Jim Rickards (5:38)

Thanks, Steve. You're right, Steve Webkoff, talking to the Iranians is a very positive step forward. Let's hope that happens soon and they make some progress. Each side is sort of not showing his hand but, you know, taking its shot literally. And we can kind of go from there. I do want to go back to.

Chip Roy (5:57)

Hey Jim, Jim, can you, hey Jim, Jim, could you hang her for one second? We got Chip Roy calling from the cloakroom on the phone about what's going on. Can you just, I just want to put a pin in for a second. I'm going to come right back to you. Congressman Roy, can you get a status because it looks very confusing up there on Capitol Hill right now.

Stephen K. Bannon (6:14)

Yes, good to be on. I just got out of a briefing on the strikes. I think you just articulated very well about the President's use of force and doing it very well. I think they executed it in the fashion that as you point out that MAGA Americans are, you know, not wanting to be involved in a long, long term war, get involved in endless wars. We've been dealing last 25 years. President, a great job, which got a good briefing on it. I feel much better about it after listening to those guys. And then we'll head up to the House floor and we got a vote on something that's not really relevant to the bbb. But we've been watching all the negotiations with the big beautiful bill in the Senate. The Senate's messing it up is the bottom line. It's like, you know, we passed a good but not great bill in the House you and I have talked about that didn't go as far as I would prefer terms of spending restraint, but at least with a giant step forward in trying to honor our commitment to spending and try to at least think about reducing the deficit. Our bill was plausibly deficit neutral or even going down. Tariff revenue and economic growth comes in. But the Senate is just blowing it up right now with probably another trillion dollars of debt in the calculations I've seen. Of course, we don't have bill text yet and you know they're undermining a lot of the great things we got while they're letting the parliamentarian make decisions. They're not doing what they need to do and they're certainly not ending the Green new scam which the president wants. So we're going to have a lot of work to do these next few days. And I hope the conservatives in the Senate hold the line. Guys like Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Rick Scott, they've been doing a great job trying to negotiate this thing to a better place, but it's not where it needs to be.

Chip Roy (7:56)

Let me ask you again, what is the Senate said a trillion dollars. What they haven't gotten rid of the green Room scam. What else? What else did they do?

Stephen K. Bannon (8:05)

Well, a lot of the important provisions that we put in there are getting stripped out, to give you an example. Like there's provision in there to end the tax and regulations on silencers. That was stripped out. There was a provision in there to ensure that there weren't tax dollars going to transgender surgeries. That was stripped out on the Obamacare subsidies. There was a tax in there to tax these universities endowments, these Liberal universities at 28%. That was water down to 8%. There are provisions in there to deal with the food stamps. They took out of $100 billion worth of our reforms to make food stamps be going to the actual needy, not the able bodied. And this is all of those things. I could go down a laundry list, Steve, and I'm happy to, and I'll put out some of the graphics and charts. I can get those to your team. They're on my social media and we'll keep putting them out. But the key here is, is that you add all that up. We're not getting the policies we want, but importantly, we're losing savings and the cost of this thing is going up. Because, look, you and I both want all the tax cuts. We want them extended. We want a permanent. But there's a reality that you got to figure out the math. You got to have the spending restraint going alongside that, right? So Medicaid, right. Our hardworking Americans don't need to have their Medicaid taken away, but the able bodied who should be working, the people that are engaging in fraud, the people that are, you know, abusing the system in a money laundering scheme to enrich hospitals and insurance companies. Those guys, we need the reform. So that's what's all getting watered down over in the Senate. So we're going to keep working on it, trying to get that back. And Again, the green new scam, we want those things to end. I mean again in the House, Steve, we only like I fought like fricking cats and dogs to get 60% of it taken out. Right. And we think we did that. It was a good bill to get rid of the 60% future projects, but it would leave all of the existing projects in place, which personally I don't think is good enough. But you know, you take the deal that you can get. Well now the Senate's watering cut down. So now we would allow probably half or some significant chunk of future projects. And that's not what termination means. You got to end these scam subsidies. We're not going to have a strong grid and we're going to continue to empower China. They also watered down, we had language in our bill to prohibit some of this stuff going to China and the foreign interest for solar panels and batteries, all that stuff. They watered that down because most of these guys want to protect their corporate cronies in their states and their districts who are, oh, oh, I need my subsidies so I can have a better bottom line. Well, that's not what the American people sent us here to do, Steve.

Chip Roy (10:44)

The first line of defense is the Senate. It's Ron Johnson and Mike Lee and these, and these hawks in the Senate. Do you anticip that they will get a lot of this change even before it comes back to you guys?

Stephen K. Bannon (10:56)

I'm hopeful. Rick Scott, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, you point out very well those three in particular been working very hard try to improve the bill. They're holding the line. They need to keep holding the line. Look, they're going to get a lot of pressure from the White House which you know, God love them, they're my friends and we want to get the border money and we want to get the taxes extended. We want to deliver for the President but we got to get something better than we're getting it. So these guys are going to have to hold the line. We need the White House, but pressure on the moderates, not the conservatives. Put pressure on the moderates to stop messing with the deal and hopefully the Senate can hold the line and get it over to us. We can pass it. But I can promise you there's a bunch of us over here in the House who are not happy with it. If, if the Senate, if they were in the Senate and send it over to us.

Chip Roy (11:45)

By the way, you can't see this, but the front page of the Financial Times of London is a massive story. Investors flee US long term bonds in fear of soaring debt, 11 billion outflow. It's exactly because of debt and the deficits. Are people up there taking this seriously that now we're not able. We're kind of like in Japan where investors are uncomfortable buying 20 year and 30 year bonds from the United States government.

Stephen K. Bannon (12:11)

Steve finally, way too late, my colleagues are starting to wake up to this reality, which is why we got the bill that we got through the House. But the problem is too many of the senators and too many of my colleagues still don't get the urgency and they don't understand that to get this done they're going to have to make tough decisions. Right? You have to make the hard calls. You got to go look to somebody who built a solar company based on the subsidies and saying, sorry man, you made a bad bet, but we're going to stop the subsidies. You know, we'll give you a year to wind it down, but we're done. And we got to look at people and be honest about it. We've got to tell people that hey, Medicaid needs to be there for the hard working people who depend on it. But we're not going to allow the able bodied to get seven times as much money as the vulnerable. We're going to fix it. We're going to end the money laundering, we're going to end the grips and you got to tell the hospitals you're not going to keep getting all of this, all this subsidized money. So these guys got to get serious about it. You know, Republicans are always good about the tax cuts, but they're never good about the spending cuts. And so here we sit, $37 trillion in debt.

Chip Roy (13:19)

Chip Roy, where do people go on your social media to find you over the weekend? I know you're going to be putting stuff up and it's going to be a long work weekend on Capitol Hill.

Stephen K. Bannon (13:27)

It is, it is. I'm not going anywhere. Chip Roy TX C H I P R O Y T X on Twitter slash X Rep. Chiproy is my official account and appreciate you Steve. Keep us keep the spotlight on this stuff. You know, all the posse out there, stay focused. We got to deliver for the President, but we got to deliver the right bill. Not just a bill, it's got to be the right bill. We stop the spending that's killing our country, driving up inflation, making houses unaffordable, killing capital formation like you just described. So we got to stick with it.

Chip Roy (14:00)

Chip thank you very much, Congressman. We'll check in with you this afternoon and over the weekend thanks, Steve.

Stephen K. Bannon (14:06)

God bless.

Steve Bannon (14:09)

Folks.

Chip Roy (14:10)

President of the United States not going to Bedminster. He's sticking around the White House for the weekend. The reason is the grind is starting. Financial Times of London giving you the bad news right there that long term bonds, a huge outflow, $11 billion in the quarter, can't sell long term bonds, very disturbing. Now more than ever, do you want to understand it? We've got a whole program how to understand it. Birchgold.com End of the Dollar Empire this is what's going to happen in Rio and the Rio reset. Not all at once, but slowly. Birchgold.com Bannon that's the promo code. Make sure you get all everything's free, free, free, free. Seven free installments. Short commercial break One of the smartest guys around, Jim Rickards is going to lay it out and explain it all to you next in the war room.

Steve Bannon (15:00)

This July there is a global summit of BRICS nations in Rio de Janeiro. The block of emerging superpowers including China, Russia, India and Persia are meeting with the goal of displacing the United States dollar as the global currency. They're calling this the Rio Reset. As BRICS nations push forward with their plans, global demand for US Dollars will decrease, bringing down the value of the dollar in your savings. While this transition won't not happen overnight, but trust me, it's going to start in Rio. The Rio Reset in July marks a pivotal moment when BRICS objectives move decisively from a theoretical possibility towards inevitable reality. Learn if diversifying your savings into gold is right for you. Birch Gold Group can help you move your hard earned savings into a tax sheltered IRA and precious metals. Claim your free info kit on gold by texting my name Bannon. That's B A N N O N to 989-898 with an A plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers led Birchgold army with a free no obligation info kit on owning gold before July and the Rio reset. Text Bannon B A N N O N to 9,898, do it today. That's the Rio reset. Text Bannon at 989-898 and do it today.

Stephen K. Bannon (16:28)

Can you tell us, were you satisfied with the briefing?

Chip Roy (16:31)

Yeah. Let me give you some thoughts about what just transpired in there this morning. We talked about how historic and fateful these moments are. This is a historic time that we live in and this has been an incredible two weeks. Of course it began with Israel's strikes that were targeted against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. They eliminated nearly the entire top echelon of Iran's military command and nuclear scientists. Then, of course, this past weekend, the United States States acted as we needed to act and we had our military forces, of course strike the heart of Iran's nuclear weapons program. We delivered a major setback that resulted then in a feeble face saving response from Iran and immediately thereafter a cease fire agreement. We want to commend President Trump for his decisive and bold leadership. Let me have it. Let me have it. This is, this is more Johnson's happy talk today. I hope they drill down because look, it's total obliteration, but I hope they drill down on what was the sense of urgency even have to go to this? Nobody still answered that question is one of the reasons Tulsi Gabbard's kept out of these things. That is the key point, folks. What was the sense of urgency? Nobody has come through and put that on the table. Jim Rickards, first off, I want to go you got breaking news right now, Rickards, which is huge. What happened to the Supreme Court a few minutes ago?

Jim Rickards (18:03)

Well, I'm an analyst, not a reporter, but I happen to be a lawyer. The Supreme Court ruled 6, 3 that these nationwide injunctions by the federal district courts exceed their authority. They have. Doesn't mean they can't rule. They have to confine those injunctions to their district, to the parties. They can't stop, you know, nationwide policy in the White House sitting in some district court in, you know, Boston or anyplace else. Now, what's interesting about it was 6, 3, not, you know, 5, 4. Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion, which is a big deal. So she's on board with this. The case involved birthright citizenship, but that's not what the Supreme Court was really talking about because that case is going to go forward in the district with these new limitations. But the principle that district courts cannot issue nationwide injunctions is historic. That's going to stop 100 cases on 20 different issues. You know, immigration, environment, EPA, everything else. It's going to put these district court judges in their place. So this is an historic ruling. It's definitive in the sense that six, three and it's nice to see Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts for that matter, on the right side of it. It's a very big deal.

Chip Roy (19:07)

This is Jim, because you're a lawyer. This I'm going to have Josh Hammer on here in a little while. This is the way that the judicial insurrection tried to stop President Trump. Correct? I mean, they judge Shop. They go to San Francisco to go to Rhode island to get this judge. And these judges do these tros and injunctions to shut the whole. Shut President Trump's Article 2 policies down. Is that correct?

Jim Rickards (19:33)

That's absolutely right. And one of the criticisms of John Roberts, I mean, for a couple decades, is that he cares more about the court and the state status of the Supreme Court than about some of the issues in front of him. And that actually is the legacy of Bush versus Gore. That, that push thing, that was Rehnquist, but that pushed things about as far as they can go. So Roberts is attentive to that. But what's happening now, and insurrection is a good word. These. These district court judges are. They're not even close on the law. This is a judicial insurrection. I think that's a good way to put it. Roberts now sees that as the threat to the court. When you have members of Congress and people like Mike Davis who know this stuff inside out saying, you know, the district courts are not in the Constitution, the only court is the Supreme Court. There's nothing stopping the Congress from eliminating these district courts or getting rid of some of these judges. So when Robert sees that, he says, hey, we have a threat to the court, but it's coming from a different direction. I got to rein these district courts. And they just did it big time. And again, birthright citizenship was the issue, but that was not the point the court was making. They're saying, no more. Not quite no more, but nationwide injunction is going to be rare. They're going to be subject to a lot of review and, you know, confine your ruling to your district. That's a big deal because it turns the table. When you have a nationwide injunction, the administration has to go. Every single illegal immigrant's got a, you know, habeas corpus petition. You got to. And you'll never get there. How are you going to deport a million people if you have to have a million court hearings? But now, what the Supreme Court, did they say, confine your rulings to this district. That means the White House can go ahead with all the other deportations. They're not being stopped.

Chip Roy (21:05)

Tell the audience. Why is 63 so important here, sir?

Jim Rickards (21:10)

Well, the 54 would have been enough, but lawyers look at these things. These rulings establish precedents. The circuit courts are obliged to follow them. And, well, the district court's going to have to follow them. They've just been told to get in line, but it just carries more weight. I mean, legally, 5, 4 would have been the same as 6 3, but 63 makes a louder statement. And, you know, if you're an up and coming, even if you're a liberal or Biden appointee at the district court level, a lot of these guys and women, you know, they aspire to be circuit court judges. What judges actually care about. They don't like to get overruled. I mean, independent of where you are in the substance of a case, getting overruled is like a black mark in your, in your copybook. And so, so they're going to fall in line behind this. That's why it's a very big deal, but just it speaks a little louder. And particularly Amy Coney Barrett, she. People can't quite figure her out because everyone wants to put everybody in a box. You know, you're progressive or you're conservative, liberal, or, you know, maga, whatever, but that's not the box she fits in. She's very by the book. She's a very good lawyer and a good judge. And so for her to come on board, that means that this thing passes a lot of legal tests that the layman might not be aware of. It's not all politics. The law has a, a lot to do with it. But she's rigorous, by the book, and she came out, you know, in my view, the right way.

Chip Roy (22:28)

Jim, I want to go now to the intelligence briefings. I gave it to the Senate. Yes. I mean, you've seen the ones at the Pentagon. President Trump saying, hey, total obliteration. The Senate yesterday kind of broke down on party lines. They just gave it to the House. I. My belief is they're not focused enough on the inciting incident, like the urgency to really. On the, on the bomb damage assessment. What is your sense? You're an intel, a specialist. I think you worked a while or you had an affiliation with the guys at Langley. What is your interpretation, where we stand just on the intel part.

Jim Rickards (23:01)

Well, this has its roots in wmd. And let me explain why. WMD was an intelligence community fiasco. Now, whether it was bad, bad analysis, outright lying, or wishful thinking, I'll leave that to the historians. But it was, it was. They were just wrong.

Chip Roy (23:17)

Hang on, you're saying, you're saying back. Hold it. You're saying I just for the audience, you're saying weapons of mass destruction back from the 2003 time, from the Iraq War. The weapons of mass destruction intel. Okay, go ahead.

Jim Rickards (23:28)

Correct. Now, I was not on the WMD case, but I was at the Agency. In the aftermath of that. There was a guy, head of The National Intelligence Council, which is the creme de la creme of analysts named Dr. Thomas Finger, and I worked with Dr. Finger quite a bit, and he was put in charge of cleaning this up. We don't want this to happen again, so what can we do? So what they did, they came up with practically a grammar book, a vocabulary and a lot of words you hear out of the intelligence community in these leaks and in, you know, public testimony. You can't take it as plain English when you hear, we assess that, you know, fill in the blank. Who says assess in an oral conversation? Nobody. But that's in this, I'll call it the CIA grammarian or grammar book. And they put everything in the context of probabilities because nobody wanted to be certain about anything. So whenever you say we assess with something that you didn't do much with a low probability, et cetera, that's not plain English, that's these guardrails they put on. The problem is when you. First of all, the probability. Not to get too geeky, but the degree distribution is a normal curve. Well, I'm sorry, the real world, terrorism, wars, et cetera, are not distributed, distributed in a bell curve. It's a, it's something called a power curve where really extreme events happen with much greater frequencies. They got the wrong model, for starters. Number two, these words are designed to avoid certainty. Well, some things are binary. They either happened or they didn't and say, you know, etc. So Tulsi and Radcliffe, I think, to his credit, has not been out there very much. I don't think the head of the CIA should be. But, but they're, they're constrained. They're in a grammatical, analytical straitjacket. And so just to rise to Tulsi's defense a little bit now, about a month ago, or maybe a little bit longer, she testified that Iran was not making a bomb. There's not her exact words. That's in effect what she said. Well, Trump said they were and she was wrong and they, they bombed, etc. But just to give her a little credit, she was being very literal, meaning there was nobody sitting there with a screwdriver putting the bomb together at the time. She didn't say they didn't have highly emission radium. They do, they have centrifuges. Why do you enrich the 60% if you're not making a bomb? Why are you buried at 400ft underground if you're not making a bomb, etc. So. But Iran was clearly moving in that direction. But Tulsi Couldn't say they're making a bomb. It was. He was doing it very literally. Now, one thought, and I don't know this for sure, but I'll just lay it out there. How do we know that Tulsi's testimony wasn't part of the COVID action? Meaning, you know, they flew those B2s to Guam to throw a head fake, throw everybody off. You know, that Guam's a long way from Iran. Meanwhile, they're coming over the North Pole. Trump said, I'm going to give you two weeks to figure this out. He bombed them like a couple days later. So it was a brilliant execution of a covert action. Clandestine. Sorry. But the point being, how do we know that wasn't part of it? You know, hey, you're sitting there in Tehran, Director of National Intelligence just said, they're not making a bomb. You let down your guard. So I'll leave it out there as to whether that wasn't part of the plan. But let's assume that she was being literal. She's, she's in the straitjacket now. Good analysis. Where's, where's the creativity? Where's. And by the way, the way you solve these problems is again, I don't mean to be too geek, is something called Bayes Theorem, which is designed for solving problems when you don't have all the information. I would say if you have all the information, a bright high school kid can figure it out. The art of intelligence is how do you figure it out when you don't have all the information and they're using the wrong tools. This Bayes Theorem is designed for that because you update, update, update based on new information. So I think Trump's making a mistake by sidelining Tulsi. I think Tulsi was. Had a grammatical straight jacket on because of the work of Tom Finger. And I think they ought to tear. I told him at the time, I said this, you know, yeah, you got to fix this problem, but this is not the way to do it.

Chip Roy (27:18)

Jim, can you hang on? I want to keep you here for a couple more segments because we've got a lot more to, a lot more to go through. Jim Rickards joins us this morning. His capital markets, geopolitics, national security, intelligence expertise unparalleled. In fact, go to rickardswarroom.com It's a landing page. Puts together everything that Jim does here for us. You can get access to strategic intelligence. That is a C suite. Read now what I mean by that. Chairman of the boards and CEOs, the people that make decisions. The people like President Trump in his previous life as CEO and chairman of the Trump Organization. It's the type of things people like that read and read every month. So get the inside baseball rickards war room.com check it out. Today he also throws in for strategic intelligence. If you subscribe, he'll throw in a free book, Money, GPT, artificial intelligence and currency. It'll keep you up at night. Short commercial break Jim Rickards, Josh Hammer on the other side.

Steve Bannon (28:27)

There'S something happening with our farmland here in the United States that isn't getting enough attention. The Chinese have been buying up hundreds of thousands of acres of U.S. farmland. They're also taking control over critical supply chains, things like fertilizer, animal feed and farming equipment. Why? It's not clear. They're tightening their grip on global food production. That is clear. And if things go south and it could happen quickly, we need to be ready. That's why I trust my Patriot Supply. They're America's largest emergency preparedness company. And right now when you get there, four week emergency food supply, you'll get a free 4,24 7 food kits, an extra 12 days of food absolutely free.

Chip Roy (29:14)

Okay, full stop. You're gonna have to insert this, okay.

Steve Bannon (29:18)

And right now when you get their four week emergency food supply, you'll get four free 72 hour food kits, an extra 12 days of food absolutely free. Let me repeat that. You're gonna get four free 72 hour food kits. That's an extra 12 days of food and it's absolutely free. That's four weeks of delicious meals that last up to 25 years, delivering 2,000 plus calories per day. It's shipped fast and it's shipped free. We can't control what the Chinese Communist Party does. You can't control what China does. But we can control how prepared we are. Go to my patriotsupply.com today to claim your 12 days of free food. Shop my patriotsupply.com my patriotsupply.com do it today. Do not let this thing get ahead of you.

Chip Roy (30:09)

Here's your host, Stephen K. Ban. Okay. Want to thank Jim Burkers being with us. He's going to stick around but he's got a lot to go through with Jim. Josh Hammer joins us now. One of the big guns over at Article 3 3. Josh, walk us through today. There are some big rulings. We just got one. If you explain that to us and you're going to come back and jump in and out as these go. But how many of these rulings are going to be that the Supreme Court still have to give us. And are they going to roll these out today, Monday, Tuesday? What's your feel?

Josh Hammer (30:43)

So, Steve, I was guessing that they were going to go into next week there, there are some other tea leaf reading indications, if you will, they might actually try to get them all out today. For instance, John Roberts has a public event tomorrow. Typically, historically speaking, the justices like to get out all of the rulings before they kind of go do their summer session thing and they do the public speeches, the law school seminars, the junkets to Europe, things like that. So there are various indications to think that they're probably going to drop some more opinions today. But I would not be surprised certainly if they go into next week. The past couple terms, they typically have gone into the first week of July, not the end of June. So there is some recent precedent for that as well. Having said that, the opinion that we've already gotten today is definitely one of the most anticipated rulings of the term. It's probably my personally most anticipated ruling of the term, with the exception of the Scarmetti case, the transgender case out of Tennessee, which was a tremendous victory that we had a couple weeks ago. But the ruling today is it was teed up as the birthright citizenship case. But Steve, as I think you and I discussed on a previous appearance here on your show, the way that this was litigated kind of precluded or at least necessarily steered the justice away from issuing a ruling on the actual fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship question because the way that the lawyers teed it up was about the scope of injunctive relief. So the real kind of question that we got an answer to today isn't about whether or not the 14th Amendment citizenship clause requires birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens. I hope that we get an answer on that in the next few years, to be clear. But, but the opinion today really only deals with the issue of so called nationwide injunctions. And it's a 6 to 3 ruling. It's written by Amy Coney Barrett, who I've definitely been critical of at times. Certainly my Article 3 project colleague Mike Davis has, has been quite, quite critical as well. But it's a solid opinion. And you know, she does not go the full way. This is not, not a full, full sum. Here's what the Article 3 judicial power of the Constitution says. Here's what it does not say. It is not that. That is what I wanted and hopefully we get that in the years to come. But it is a solid victory nonetheless. It effectively says that the notion that there is a power of a court to issue a sprawling universal injunction to bind anyone throughout the country is not a power that exists. It is ahistorical. It is not the kind of thing that existed in the courts of equity back in medieval England, is not the kind of thing that was adapted into the Constitution in the Judiciary act of 1789. And probably even more kind of mouth watering, I might say, is just the really dripping with disdain language the Amy Coney Barrett has for Ketanji Brown Jackson, the lead dissenter here. She accuses Ketanji Brown Jackson of opposing an imperial executive branch but worshiping an imperial judiciary. This is pretty fiery language for Amy Coney Barrett, who is not necessarily always the fieriest of the justice on the court there. So there's a lot of good stuff in here. It is a strong, strong partial victory for the Trump administration there. And I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out from here.

Chip Roy (33:43)

Are you talking about imperial judiciary? I mean, this has been the fight where this judicial supremacy and this is what the progressives have used to chop block President Trump right on his Article 2 powers. Everything he's trying to accomplish, but with the theory to delay is to deny. Is this now because we just had the Supreme Court ruling the other day about the bad hombres being sent out and I think that they've had, they're going after now judges in Maryland because district judges are not following the Supreme Court. Right. So is this, is this going to have an impact? I mean, these district judges even going to pay attention to this, sir?

Josh Hammer (34:20)

No, It's a legitimate question. We are currently at a stage where these lower courts are just so brut, brazenly flipping their fingers not merely at President Trump, but as we saw with Judge Murphy, Massachusetts, so brazenly sticking their middle fingers at their own purported bosses or their own actual boss. I should say in the Article III hierarchy there that it's hard to know what it will actually take to try to corral these, these lower court judicial insurrectionists and actually bring them in line. Certainly in my personal capacity and Weed Article III project, we've been supportive of everything, including jurisdiction stripping legislation, abolishing judgeships, filing articles of impeachment as necessary against rogue judges. Certainly I think Judge Brian Murphy, the one in Massachusetts who literally is just straight up ignoring a Supreme Court order that overturned his, his preliminary injunction. I think an impeachment article against Judge Murphy is wholly necessary right now. But for all these reasons, Steve, I was hoping for a Stronger ruling today. I was hoping for a definitive kind of Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito ruling that says Article 3 of the Constitution and judicial power here is what it means. It absolutely unequivocally does not include this so called nationwide injunction. We didn't get that. But it's pretty good. It's definitely pretty good. What Barrett says is that there is strong reason to doubt on a historical basis the veracity or legitimacy of so called nationwide injunctions and they should not be used more than is absolutely necessary to reach the correct ruling. Now, there is some kind of lawyerly language in there that you can kind of see, see how some left wing NGOs, the ACLU, the Open Borders advocates, they might try to play with that language there. They're still trying to get some nationwide injunctions there. And there's also some leeway potentially for the rogue lower court judges to kind of play with it a little bit as well. So again, it's not the full out, all out victory that I was hoping for, but it's very good. And I'm certainly quite happy from where I sit.

Chip Roy (36:11)

Given some of the cases that this court has dealt with over the last few years where they take something like this local injunction, but they talk about the broader issue that brought it. That's why a lot of us on this, on the 14th amendment were hoping that this is what they were going to do and address birthright citizenship. They clearly didn't do that. How do you get this back into the system? Because I think for those of us that are looking for this case to do it, it's a massive disappointment. Not that this is not important, very important, but we thought that there'd be a broader ruling. Here is the timing that do we got to go back and start the process over again? You said a couple of years. When he said a couple of years, my heart skipped a beat. So, Josh, we look to you for guidance on this. What do you think?

Josh Hammer (36:56)

Well, this has to be a merits case. This the actual substantive 14th Amendment decision clause question. What does it mean? Was not mean that that cannot come on the emergency docket. That cannot come kind of on the scope of injunctive leave. That has to be a standard kind of. You file a petition, you file a writ of certiorari, you get the justice to grant it, you have a full oral argument. So look, that's the kind of thing that that can be teed up there. And then certainly this litigation when it comes to President Trump's executive order is not going anywhere. If anything, today's ruling kind of sort of has the effect of kicking it down the road a little bit from for the rulings or for the reasons that I just said, it does kind of then open up the potential gateways for the lower court to say, okay, I mean, this injunction of relief is not necessary here, but maybe it's necessary here. But there is room, I think, for the Trump DOJ and for the Trump Solicitor General's office to try to cleanly tee up this, I would hope potentially for the next SCOTUS term. Now, here's what I will say, though, Steve, I will sound a note of slight caution on this for the following reason. Reason, if I'm just being very sober here and just trying to call it like I see it there, I am unfortunately not convinced that at this exact time there are five votes on the court to do the right thing on birthright citizenship. I really hope that there are. I would love nothing more than be proven wrong. I think that there are probably two solid votes, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. And beyond that, I think that there are a lot of question marks. I could see Brett Kavanaugh getting there, maybe Justice Gorsuch, but you're really starting to kind of count votes from there. So what I would hope for, and I guess we'll see is maybe there will be some shake up on the Supreme Court personnel. It's probably not looking great, to be honest with you, because I don't necessarily see Sotomayor or Ketanji Brown Jackson retiring or anything like that there. But that is my one note of caution. There is that there is an argument to be made that it might be a blessing disguise that we didn't get that ruling on the merits day because I'm not convinced that it actually would have gone in our favor.

Chip Roy (38:54)

Josh, your running mate there, Mike Davis, has got a solution. Hopefully Amy Coney Barrett goes back to be dean of the Notre Dame Law School. But we can only hope, sir, where do people get your writings? We'll basically reach out if anything else breaks where they get your writings. You've got a great new book on Israel and Western civilization. Where do people get that? Where do they get everything related to Josh Hammer on socials?

Josh Hammer (39:21)

Yes, I'm on X joshammer Instagram. Josh Bhammer the book, as you kindly mentioned, is Israel and Civilization, the Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West. My show, the Josh Hammer show, available everywhere. Books, excuse me, available everywhere. Podcasts are available. And then my syndicated column is up at Newsweek, Real Clear Politics, bunch of other Places as well.

Chip Roy (39:41)

Thank you, sir. Appreciate you. Josh, thanks for coming on.

Josh Hammer (39:44)

You bet. Thank you.

Chip Roy (39:47)

Jim Rickens, before we get back tobefore we get back to intel and geopolitics and strategy, the possibility of impeaching some of these district court justices because they're giving the middle finger to the Supreme Court, they're giving the middle finger to Congress, they're giving the middle finger to the executive branch and to the American people. Your thoughts?

Jim Rickards (40:09)

Well, I doubt that they'll actually impeach them. But starting an impeachment proceeding, you know, kind of beginning to go through the process, is exactly the kind of thing that John Roberts does not want to see, because independent of the merits of any issue that begins to affect the integrity of the judicial system and ultimately the Supreme Court. So I would say that that may be a very worthwhile avenue to pursue. Not that you get it all the way, but it's one more reason for John Roberts to start to slap these guys down. You know, men and women start to slap them down and put them in their place. So it's not a bad strategy. I doubt it will go all the way, but it will get Robert's attention. It's the kind of thing that will again, continue these types of rulings. And you know, Josh was exactly right about, you know, the substance of birthright citizenship that's going to go back to the district court. They're going to have a trial, see how it turns out. It's going to work its way back to the Supreme Court. He's right. That may take a year. But the, but the definitive ruling today that you, that you cannot have nationwide in injunctions in the district court except in very limited circumstances. That's the law of the land as of now. And again, independent birthright citizenship that affects a hundred other cases. It's, it's a big deal for that reason, even though, again, Joshua's right, it doesn't get to the merits of birthright citizenship.

Chip Roy (41:21)

Okay, but, but hang on. But, Jim, this is what I understand is that the Supreme Court overruled the other day about the bad hombres and about how they can, President Trump in his article two powers as commander in chief can send these guys back to other countries other than their own for jailing. And immediately you had the guy in Massachusetts. But I think there's also a revolt of federal district judges in Maryland. So it's, it's, we come out with these kind of rulings and these district judges who are, I think, neo Marxists, just say, okay, fine, we're not doing it. So what happens? What happens? Like for, for instance, this is, like I said, not a definitive ruling, but pretty good if these guys, because, you know they're going to do the workarounds because they're praised as heroes. If you watch msnbc, those district judges are held up as the paragons of the rule of law. And anything that supports Trump or the MAGA movement is look like lawless anarchy. So how can we, how can we, you know, how can we depend on even this ruling being effectuated so.

Jim Rickards (42:25)

Well, I would say the Trump Justice Department, Solicitor General's office and others, they've done a very good job procedurally. Boy, they scour the rulebooks. I mean, you can make motions to remove the judge from the case. You know, by the way, I'm not against impeachment. I think that these, some of these judges are, you know, deserve that. But even short of that, or if you start it and doesn't go anywhere, you can remove the judge from the case. You can appeal the ruling again, you know, get to the circuit court. The circuit court can issue various rulings that would favor, you know, what Trump's trying to do. And bear in mind, a few days ago, the Supreme Court said that there was no bar on deporting illegal immigrants, criminals basically to countries other than their home country. So this guy, I forget his exact name. Garcia, but you know, the human trafficker, wife beater, smuggler, child sex trafficker, etcetera, who's been described as, you know, Maryland dad, etcetera. Well, we couldn't, we had to keep, came back from El Salvador, but he might be on his way to, you know, Sudan. So, you know what, and the Supreme Court said that's okay. So we are getting, it's, look, it's a slow, frustrating process. We are getting rulings, but, you know, maybe a motion to remove the judge from the case based on that conduct or various ethical considerations. These are all, these are not taken lightly in the judiciary.

Chip Roy (43:48)

Jim Key, hang on. I'm gonna hold you for as long as we can keep here. We got a lot to go through. Haven't even scratched the surface records. There was so much going on. War room, short break. Back with Jim Rickards in a moment.

Steve Bannon (44:09)

You missed the IRS tax deadline. You think it's just going to go away? Well, think again. The IRS doesn't mess around and they're applying pressure like we haven't seen in years. So if you haven't filed in a while, even if you can't pay, don't wait and don't face the IRS alone. You need the trusted experts by your side. Tax Network usa. Tax Network USA isn't like other tax relief companies. They have an edge, a preferred direct line to the irs. They know which agents to talk to and which ones to avoid. They use smart, aggressive strategies to settle your tax problems quickly and in your favor. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million, Tax Network USA has helped resolve over $1 billion in tax debt. And they can help you, too. Don't wait on this. It's only going to get worse. Call Tax Network USA right now. It's free. Talk with one of their strategists and put your IRS troubles behind you. Put it behind you today. Call Tax Network USA at 1-800-958-1000. That's 800-958-1000 or visit Tax Network USA tnusa.com Bannon do it today. Do not let this thing get ahead of you. Do it today.

Chip Roy (45:30)

Here's your host, Stephen K. Band. So a capital in turmoil today on the big beautiful bill, the intelligence, everything else going on. The engine room has sent me to always remind me Andrew Jackson interesting ruling folks now enforce it from President Andrew Jackson, General Jackson, one of President Trump's favorite presidents and of course the great Andrew Jackson. Quote, the Bible is the rock on which our republic rests. The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests. Powerful words and a powerful thought. Patriot Mobile. You know, Glenn Story and the team have done so much throughout the country in supporting conservative media, conservative causes, but particularly in Texas where they are the Rock of Gibraltar down there and trying to make sure that after a 14 point Trump victory, which is unbelievable because they're kind of the railhead of maga, that we're in a situation where, you know, Democrats and the Bush apparatus runs the state. 972 Patriot. Make the switch today. Call right now and talk to an American citizen who's other than the phone in customer service. You can talk about all the services they provide, but the phone service south is absolutely magnificent. 972 patriots go there and check it out today. Also one of the reasons why I get jacked up early morning, besides Warpath coffee is the real organic superfood. From Field of Greens. Go toField of Greens dot com. You get 20% off your first order. You get this. I put the powder in water in the morning and drink it right after I get my coffee and man, you feel great. You get all your fruits, all your vegetables. It's not artificial. It's not Processed.

Steve Bannon (47:16)

It's.

Chip Roy (47:16)

It's real organic superfood. Guys, I'm going to need that camera. I'm going to need that clock if I'm going to get out of here to understand where we are. Thank you, sir. That's good. Let's go to Jim Rickards. Jim, do we have the clip? Play the clip from Brett Bear. Can I play this and let Jim Rickards have it?

Steve Bannon (47:37)

Listen to him.

Chip Roy (47:38)

Testified on Capitol Hill saying that everything had been suspended since 2003 and had not restarted, that the nuclear program had.

Jim Rickards (47:47)

Not been restarted by the Iranians.

Chip Roy (47:49)

So did something change from end of March until this week? Was the US intel wrong?

Stephen K. Bannon (47:56)

The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear, was absolutely clear that they were working in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium. They were marching very quickly. They would achieve a test device and possibly an initial device within months and certainly less than a year. That was the intel we shared with the United States. I think we have excellent intel in Iran. I think we've proven that. And that is something that we couldn't possibly accept. Whether it would be 6 months or 12 months or 13 months is immaterial. Once they go that route, it's too late. And we will not have a second holocaust, a nuclear holocaust. We already had one in the previous century. The Jewish state is not going to have the Holocaust made it on the Jewish people. It's not going to happen. Never again is now. And we have to act now.

Chip Roy (48:49)

Okay, MTG joins us by phone. Mtg, they had the security briefing, the intelligence briefing this morning. I assumed you went. And that to me is the key point, not the bomb damage assessment which President Trump obliterated. Obliterate the bomb. But. But actually this. Did you come away that there's any sense of urgency? That there's any sense of urgency. There was any sense of urgency to actually begin this entire fiasco.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (49:16)

Well, actually, I'm on video, Steve, not on phone. So I'm here with you on war room. So I'm really happy about that. Obviously, we can't talk about what was said in classified briefings or I'll get in big trouble for that. But I think what's important, the takeaway right now is important that what they have been saying publicly and what President Trump has said is they feel successful in the bombings that they carried out and the ceasefire that has been put in place in pursuing peace. However, I will say that Israel, as of this morning, I saw, has been bombing Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy. So we really hope that this thing is over with and that's yet, yet to be seen.

Chip Roy (50:05)

So let's turn to the big beautiful bill. Last night you were quite concerned. We talked to Chippewa earlier. You got any better feeling for what's happening? The Senate President Trump has canceled leaving day. He's going to get a, he's going to get an intel brief at 11 o' clock, an update. But he said he's not going to bedmin, so he's sticking around to kind of put the deal together and whip the vote in the Senate. Do you feel any better this morning, ma' am, that this thing's going to be anywhere near having the MAGA codification that we've had before?

Marjorie Taylor Greene (50:33)

Well, the only thing I can say is that the people will not accept another big fat, basically omnibus type of bill passed by Republicans that does not deliver the agenda that they voted for. And I fully 100% stand with them. And what's happening in the Senate was shocking yesterday. Watching out the provisions, the provisions that we put in that strips away funding from sex change surgeries for children. I want to go off on that one for a minute. See, because that's an executive order by President Trump and that is also my most important bill that I have, Protect Children's Innocence act that's already passed through Judiciary and just needs a vote on the House floor to make it a felony, criminalized sex changes on children. So that would be completely unacceptable in the House. Not just for me, but a massive majority of Republicans would, would not accept that. Also, the Senate parliamentarian stripped out our provision that stopped Medicaid and Medicare going to illegal aliens. That one's also a hard no in the House as well as the Green new Scam tax credits. That's absolutely what we are trying to get rid of. And that's what people voted to end the Green New Deal. So there's, there's many things in there that needs to continue. Although Steve, the Senate parliamentarian did not strike out the 10 year moratorium for AI on states to have their right to regulate and make laws on AI for 10 years, I'm going to tell you that's a hard no for me, a hard no. And I'll tell you why. There is no legislation currently in Congress for AI, the future of AI. So there is no way state rights should be tied behind their back to make regulations and laws for 10 years. And I have a lot of support behind me on that. I was the first that came out on that when the first Republican that came out against it. But now, 40 state attorney generals have written a letter saying absolutely not to the ten year state moratorium. Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders came out against it this week with an op ed and many other governors across the country. So we haven't stopped the fight yet. We're going to pass the agenda that President Trump campaigned on. We are going to make sure the people get what they voted for and we will not stop fighting up here in Washington until that happens.

Chip Roy (52:59)

Congressman, what is your social media so people can keep up with you today? Because this is a dog fight up there, man.

Marjorie Taylor Greene (53:05)

Yeah, you can follow me on Rep Mtg and also Tucker, I want to let everyone know Tucker Carlson just dropped his interview with me from this week. So please tune in and watch that.

Chip Roy (53:19)

We will watch it and we will push it out, ma' am. Thank you, Congressman. Appreciate you. Short break.

Steve Bannon (53:30)

There's a lot of talk about government debt, but after four years of inflation, the real crisis is personal debt. Seriously, you're working harder than ever and you're still drowning in credit card debt and overdue bills. You need Done with debt and here's.

Chip Roy (53:46)

Why you need it.

Steve Bannon (53:47)

The credit system is rigged to keep you trapped. Done With Debt has unique and frankly, brilliant escape strategies to help end your debt fast so you keep more of your hard earned money. Done With Debt doesn't try to sell you a loan and they don't try to sell you a bankruptcy. They're tough negotiators that go one on one with your credit card and loan companies with one goal, to drastically reduce your bills and eliminate interest and erase penalties. Most clients end up with more money in their pocket month one and they don't stop until they break you free from debt permanently. Look, take a couple of minutes and visit DoneWithDeck Calm Talk with one of their strategists.

Chip Roy (54:32)

It's free, but listen up.

Steve Bannon (54:34)

Some of their solutions are time sensitive so you'll need to move quickly. Go to donewithdebt.com that's donewithdebt.com Stop the anxiety, stop the angst. Go to donewithdebT.com and do it today.