualties and holding hostages. That's just the reality of the situation. Israel should have moved faster. But now, given the situation,

Should Israel finish the job or should they leave Hamas in control with hostages under their control? What exactly is the alternative being posed by the EU? The EU, of course, has always been an organization filled with foreign policy cowards. So that, of course, is no shock. By the way, it is worth noting here that while the EU is considering sanctioning Israel, essentially, for finishing off a terrorist group in the Gaza Strip, the EU is trying to lift sanctions on Syria, which is run by a literal honest-to-God terrorist group backed by the Turkish government.

that just a few weeks ago we were discussing was trying to slaughter the Druze and not just a few Christians, apparently. And so the EU is like, no sanctions on the Syrian terrorist group, sanctions on Israel, which I think shows you exactly where their head is at.

Pretty amazing stuff from the EU, but I would expect nothing more and nothing less. All right, folks, the show is continuing for our members right now. We are going to get to the beautiful relationship between Bill Belichick and Jordan Hudson. And we have new details from the New York Times, just beautiful and inspiring details of a wonderful relationship. Remember, in order to watch, you do have to be a member. If you're not a member, become a member. Use code Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.