Tariffs: Angels & Demons urging either a Massive-Free-Trade Victory or Perpetual Trade Barriers & Taxes
36:29 Share

It's spring savings at Bray and Scarf. Going on now with huge savings throughout the store. Save up to 30% on select GE profile and cafe appliances. You can also save on in-stock GE profile refrigerators and best-selling washers. Shop local and save now during spring savings at Bray and Scarf. Visit any of their convenient locations or shop online at BrayandScarf.com where it doesn't cost more to get more.

Something unexpected happened after Jeremy Scott confessed to killing Michelle Schofield in Bone Valley Season 1. Every time I hear about my dad, it's, oh, he's a killer. He's just straight evil. I was becoming the bridge between Jeremy Scott and the son he'd never known. At the end of the day, I'm literally a son of a killer. Listen to new episodes of Bone Valley Season 2 starting April 9th on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome, it is Verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you as always. And Senator, it's nice to be back in the studio with you. You've been traveling like crazy. You guys have been really busy in Washington and adding some days onto the work week as well. We're finally back here together. We've got a big show. So is something going on in Washington? Right, exactly. You know, there's an old Chinese curse. May you live in interesting times. We certainly live in those. Donald Trump has hit the White House with...

speed and fury and velocity. There's never been anything like it. There's never been a president like this in the first hundred days. Last week, obviously, the president announced on April 2nd tariffs on just about every country on earth, the highest tariff level since 1933.

It is a big, big deal. Every nation across the globe is reeling. They're all trying to figure out what do we do about it? The stock market, the stock market collapsed. It went into free fall. Six trillion dollars evaporated in 48 hours. Now, Monday, everyone's wondering how's the market going to open Monday morning. But there's a lot of concern that the market isn't done going down. And the question is, where do we go from here?

And I'll tell you, the reason President Trump is doing this is important. The reason President Trump is doing this is that we've seen over the last 50 years a hollowing out of manufacturing in America. We've seen what used to be the heart of the American middle class, the heart of blue collar jobs disappear.

Going away, being pulled abroad, going overseas, and the industrial Midwest just being utterly decimated.

by good paying jobs leaving America. And President Trump was elected for many things, but heart and center to fight for bringing those jobs back. That's right at the core of this, bringing those jobs back to America. But there is now a very active debate within the White House. Which direction do we go next? Do we use this as leverage to lower other countries' tariffs and then lower our own tariffs to reflect that?

Or do we leave these tariffs up forever and ever and ever? And I'll tell you, there are different advisors in the White House. There are angels and demons on each of President Trump's shoulders urging him, use them as leverage or keep them forever. We're going to break down that debate.

and what the consequences are for you, what it means for you if these tariffs are used as leverage to lower the tariffs of our trading partners, and what it means for you if these tariffs are simply a permanent economic feature of America.

We're also going to talk about nationwide injunctions. Nationwide injunctions we have seen in the last three months. It is the new incarnation of lawfare. It is how the left is attacking Donald Trump. They are filing lawsuits. They are looking for left-wing radical judges who are issuing nationwide injunctions to stop the president's agenda. We had a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week on exactly this topic. We're going to take you there and talk about what the problem is and what the solution should be.

Yeah, it's going to be very interesting. I also want to talk to you real quick about the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. Israel is still under attack. Missile fire has resumed from the Houthis, from Hezbollah and Hamas. Enemies seeking Israel's destruction. Here in America, we cannot imagine living under constant threat of terrorism and rocket attacks.

This is the reality in Israel. Parents taking their kids to school, falling to the ground to lay on top of their small children, trying to comfort them as sirens blare. The next attack against Israel is happening now with little time to prepare. And that's why your help is needed right now. The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews is helping provide life-saving aid and security essentials.

And your urgently needed gift today will help provide security essentials like bomb shelters, flak jackets, and bulletproof vests for first responders. They're also providing armored security vehicles, armored ambulances, and so much more. So if you're proud to stand with Israel, you can make your gift right now by calling 888-488-IFCJ. That's 888-488-IFCJ.

4-3-2-5 or online. It's easy to give by going to supportifcj.org. That's one word, supportifcj.org. Now, Senator, I have a very important question, a big question before we get into all the politics.

There's a game that's happening on Monday, and your hometown team is in that game. How excited are you to see Houston make it through the Final Four of the championship game? Look, the Cougars, they played incredibly against Duke. They were underdogs against Duke. It was a great victory. We're now in the finals tonight. I got to say, Houston is going to win tonight, is going to beat Florida. Florida played well. They had a tough game against Auburn and managed to just scrape it out.

Florida is a good team, but they don't have what it takes to beat Houston. Houston's defense is too stifling. I'm going to call it.

Houston by six. Houston by six. I like the bull prediction. Well done. All right. So let's talk about tariffs. You and I, we did a show on Friday. It was a show that a lot of people listened to. It actually kind of went viral over the weekend as well. People just want to know what is going to happen this week. Next week, there's concern. There's the stress, anxiety, watching the market. But there's also something that's happening right now that's very interesting.

Countries are lining up to meet with the Trump administration. Vietnam is apparently at the front of the line. They sent an emergency delegation to the U.S. They want to get a deal done as fast as they possibly can. And now we're hearing there's dozens and dozens of other countries are saying, hey, we want to talk, too.

Now, there is an historic opportunity here. And if the White House capitalizes on this opportunity, it could prove to be one of the most significant, one of the most powerful moments for U.S. economic interest for American workers this country has ever seen. Right now, every country that is on the receiving end of these tariffs, they're freaking out. They're panicking.

This is a great opportunity to engage in. Let's make a deal here. Listen to Kevin Hassett, who is the head of the National Economic Council, describing how countries are coming to the White House right now.

I got a report from the USTR last night that more than 50 countries have reached out to the president to begin a negotiation. But they're doing that because they understand that they bear a lot of the tariff. More than 50 countries, and that's just in a few days. And listen, I've had a lot of countries that are reaching out, talking to my office, and my advice to them is go cut a deal.

Go cut a deal. And the front half of your deal needs to be the tariffs that we've imposed against U.S. goods, against U.S. crops, against U.S. livestock, against U.S. cars, against U.S. manufacturing, against U.S. services. All of those tariffs we are going to slash. If we see Vietnam came in, Israel has come in, Israel and Vietnam were right at the front. But, you know, it's interesting.

Vietnam is a country that is worth talking about a little bit because we have a very significant trade deficit with Vietnam. Yeah. Do you know why? Why is that? Because America is winning. Why do we have a big trade deficit with Vietnam? Because most of that manufacturing used to be in China. And what happened is America, starting under President Trump, leaned on manufacturers and said, move your manufacturing out of China.

And so a whole bunch of them moved them out of China and went to Vietnam. So Vietnam was doing what we asked them to. We asked, hey, can you take on this manufacturing instead of China? And there was a massive move of American companies that pulled manufacturing out of China and moved it to Vietnam. Look, everything we do to de-link from China is a good thing. So moving those jobs out of China was a terrific victory. And it was a victory for President Trump. It was the Trump administration that urged China

move those jobs to Vietnam. Now, Vietnam suddenly has a big trade deficit because all those jobs came out of China to Vietnam. And now Vietnam has a massive tariff that was levied on it by President Trump. The question is, are they going to work a deal where they lower barriers on both sides? I hope they will. But there's another path. Listen, there are voices in the White House.

who simply believe in tariffs as a permanent feature of the U.S. economy. There are voices in the White House that want these high tariffs to be in place in six months, in a year, in two years, in five years, in 10 years, that they want tariffs to be the main source of economic revenue for the federal government. That is a very different philosophy. And this is one of the things that

I'll tell you within the Senate with my colleagues, a lot of us are debating, OK, how much of this is leverage to get great deals from other countries? And how much of this is what you said, economic revenue for the government? And by the way, you know, you get some people that talk about, well, we'll do tariffs instead of the income tax.

And I got to say, that sort of reminds me of the old cartoon Popeye. Yeah. And, you know, I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today. I'm like, well, wait a second. The last I checked, we still have the income tax and we have these tariffs. That's just a ton more taxes. If you want to get rid of the income tax, then we can talk. But I don't see anyone proposing getting rid of the income tax. And so at the end of the day, in my view, if the outcome from these tariffs is,

is really high tariffs from every country on earth against American goods and really high tariffs from America against goods from every other country on earth. That is going to be really bad for Texas and really bad for America.

Let's talk about momentum. You mentioned the people coming to the table, and you heard there in that comment, 50 nations are now lining up. You and I both know that one of the things Donald Trump does really well is the art of the deal and loves when there's something to celebrate celebrating it. Yes. I see in our near future, Vietnam, America, on stage, White House, we got a historic deal done, and that's where that move goes. So what I'm urging is for the president

to come and make major deals and make them quickly. Look, to calm the stock market down, a few major deals quickly would really, really help. I would love it if this week, this week we had an announcement from the president, this major country came in, they offered huge concessions, they slashed their tariffs, and we're slashing ours. That would be a great outcome.

And that's momentum building as well. Look, the stock market has a psychology to it. People start saying it's a bear market. People start saying we're going into a recession. That feeds upon itself. That means people are less willing to invest money. They're less willing to take risks. And so it is important for people to see the real tangible victories coming from this. And those victories are not just cash. One of the things you're hearing the White House say is, well, look at all the revenue we're getting from tariffs.

That's not actually bringing jobs back to America, getting those tariffs. That's just raising prices. And if the immediate effect for voters of these tariffs is serious inflation because the cost of what they're buying is going up, I mentioned on Friday's podcast how one of the big three American auto manufacturers told me last week the effect of this tariff is they would increase the cost of the cars they sell by $4,500 a car.

It's a lot of money to average Americans. That is a lot of money. That is a big hit. And so we've got to see the upside. We've got to see the benefit. Look, one upside. Right now, Europe has a 10% tariffs on American cars.

And prior to April 2nd, America had a 2% tariff on European cars. Yeah. Now, I can tell you the Europeans are already back channeling. They are already putting on the table zero and zero. They'll take their 10% to zero. We take our 2% to zero. And cars go back and forth from Europe and America without a tariff. That deal is there. The president could announce it this week.

That's a major victory. Getting rid of those tariffs in Europe is a major victory. But it is important. So they're different voices. So, for example, one of the voices speaking out is Elon Musk. We had Elon on the podcast. Elon said last week, here's what he told Reuters. U.S. tech billionaire Elon Musk said on Saturday he hoped in the future to see complete freedom of trade between the United States and Europe, speaking days after President Donald Trump announced tariffs on trading partners.

Musk, a Trump advisor, has been working to eliminate wasteful U.S. public spending, spoke via video link at a Congress in Florence of Italy's right wing co-ruling party, co-ruling League Party. Quote, this is from Musk, quote, At the end of the day, I hope it's agreed that both Europe and the United States should move ideally, in my view, to a zero tariff situation, effectively creating a free trade zone between Europe and North America.

So when I talked about angels and demons, Elon is one of the angels. This is a good, good voice that is focused on U.S. jobs that I hope the president is listening to. I hope the president is listening to Elon Musk. President Trump has an historic opportunity. The leverage right now is massive. The question is, will the White House make the decision to use that leverage to try to lower foreign tariffs? I'll mention something else.

very good friend of mine, works in finance, very smart financier, suggested an idea for how to use this leverage and get even more of a win-win, which is he said, look, here's the problem. Let's say you're an American company or you're a foreign company and you've got a factory somewhere. You've got a factory abroad. You've got a factory in Vietnam. You've got a factory anywhere other than the U.S. And you're contemplating, do I move the factory to the United States?

The problem with that decision making is that move takes years. Yeah. You can't do it instantaneously. Even if you decide today, OK, let's build it in America. In a lot of places, just the permitting

It takes years to get a factory permitted, much less built. By the way, that's why everyone should come to Texas. If you're going to build a factory, come to Texas. Amen to that. Because we'll permit it fast. If you go to California, you deserve what you get. Come to Texas. You should turn that into like a public service announcement, right? Like you go there, you get what you deserve. You want to get into business, Texas is the place to come. I will tell you as an aside, several years ago, a CEO came and met with me in D.C. and he was thinking of opening a new factory.

And he was looking at Texas. He was looking at California. And he said, all right, well, tell me in Texas, what do you give me to go to Texas? And I said, not a damn thing. I said, but we won't tax you to death. We won't regulate you to death. And we won't allow lawsuits just to tear you apart. And I said, you know what? If you go to California, you deserve what you get. So that being said, let's say you're a big car company and you're trying to decide where do I put my next car factory?

Just the process of getting it permanent, getting it built, putting the equipment in, that takes a minimum of two, three, four, five years. That's just how long it takes. Wow. So the problem for your decision making is if you're looking at this, if you're doing it based on the Trump tariffs, you don't know how long they'll be in place. Sure. You're trying to look at the math. Right.

You don't know, A, is Trump going to lift them in a deal where you may make a decision for the tariffs and then suddenly the tariffs aren't there anymore and the math changes pretty substantially. Or B, at a minimum, in three and a half years, Trump is not going to be president. So you don't know if the next president is going to keep the tariffs or eliminate the tariffs. So the problem is, by the time you opened your factory... Completely different group could be in charge. So the idea that my buddy from the finance world came up with...

is for the president to announce a fund, an InvestUSA fund, that individual CEOs could make it a commitment. Let's say you're the CEO of Mercedes-Benz, that you could make a commitment, we are going to open three new factories in America, all in Texas. We're going to open three new factories in America, and we're going to invest $100 billion in building these factories.

Now, the piece that is – look, that has some teeth to what my friend suggested. Look, you can make that announcement. You can put out a press release. And by the way, if circumstances change, you never spend the $100 billion. It doesn't actually arrive. The idea is you're the CEO of Mercedes-Benz. You announced three new factories, $100 billion. You deposit the $100 billion in the fund, the Invest America Fund.

You actually spend the money on the front end. Now, two things happen when you invested in the Invest America Fund. Number one, the United States earns interest on the money while it's sitting there. So it's benefiting the U.S. just from the interest. If you leave it there, we'll get interest while it's there. But number two, as long as you have that money on the fund, you get a credit that you can use against your tariffs.

Maybe it's a one to one credit. Maybe it's a two to one credit. But it's economically you create an incentive to put the money there for CEOs to to invest in America, to create jobs in America and to actually deploy the cash. Because if you make the credit on the tariffs only dependent on the dollars actually being in the fund.

Let's say you give a two to one credit. So so one hundred dollars deposit in the funds gets you a two hundred dollar credit on your tariffs. Yeah, that's pretty economically compelling to lean in and invest. And what we want to see is what President Trump talks about a lot, a golden age in manufacturing where companies are profoundly incentivized to invest in America, not only to grow, but to stay here. So we don't have to worry about them leaving in the future. Yes. Yes. And if that happens,

That has some real potency, an idea like that. But if the solution is simply let's go back to the world in 1900 when you had really high tariffs, when you had –

1933, you had Smoot-Hawley. That played a major role in the Great Depression. When you put up walls, it hurts America. We compete very well on the global level. We just need to make sure we're competing fairly. And I think the president has real leverage to do that right now if he's listening to the angels and not the voices in his administration that are saying more tariffs, more tariffs, higher tariffs forever.

Something unexpected happened after Jeremy Scott confessed to killing Michelle Schofield in Bone Valley Season 1. I just knew him as a kid. Long, silent voices from his past came forward. And he was just staring at me. And they had secrets of their own to share. Gilbert came. I'm the son of...

I was no longer just telling the story. I was part of it. I was becoming the bridge between a killer and the son he'd never known. I never expected to find myself in this place.

Now, I need to tell you how I got here. At the end of the day, I'm literally a son of a killer. Bone Valley, Season 2. Jeremy. Jeremy, I want to tell you something. Listen to new episodes of Bone Valley, Season 2, starting April 9th on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. And to hear the entire new season ad-free with exclusive content starting April 9th, subscribe to Lava for Good Plus on Apple Podcasts.

Let me ask you a final question on this, and you talk about the two different viewpoints here. There is a real debate. I'm having it with friends. I'm having it with colleagues. I mean, I've witnessed this on TV. There is, like you said, this core idea that there should always be tariffs. I've heard people talking about a great example is China. We should always be at 20% or 30% or 40%, whatever that number is. And there's others saying, no, you use this as leverage, you get the better deal now, and then you have the market stabilize and people understand what the new norm is.

That seems to be what you're advocating for, which is let the market know, the CEOs know, the people that are deploying their dollars to decide what they're going to do next. Give them whatever the new normal is going to be so that we can move forward. Is that fair? You've got to have some modicum of certainty because if there's uncertainty, business doesn't invest. No one invests if they don't know what the rules are going to be. If it's chaos, they sit on their cash and you don't have jobs.

We want people to feel confident. And by the way, chaos under Biden came from regulatory chaos of new and job killing regulations, one after the other, after the other. But if if there is uncertainty, uncertainty is an enemy of investment. And that means it's an enemy of jobs. So some limited uncertainty can be helpful to incentivize a deal. But we need to get to a deal, a predictable outcome. And I will say, listen, China is different.

I am actually quite fine with tariffs against China.

Because I think de-linking from China, their economy, they have us in a position where they are single greatest geopolitical threat. They are utilizing that economic interconnection as leverage against America. And so I think everything we can do to move, moving those jobs from China to Vietnam is a good move, is an important move. And moving them from China to Mexico, that's a good move. Moving them from China to America is a good move. But everything we can do to de-link

from China makes sense. It's not just trade. It's also national security implications, right? And I want a bonus question. I think a lot of people, when you mention this is a different mentality with China and tariffs are good there, I agree with you.

My reason for it is a lot of national security reasons. I think that's something that's not been talked about as much. Give me your thoughts on that quickly so people understand the national security aspect of this. So look, we saw in the middle of COVID how much our critical supply chains were dominated by China. China is fighting a thousand year war against the United States. When I arrived in the Senate 13 years ago, I said China is the single greatest geopolitical threat America is facing for the next hundred years.

When I started saying that, almost nobody in the Senate agreed with me. All the Democrats disagreed and most of the Republicans disagreed. Most of the Republicans looked at China and they just saw dollar signs as far as the eye can see. A lot more people's eyes have opened up to the threat China poses today. And I think COVID did an awful lot of that. You know, in the middle of the COVID pandemic,

There was one major Chinese state-owned newspaper that advocated cutting off life-saving pharmaceutical drugs manufactured in China from going to America because we've allowed much of our pharmaceutical drug industry to be manufactured in China. And they were literally threatening to take away heart medicine and cancer medicine and diabetes medicine from Americans who needed to live. That underscored this is stupid to let a communist government who is our enemy

be in charge of our health in that way. Likewise, critical minerals, critical minerals. China has a stranglehold on the production of critical minerals, which are essential for semiconductors and electronics and for defense and for all sorts of we need to move all of that out of China. We need to be able to stand on our own. And I got to say, President Trump has been really effective focusing on that threat. We need to accelerate the delinking from China.

Another threat, and it's not been covered in the news the way that it should have because we've been dealing with this. Obviously, we led with this issue because it's very important, but it's judicial activism that's having a major impact on this administration. And in a shocking way, I would even say historic way, when you look at the numbers, you're

you're dealing with this now in the Senate with these judges that are basically going to be activists, but their injunctions are having a hold nationwide. A lot of people didn't even know that was a possibility. Is it an abuse of power? Is there a check and balance that we need to have on that? Let's dive into that as well. So it's an absolute abuse of power. It is worse than it has ever been. We have seen against Donald Trump in the first two months of his administration more nationwide injunctions issued against President Trump

than in the entirety of the George W. Bush administration, all eight years, the entirety of the Barack Obama administration, all eight years, the entirety of the Joe Biden administration, all four years. More in two months than in those 20 years. Two months and 20 years. You say it, you said it quickly. I want people to just pause and think about how much of an abuse of power there has to be if they're doing it that much. Like, this is deliberate. Well, and listen to Attorney General Pam Bondi talk about this. The president...

The president is going to comply with the law. He was overwhelmingly elected by an overwhelming majority of the United States citizens to be our commander in chief. And that's what he's been doing. Shannon, just since January 20th, we've had over 170 lawsuits filed against us. That should be the constitutional crisis right there.

50 injunctions, they're popping up every single day trying to control his executive power, trying to control where he believes our tax dollars should be allocated. And saying he won by an overwhelming majority is so important because that's what the American people want.

what President Trump campaigned on and what he won on. And he's implementing that agenda at a rapid speed. None of us can keep up with him every single day. And so it's just we're going after all of these lawsuits. We're defending them all. We just got a great win and we'll continue to fight.

I talked to a judge this week and he described it this way because I was wanting to understand this subject. Obviously, we were going to talk about it. It's important. We haven't dealt with this a lot. He said, in essence, what the court's doing, Ben, is they are doing a coup against Donald Trump by neutering him. Yep.

with his agenda. And he said, that is not how the Constitution was set up. Like, you should not be able to neuter a president this way, saying, we know you won. We know the American people support you. They voted for you. But we're not going to let you do what you're supposed to do as president anyway. Well, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden put left-wing radicals on the courts. And then this is Democrat state attorneys general and left-wing radical groups saying,

going and seeking out these radical judges, many of whom, by the way, used to work for the groups that are suing. I mean, it is fundamentally corrupt, and it is one judge. Normally a judge has the authority over the parties before him or her. But these judges are issuing nationwide orders trying to stop everything President Trump is trying to do. We had a hearing of the Judiciary Committee last week on this that was focusing on the threat of

to democracy and the rule of law from these nationwide injunctions. Here's what I had to say at the hearing. It's long been said that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. I have to admit, I'm enjoying listening to my Democrat colleagues suddenly discover the virtues of the rule of law. After four years where they brazenly supported the most lawless Department of Justice and the most politically weaponized Department of Justice our nation has ever seen.

We just heard the senator from Rhode Island talk about the imperative of protecting judges.

And yet not a single Democrat senator cared about the violent protesters that showed up outside Supreme Court justices' homes, including, I might note, female justices like Justice Amy Coney Barrett, threatening their family. And Joe Biden's attorney general didn't do a damn thing and refused to enforce the law to protect those judges. Why? Because he agreed with the violent protesters and he wanted to intimidate and threaten those judges. Professor Bray, under our Constitution,

Who should decide elections, the voters or unelected judges? The voters are the ones who should vote in the election according to the laws, and the laws sometimes have to be applied by the judges if they're a case of... And under our Constitution, who is charged with making policy decisions, elected representatives, elected by the people, or unelected federal judges?

I think the question of policy, Senator, is a little broader than the particular case. So the basic law should be enacted by Congress. That's where the fountain of law is. Policy decisions are the elected branches. Law is the province of the court. Policy is the province of the elected branches. These are not complicated. Professor Bray, let me ask you this. Do the federal courts have power to issue remedies for people who are not parties to a case? That's a question I agree is not complicated. They do not have that power.

Is the phrase nationwide injunction or universal injunction found anywhere in the Constitution? It is not. First chart. In the first 150 years of our republic, how many nationwide injunctions were issued? My view is that there were not any until 1963. Zero. Now fast forward. How many nationwide injunctions were issued in the entire 20th century? It's a small number. I would think it would be a dozen, give or take. It's not large.

27, actually. Excluding Trump's first term, how many nationwide injunctions were issued in the last 20 years? Far more than that. 32. From 2001 to 2024 against Biden, Obama and Bush, 32. And how many nationwide injunctions have been issued in the last two months alone? There have been quite a few. 37. Let that sink in.

There have been more nationwide injunctions in the past two months against President Trump than in the entire 20th century. There have been more nationwide injunctions against President Trump in the last two months than both terms of George W. Bush, both terms of Barack Obama and Joe Biden's term. We saw during the Biden presidency lawfare, indicting President Trump four times,

using the machinery of justice to attack him, and that was an attack on democracy. Because Democrats today hate democracy. Democrats today are angry at the voters for re-electing Donald Trump and electing a Republican Senate and a Republican House, and they engaged in lawfare to stop democracy from operating. Understand, this is the second phase of lawfare. Second chart. This is the second phase of lawfare.

Now that their efforts to indict President Trump and stop the voters from re-electing him have failed, they're going and seeking out individual radical judges to try to shut down policies, and they are forum shopping like crazy. Give me any loon judge put on the bench by Obama or Biden who disagrees with a policy. We just saw a judge flagrantly ignore U.S. immigration law concerning...

TPS being revoked, U.S. law explicitly said there's no judicial review for that, but hey, they found a judge who says, you know what? We, the Democrat Party, we are the party of illegal aliens. We are the party of murderers and rapists and gang members, and the Democrat Party exists here to fight to keep murderers and rapists and gang members in your communities. There's a reason the Democrat Party is at 26% approval nationwide.

because they put radical policies ahead of rule of law. Nationwide injunctions are an abuse of power.

It is the judiciary acting as policy deciders, and it is incumbent on this committee and this body to rein in the abuse of power from these unelected radical judges who are trying to overturn the election because they disagree with what the voters decided. So here's my question. You just teased at the end, and that is it's our job to look at reining them in.

How long does that take? Can it be done through legislation? What are the options here and how quick can we get this under control? Well, it could be done quickly. There's legislation. In fact, there's legislation we were talking about at that hearing that Chuck Grassley's introduced and I'm a co-sponsor of that would remove the power of a district judge to issue nationwide injunctions. I think that makes an awful lot of sense.

Is that going to pass? Probably not, because for it to pass in the Senate would take 60 votes, which would mean we would need seven Democrats to support it. Every Democrat...

They're enthusiastic about this lawfare. They want to see more of it. So they are dug in. That remedy is not there. The other remedy that you and I have talked about before is impeachment. Impeachment, you can impeach a judge in the House with a majority vote, 218 votes. It may well make sense that one or more of the most egregious district judges who are defying their oath of office are

should and perhaps will be impeached by the House. However, if and when that happens, it'll come over to the Senate for the trial and under the Constitution, it takes two-thirds to convict. That means we need Democrats and the Democrats are not going to convict. There may be value in impeaching one or more of these judges anyway to highlight the utter brazen lawlessness of it.

And doing so would mean we could have a trial on the floor of the Senate to lay out just how lawless their conduct was. But the judge is not going to be removed because the Democrats are all in in support of illegal aliens and against the rule of law.

That means the remedy are, number one, the court of public opinion, making people understand just what an abuse of power this is. And number two, the appellate process, the courts of appeals and ultimately the Supreme Court. Now, I will say immediately after I finished my questioning, Amy Klobuchar spoke next. Yeah. And I think my comments rattled her because she she tried to respond immediately.

And I got to say, what she was saying made so little sense. I couldn't resist jumping in. And we had some real fireworks. So here, give a listen. And the only reason there's all these injunctions, Senator Cruz, is because he's violating the Constitution. Why would Trump appointed judges? Why don't you file them in red districts? Senator Cruz. Why? Why?

What did you just say? Why don't you file them in red districts? Why are the Democrat Attorney General seeking out left-wing, blue-singed, white-patient with Senator Cruz's activity in this building? He's entitled to... I'm just going to ask for a point of order.

Madam Klobuchar, Senator Klobuchar. Senator Moody, we have debates on this committee. They occur regularly. Let's let her have her time, and then we'll get back to that. If you want to wait, we'll get back to you, Senator Cruz. She's welcome to answer the question or not. Go ahead. I'm so excited to be following Senator Cruz once again. Excuse me? I didn't hear you. What did you say? To be following him. He and I have a lot of...

permitting you your time to continue oh to be following him in order excuse me go ahead senator klobuchar during hearing go ahead that's what i'm referring to go ahead and i will take more than my time since he's taken more than his time to yell at me so what i will say is that i'm not yelling i asked a question senator cruz please i'll give you time i do have to say i've seen you yell that was not yelling i didn't raise my voice at all and and by the way

Amy Klobuchar had no answer. None. She's like, well, oh, these injunctions are issuing because everything he's doing is illegal. It's like, great. Why don't they file them in red districts? Why are you seeking out the most left wing judges in the country who used to be radical activists, who were nominated because they're radical activists, who used to work for the left wing groups that are now bringing the lawsuits? Why are you only filing them in their in their courts? If it was so clear, if it was such a slam dunk, you ought to be able to file them in in

in red districts and nope, nope, they ain't going to do that. She had no answer whatsoever because this is about power and abuse of power. This is not about the rule of law. Don't forget we do this show Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Hit that subscribe or auto download button. If you're watching us in the video on YouTube,

Make sure that you subscribe so you don't miss a single episode on YouTube. We put out a lot of stuff on YouTube, so we want to make sure you get all of that as well. And grab my show, the Ben Ferguson Podcast, on those in-between days. I'll keep you up to date on the latest breaking news because there's a lot happening in Washington. The Center and I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.

Something unexpected happened after Jeremy Scott confessed to killing Michelle Schofield in Bone Valley Season 1. Every time I hear about my dad, it's, oh, he's a killer. He's just straight evil. I was becoming the bridge between Jeremy Scott and the son he'd never known. At the end of the day, I'm literally a son of a killer. Listen to new episodes of Bone Valley Season 2 starting April 9th on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.