Episode 4903: Blowout Across America's Elections; SCOTUS Hear Oral Arguments On Tariffs

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Bannon’s War Room
Episode: 4903 – Blowout Across America’s Elections; SCOTUS Hear Oral Arguments on Tariffs
Date: November 5, 2025
Host: Stephen K. Bannon (with regulars Charlie Kirk, Ben, David, Emily, Grace; Featured Guest: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton)

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Bannon's War Room provides immediate reaction and analysis to sweeping Democratic victories in major U.S. elections, including New York City’s historic election of an immigrant, Muslim, democratic socialist mayor, as well as other firsts in Virginia and New Jersey. The hosts dissect the meaning and consequences of these results for American politics, especially regarding the Trump movement and the future of the Republican Party. The latter half dives into live coverage and expert breakdown of Supreme Court oral arguments on presidential authority to impose tariffs, and implications for U.S. manufacturing and trade policy.

---

I. Post-Election Reactions: A Shift in American Politics

Key Segments: [00:00–12:11], [12:19–22:48]

1. Adrian Mamdani’s Victory Speech ([00:00–06:20])

• Adrian, the newly elected New York mayor, frames his win as a historic break from politics “done to us” to politics “done by us.” He invokes Nehru to signal a new epoch:

  “A moment comes, but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new… Tonight, we have stepped out from the old into the new.” — Adrian ([00:27])

• Claims a bold, inclusive vision for all communities, with explicit support for immigrants, the trans community, Jewish and Muslim New Yorkers:

  “No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election.” — Adrian ([02:13]) “To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.” — Adrian, addressing Trump ([04:36])

• Owns his identity as “young,” “Muslim,” “democratic socialist,” “refusing to apologize for any of this.” ([05:50])

2. Right-Wing Response to the Results

• Charlie Kirk immediately denounces Mamdani’s rhetoric:

  “That is neo-Marxism right there. Neo Marxist jihadist. That's what this guy is. And he's up in your grill.” — Charlie Kirk ([02:17])

• Emily expresses disappointment in Mamdani’s tone, emphasizing missed opportunities for broader unifying outreach:

  “The Mamdani that we saw on the campaign trail… was not present in that speech. …I think he missed an opportunity… that will probably cost him going forward.” — Emily ([06:20])

• The hosts stress that this is a new, confrontational left, diverging from previous appeals to “poetry;” now it is “governing in prose,” with higher stakes and direct challenges.

  “You saw it last night in all its glory up in your grill and particularly up in the President's grill. So what's the response going to be?” — Charlie Kirk ([12:19])

3. Broad Historical Context & Trends ([08:07–11:30])

• David lays out the larger story: America as a forward-moving, multicultural democracy amid periodic backlash:

  “You have a wave that’s moving forward. You have undertows… But the broad message of this book is there's only one path, which is you got to go forward. …What Mamdani's election showed is we're showing that there is a possibility of building the first truly multicultural multiracial democracy in the world.” — David ([09:50])

• Discusses backlash against globalization, tech, shifting civil rights, noting the right “weaponizes cultural anxiety,” and Democrats must keep focus on economic messaging.

---

II. Republican Soul-Searching & Strategy for the Future

Key Segments: [12:19–20:31]

1. Gut Check on the Right ([12:19–16:27])

• Bannon and Kirk reassert MAGA messaging, warning against “old Republican Party” complacency.

  “It's gut check time in the war room. ...Let me be blunt. Gold is up around 40% this year. That's not speculation, that's reality.” — Charlie Kirk ([12:52])

• Urge the party to “double and triple down” on Trumpism, claiming that “Never Trumpers” and moderate Republicans delivered recent electoral failures.

2. Redistricting, Immigration, and Power Struggles ([16:27–26:08])

• Bannon chastises the GOP’s approach to New Jersey, Virginia, and Texas—calls for aggressive engagement with low-propensity Trump voters.

  “If you give them old half baked Republican ideas, which is what New Jersey was… don't want Trump… you’re going to get wiped.” — Charlie Kirk ([17:11])

• Texas AG Ken Paxton enters, outlining legislative efforts to curb perceived Islamic radicalism, revoke tax-exempt status for organizations tied to “terrorism”, advocate vetting/deportation based on Sharia adherence ([20:31]):

  “We should stop admitting people who are adherent to Sharia law. We should deport people who are adherent to Sharia law. We've got to start getting serious.” — Ken Paxton ([20:48])

• Paxton criticizes “crony capitalism” in healthcare, attacks NGOs and Democrats, and calls for more confrontational Congressional action.

---

III. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Presidential Tariff Power

Key Segments: [30:33–49:48]

1. Who Pays Tariffs? Court and Counsel Debate ([30:33–32:47])

• Justice Kagan, Kirk, Ben, and others engage in a technical discussion on whether tariffs imposed by the president under emergency powers are taxes, regulatory tools, or illegal delegations of congressional authority.
• Ben clarifies:

  “There’s a mix. Sometimes the foreign producer pays them, sometimes the importer bears the cost… estimates range from like 30% to 80% of… how much is borne by [Americans].” — Ben ([31:10])

• The justices push for distinction between tariffs (regulation) and traditional tax revenue, questioning historical and legal precedent.

2. Statutory Interpretation and Nondelegation ([32:47–49:48])

• The justices probe the use of words like “license,” “duty,” and “tax,” and whether the statute confers revenue-raising power on the president or just regulatory authority.
• Justice Sotomayor:

  “Legislative history… it appears as though Congress was trying to give the President the authority to… freeze assets of the enemy. …I'm concerned about just taking a particular word here and there…” ([34:23])

• Ben: “We are asserting a regulatory power. The way to control imports traditionally has been to tariff them...tariffs are themselves regulatory.” ([35:15])

3. Nondelegation Doctrine and Foreign Affairs ([46:38–49:48])

• The justices ask whether the Court’s looser standards for delegation of authority in foreign affairs extend to tariffs, and what limits exist compared to explicit tax legislation.
• Ben:

  “It is a regulatory tariff, not a tax… This is IEEPA, a statute that Congress carefully crafted to grant the President admittedly broad powers to address foreign arising emergencies. It’s outward facing to foreign affairs where there’s the broadest level of deference…” ([48:42])

---

IV. Key Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Adrian (Victory speech):

  “Whether you are an immigrant, a member of the trans community, one of the many black women that Donald Trump has fired from a federal job… or anyone else with their back against the wall, your struggle is ours.” ([01:15])

• Charlie Kirk:

  “This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people.” ([11:30])

• Ken Paxton:

  “We should stop admitting people who are adherent to Sharia law. We should deport people who are adherent to Sharia law. We've got to start getting serious about this, in this election.” ([20:48])

• David:

  “Don't mistake the undertow for the wave… there is a possibility of building the first truly multicultural multiracial democracy in the world.” ([10:25])

---

V. Timestamps for Some Key Segments

| Segment Topic | Timestamp | |--------------------------------------------------|----------------| | Adrian's victory speech | [00:00–06:20] | | Charlie Kirk’s initial reaction | [02:17–03:02] | | Emily’s analysis of Mamdani’s tone | [06:20–07:31] | | David on America’s direction | [08:07–11:30] | | “Primal scream of a dying regime” (Kirk) | [11:30–12:11] | | Bannon on GOP strategy & gut check | [12:19–16:27] | | Redistricting/political analysis | [16:27–20:31] | | Ken Paxton’s hardline proposals | [20:31–22:48] | | Supreme Court oral argument: Who pays tariffs? | [30:33–32:47] | | Statutory interpretation (Sotomayor/Ben) | [32:47–36:10] | | Nondelegation, licensing debate | [46:38–49:48] |

---

VI. Tone and Style

• The right-wing hosts are combative, defiant, and employ military metaphors (“gut check time,” “going medieval,” “range war,” “fix bayonets and go forward”), framing the left’s wins as existential threats.
• Guests like Paxton advocate aggressive legislative and legal responses, with apocalyptic language about “Islamification” and “radical Marxists.”
• The analysis is emotional, urgent, and invokes both historical and current stakes for the future of American democracy.
• Legal segment is technical, but also polemical—portraying the Supreme Court battle over presidential tariff powers as foundational to Trump’s America First economic agenda.

---

VII. Takeaway

This episode sees the War Room making sense—often in alarmed, confrontational terms—of massive Democratic victories and a dramatic shift in American electoral politics. The hosts draw battle lines for the future: re-committing to Trumpist populism, attacking establishment Republicans, and outlining strict, sometimes extreme, responses to immigration and demographic change. The Supreme Court segment underscores the significance of presidential power in economic nationalism, seen by Bannon and allies as central to restoring America’s lost manufacturing base. For those who haven’t listened, this episode captures a right-wing movement both reeling from defeat and rallying for the fights ahead.

Transcript

[Adrian]

We won because we insisted that no longer would politics be something that is done to us. Now it is something that we do. Standing before you, I think of the words of Jawaharlal Nehru. A moment comes, but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. Tonight, we have stepped out from the old into the new. So let us speak now with clarity and conviction that cannot be misunderstood about what this new age will deliver and for whom. This will be an age where New Yorkers expect from their leaders a bold vision of what we will achieve, rather than a list of excuses for what we are too timid to attempt. Whether you are an immigrant, a member of the trans community.

[Ben]

One of the.

[Adrian]

Many black women that Donald Trump has fired from a federal job, a single mom still waiting for the cost of groceries to go down, or anyone else with their back against the wall, your struggle is ours. And we will build a city hall that stands steadfast alongside Jewish New Yorkers and does not waver in the fight against the scourge of anti Semitism, where The more than 1 million Muslims know that they belong not just in the five boroughs of this city, but in the halls of power. No more will New York be a city where you can traffic in Islamophobia and win an election.

[Charlie Kirk]

He's saying the Democratic Party didn't deliver for working class people forever. And this is not populist. Please. That's not populist. What you heard right there was not even socialist. That is neo Marxism right there. Neo Marxist jihadist. That's what this guy is. And he's up in your grill. And for all the happy skipping around, you know, tiktoks, and he's going down the. And he's all happy smiley. I didn't see the happy smiley tonight. You saw when he won what he's really like, right? And people gotta understand. This is brought to you by progressive Democrats. This is brought to you. The Bill Ackmans of the world, the elites that have managed the decline of this country. And what they manage it by was opening up essentially open borders, particularly for these big cities. Well, now you got it, and he's up in your grill.

[Adrian]

If anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him. And if there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power. This is not only how we stop Trump. It's how we stop the next one. So, Donald Trump, since I know you're watching, I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.

[Charlie Kirk]

And so it begins. Finally, President Trump. That's what we're looking for.

[David]

That's what we're looking for.

[Charlie Kirk]

Hey.

[David]

No.

[Charlie Kirk]

Hey. What does Trump say? No games. Hey, Zoran, you won't play games, okay? You know, game respects game. And so it begins.

[Adrian]

New York will remain a city of immigrants, a city built by immigrants, powered.

[Ben]

By immigrants.

[Adrian]

And as a tonight, led by an immigrant. So hear me, President Trump, when I say this. To get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us. When we enter City hall in 58 days, expectations will be high. We will meet them. A great New Yorker once said that while you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose. If that must be true, let the prose we write still rhyme, and let us build a shining city for all. And we must chart a new path as bold as the one we have already traveled. After all, the conventional wisdom would tell you that I am far from the perfect candidate. I am young, despite my best efforts to grow older. I am Muslim. I am a democratic socialist. And most damning of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this.

[Emily]

I think he missed an opportunity. I think the Mamdani that we saw in the campaign trail, who was a lot more calm, who was a lot warmer, who was a lot more embracing, was not present in that speech. And I think that Mamdani is the one you need to hear from tonight. There are a lot of people trying to figure out, can I get on this train with him or not? Is he going to include me? Is he going to. Is he going to be more of a class warrior, even in office? I think he missed a chance tonight to open up and bring more people into the tent. I think his tone was sharp. I think he was using the microphone in a way that he was almost yelling. And that's not the mom Donnie that we've seen on TikTok and the Great interviews and stuff like that. So I felt like there's a little bit of a character switch here, where the warm, open, embracing guy that's close to working people was not on stage tonight, and there was some other voice on stage that said he's very young, and he just pulled off something that's very, very difficult. And I wouldn't write him off, but I think he missed an opportunity to open himself up tonight, and I think that that will probably cost him going forward.

[Charlie Kirk]

Donald Trump. Turn the volume up. The extraordinary thing about his campaign and his message tonight. While one might say he's young, he's, you know, he's out there. He's not wild. He's as disciplined as they come, especially.

[Adrian]

When it comes to messaging, which is all about affordability. So he's goading Donald Trump, who is.

[Charlie Kirk]

The opposite of discipline. And what Donald Trump is hoping Zoram Hamdani will. Will deliver. I don't think he's going to. And to Lawrence's point, sort of speaking to all of New York, that was something.

[David]

So. So let's talk about age of revolutions. We have been moving in a direction since 1600. As you right here talk. The age of revolution is as the west opens up and Western liberalism grows, it thrives. There's there, there's. There's progress. There are steps. Go back, and you talk about Donald Trump in here, you talk about Steve Bannon, and basically you say the difference between the project that's been moving forward in the west since 1600 and where Donald Trump and Steve Bannon want to take us, there's a difference between. It's very simple. It's open versus closed. That's exactly right. I mean, and what I talk about in the book is every time you have these huge movements forward, globalization, you know, massive technological change, cultural change, civil rights, the rise of women in society, you always get a backlash. And how you navigate that backlash is what determines how successful you are. We are in that backlash right now. We are in a backlash against globalization, against, you know, this information revolution, against some of the cultural shifts that have taken place. And think about last night, though. Don't forget New York City. The reaction time is not like a decade or a century. It's a year where we had the first woman ever elected governor of Virginia. We had the first Democratic woman ever elected in the state of New Jersey. We had the first Muslim elected statewide in the state of Virginia. The first Muslim woman elected statewide in the state of Virginia, the lieutenant governor. We had the first Muslim mayor ever elected in New York City. I mean, you talk about, like, a political punch in the face for white nationalists who say, oh, no, no, these people don't belong here. They got a message last night from the American people. No, you're absolutely right. And at the conclusion of the book, I say, look, at the end of the day, don't. Don't mistake the undertow for the wave. In other words, you have a wave that's moving forward. You have undertows, you know, you have backlash. But the broad message of this book is there's only one path, which is you got to go forward. And in this country, I think what we're actually showing and what Mamdani's election showed is we're showing that there is a possibility of building the first truly multicultural multiracial democracy in the world. A kind of universal nation where everybody belongs and it's, it's messy and there's people and there's great cultural anxiety that it produces. The right is very good at weaponizing that cultural anxiety. And what the left has to learn is how to manage it back. Don't, don't play the right's game. Find a way to talk about, you know, I think Bill Clinton put it very well. If you get lost in the cultural issues, the right will always win. But if you can, if you can navigate them, people will listen to your economic message. And broadly speaking, the Democrat, the Democratic Party's economic message is popular. It gets drowned out when they enter the cultural realm and get into these, you know, issues of trans and this and that. And if there's a way for them to navigate that and stay, you know, don't get too far away from mainstream America in that respect. Americans are more than willing to listen to the economic message.

[Charlie Kirk]

This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. Prisoners not got a free shot on all these networks lying about the people. The people have had a belly full of it. I know you don't like hearing that. I know you try to do everything in the world to stop them, but you're not going to stop it. It's going to happen. And where do people like that go.

[Emily]

To share the big lie?

[Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton]

MAGA MEDIA I wish in my soul.

[Emily]

I wish that any of these people had a conscience.

[Charlie Kirk]

Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? If that answer is to save my.

[Adrian]

Country, this country will be saved.

[Ben]

War ROOM here's your host, Stephen K. Bass. Now.

[Charlie Kirk]

It'S Wednesday the 5th of November, in the year of our Lord 2025. A year ago at this time, we were all, what, on pins and needles? You know, we had high confidence that if upon, if we executed, we would win the greatest comeback in American political history. And that happened. A sweeping victory that we found out about, I don't know, 10 or 11 o' clock at night. We keep this photo right here in the war room about the very moment. A photo taken at the Willard Hotel on that, on that balcony. We used to cover all the big events in Washington D.C. the very moment of victory one year ago. So today we have a different set of issues. Mondame. And that's why I wanted to play that. And Van Jones got it right. He understood the mask came off last night. That's not a TikTok video. He's not skipping down the aisle with his little basket talking about how they're going to have government run stores or, you know, free buses or patting everybody on the head and doing his little dance moves. You saw it last night in all its glory up in your grill and particularly up in the President's grill. So what's the response going to be? Last night is a lesson that the old Republican Party, the husk of the Republican Party is a stiff, it's a loser. You saw that in the Commonwealth of Virginia. You have never Trumpers, you have Youngkin, you have the gubernatorial Canada disaster, never Trumper. Somebody that he weaponized to attack Trump years ago. And part of that whole Desantis move away from Trump. It's now time to double and triple down. We're going to get into that. I want to thank Sheila Matthews for Able Child, one of the actually smart strategists. She reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from Sun Tzu in the Art of War. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. If you know neither the enemy nor nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. So it's gut check time. You're the tip of the tip of the spirit. Do you know thyself? Does God's will channel through you, run through you? Are we going to roll over now? Oh my gosh. They won New Jersey, they won Virginia, they won New York City, they blew us out in California. It's gut check time in the war room. One year anniversary of the greatest political comeback in American history. Let me be blunt. Gold is up around 40% this year. That's not speculation, that's reality. And if a portion of your savings isn't diversified into gold, you're missing the boat. Now here's the Inflation is still too high, the US Dollar is still too weak and the government debt is insurmountable. That is why central banks are flocking to gold. They're the ones driving up the prices now to record highs. But it's not too late to buy gold from Birch Gold Group and get in the door. Now, Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered IRA. In gold, you don't pay a dime out of Pocket. Just text Bannon to 989-898 and claim your free info kit. There's no obligation, just useful information. The best indicator of the future is the past. And gold has historically been a safe haven for a millennia. What else can you say? Text Bannon to 989-898 right now to claim your free info kit on gold. That's Bannon to 989-898. Protect your future today with Birch Gold. Tell America's Voice family. Are you on Getter yet?

[Ben]

No.

[Grace]

What are you waiting for?

[Charlie Kirk]

It's free, it's uncensored, and it's where all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out. Download the Getter app right now. It's totally free. It's where I put up exclusively all of my content 24 hours a day. Want to know what Steve Bannon's thinking? Go to Getter.

[David]

That's right. You can follow all of your favorites.

[Justice Sotomayor]

Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobi and so many more.

[Charlie Kirk]

Download the Getter app now. Sign up for free and be part of the movement. So I'll get in a second article up in on Politico right now, but an interview I did with him last night around midnight on Donnie, right. And about how this got to be confronted. You can't will from it. You can't look the other way. What is the history of this movement? Tells us what? That we're antifragile, we're resilient. If you take a punch and then you give a punch back, no retreat, no giving up one foot that you've taken, fix bayonets and go forward, double down and triple down. The lesson last night is where the Republican donor class, you know, Jack Citarelli and his consultants didn't want Trump's engagement up there. Trump drew 100,000 people, 100,000 people on a windy day in 2024 to the Jersey Shore for a rally. You fully engage Donald Trump up there, you're going to, you're going to hold those counties. You're not going to get wiped like you got if you stiff arm Trump and have a tele town hall the night before. That's not good enough. This is about low propensity voters, people that will come out for Trump in the MAGA message of economic populism. If you give them, if you give them old half baked Republican ideas, which is what New Jersey was, is kind of a variation of Christie, right? Chris Christie with the same type of consultants don't want Trump. And then in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin bro, what are you spending time in Iowa? You just ended your political career last night as a native Virginian. You destroyed, you destroyed the Republican party for a generation. There are seats in the House of Delegates that are unfathomable, that could have been law, that were lost last night to a super majority, a super majority in the House. And hey, guess what? This kind of implications because they're rolling. Virginia is going to go 101 in house. They're going to be like New England or they're going to be like Illinois or they're going to be like California, the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is a disgrace that you push that lieutenant government that you weaponize against Trump in 21 and 22 when you wanted to Sanders, you weaponized her and then you rigged it. There wasn't even a primary. She's going to be the candidate. And she was a unmitigated Trump hating disaster. And her concession speech last night, which we did not play because she waited until, I don't know, an hour after Spanberger stood up and took credit for the blowout. Her thing was all about her, all about her journey. I don't give a damn about your journey. I care about this country. I care about the Commonwealth of Virginia. I care about the MAGA movement. I care about Western civilization. I don't give a damn about your personal journey. It's boring. You're boring me like you bored the voters. Chip. Roy, the good news last night, Lee Wamsgan, monumental win. She had three and a half, $4 million put on her by Chinese casino money on her head and kept the guy that came in to 15 percentage points. She would have won outright if the geniuses in Vegas had not come down on top of her. But she's in a runoff and she'll win the runoff, but we're gonna have to do some work there. But she'll win the runoff, but in Texas. I gotta tell you, Chip, there's a video out this morning to some, some imam saying Texas is the Mecca of the West. The way to confront New York City is we gotta hold Texas. I am very worried about Texas, sir.

[Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton]

Yes, Steve, me too. Look, I don't know if you saw it, but on Friday introduced legislation to take away the C3, C3 status, the tax free status of care and any other organization affiliated or tied to terrorism. Introduce legislation to start vetting individuals. We should stop admitting people who are adherent to Sharia law. We should deport people who are adherent to Sharia law. We've got to start getting serious about this, in this election, let's be very clear, this is a wake up call that if you don't lead and lead with a clear vision and a clear direction, you're going to get absolutely slaughtered. That's what happened in Virginia. You're dead right. Instead of like going around and whining about, well, you know, the, the AG candidate said this or said that and you know, oh, this was my story. Like, lead with something people can sink their teeth into. People are tired of not being able to afford housing, they're tired of not being able to afford groceries. The President is working on all of that. Secretary Bessen is working on all of that. And it takes a couple of years to get his system fully firing. But we've got to have leadership that's going to say we're going to take on the healthcare giants, we're going to go after the insurance companies, we're going to go after the big monopoly health care hospital organizations, we're going to stand up and stop Sharia law, we're going to stop the radical Marxists who are trying to kill us. The vast network of people that are organized with Arabella, with Soros, with Gates, with the United nations, with all of the international conglomerates that are funding these NGOs that are all being used to attack us. Whether it's the Southern Poverty Law center in Antifa, whether it's the 250 organizations that were shoving people into our country during Biden and Mayorkas, whether it's the district attorneys that are funded by the Soros regime and the Ren Collective, and all of these things are organized and coordinated. And Steve, you know it and I know it, but Republicans are sitting around making nice and giving speeches on the steps of the Capitol instead of rip roaring coming through behind the President to save this country. We've got to start being aggressive and we've got to do something about it. I'm going to do it as a Texas Attorney General, but I've got a year left in Congress and I'm going to keep introducing legislation to force Republicans to actually do the hard work of changing the direction of the country. And look, I think we got to be thinking through all of our options right now to make sure we do not waste the remaining three years in change of President Trump's administration.

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, it's three and a half years. We got to get to get. You got it. We're burning daylight on all these investigations. John Solomon's going to be with us at 11 to go through that. But the first order of Battle. The midterms started last night. And this is why these redistricting fights, the one in Texas, we should have gotten eight seats. We only got five because of Abbott and the establishment down there, they're terrified of the media, you know, calling them out so they get weak. Right now, we're in a range war. You know, Virginia's going to go 10 1. Maryland last night, you know, Wes Moore wants to be vice president. He said he's going to form a commission.

[Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton]

We're in.

[Charlie Kirk]

Mike Pence's group is fighting us on going nano in Indiana. This fight over the reditioning wars now are going to set up the midterms, which are going to set up 28. They're all inextricably linked like last night. You can't break these out as individual, just component pieces. So what do we got to do on the redistricting? You're going to be Texas ag. Would you tell Abbott right now, as the Attorney General of Texas, you got three more seats there, bro. Let's roll hard. Or you prepared to just sit there with Abbott and Abbott saying, it's so hard we could lose the court case, sir?

[Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton]

Yeah, we need to lean into more seats, not just in Texas, but, yes, in Texas, Attorney General, but also Indiana, like you point out, other states that aren't being as aggressive. You saw California last night, they passed their referendum to basically take their ridiculously paltry nine Republicans out of, what, 50, however many seats they have, and they're gonna reduce that to, what, four or five? I mean, that's. They're playing hardball. There's not a single Republican seat in New England, not one. And yet we get 40% of the vote in New England. So they're playing hardball. They're at war with us, and we're not, you know, recognizing the war and fighting in, like, spirit. And look, this is the thing about going back to Islam that we've got to recognize you can't win a war that you don't recognize exists. So we should be passing legislation right now. Look, and fight the Senate, force the votes. But we should be limiting the flow of people into our country that hate our country. We should not be expanding it. We should be putting and codifying what President Trump is doing to protect us going forward. We should be doing the things we should on health care, not crying in a corner saying, oh, well, we'll do Obamacare Lite. We should be aggressive on that stuff. And again, it's the insurance companies and the big, you know, monopolistic hospital corporations. That are killing our healthcare system with crony capitalism. We don't have capitalism. We're running a campaign of weakness. We're running a campaign, as Republicans, of trying to do the Democrat light. President Trump wants to lead, he wants to go on offense. And Republicans on Capitol Hill are just kind of messing around going, well, we got this big beautiful bill done and now we're kind of done. And let's limp through into the midterms. We can't do that. And look in Texas, we've got to double down. If there is no Texas, the country completely falls apart. And you said it and people need to know it. The Muslim Brotherhood in London and in Paris, they recognize that Dallas in particular, Texas, is the epicenter of what they're trying to do for the Islamification of not just Texas, not just America, but the Western hemisphere big time. They're planting the seeds here and we've got to rip those seeds up and get them out of Texas before I lose you.

[Charlie Kirk]

By the way, 100% Muslim Brotherhood should be designated a terrorist organization today.

[Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton]

100%.

[Charlie Kirk]

Real quick, real quickly. There's gonna be tons of pressure from RINO senators for President Trump putting in his ear, oh, it's all about the shutdown that Democrats still want to put a trillion dollars in to financing illegal alien healthcare. The reason he lost New York City last night is 40 or 50 years of bad immigration policy, of visa scams, all of it. Where do you stand on the shutdown right now, Chip?

[Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton]

Yeah, 100% stand. The president has been doing the right thing. We've got to hold the line, but we need to hold the line with a more forceful message. Democrats are the ones that are, that are causing this. They want to take this into Thanksgiving, make them own it. But we've got to be on offense. Don't just sit here quietly being on defense. Let's go back to Washington. Let's get up there. Let's pass righteous bills. Let's send them over to the Senate. Let's demand that they take action on those righteous bills. Let's pass HR2 from the last Congress securing the border. Let's pass bills that limit Sharia law coming into our country. Let's pass the same act again and tell them that we shouldn't have just citizens voting in American elections. Let's pass legislation banning stock trading for members of Congress who are enriching themselves while they're, you know, on committees and self trading. Let's do those things and demonstrate we've got an agenda and let's get aggressive on health care. Go after the corporate cronyism, go after the PBMs. Demonstrate that we're with the hard working Americans and not the ruling in class. If we do that, we win. If we sit back on defense and if we side with the moderate.

[Charlie Kirk]

If you're a homeowner, you need to listen to this. In today's AI and cyber world, scammers are stealing home titles with more ease than ever. And your equity is the target. Here's how it works. Criminals forge your signature on one document, use a fake notary stamp, pay small fee with your county and boom. Your home title has been transferred out of your name. Then they take out loans using your equity or even sell your property. You won't even know it's happened until you get a collection or foreclosure notice. So let me ask you, when was the last time you personally checked your home title? If you're like me, the answer is never. And that's exactly what scammers are counting on. That's why I trust home title lock. Use promo code [e-mail] to make sure your title is still in your name. You also get a free title history report, plus a free 14 day trial of their million dollar triple lock protection. That's 24,7 monitoring of your title, urgent alerts to any changes, and if fraud should happen, they'll spend up to $1 million to fix it. Go to hometitlelock.com now. Use promo code Steve. That's hometitleock.com, promo code Steve. Do it today. What if he had the brightest mind in the war room delivering critical financial research every month? Steve Bannon here. War room listeners know Jim Rickards. I love this guy. He's our wise man. A former CIA, Pentagon and White House advisor with an unmatched grasp of geopolitics and capital markets. Jim predicted Trump's electoral College victory exactly 312 to 226, down to the actual number itself. Now he's issuing a dire warning about April 11, a moment that could define Trump's presidency and your financial future. His latest book, MoneyGPT, exposes how AI is setting the stage for financial chaos. Bank runs at lightning speeds, algorithm driven crashes and even threats to national security. Right now, War Room members get a free copy of MoneyGPT when they sign up for Strategic Intelligence. This is Jim's flagship financial newsletter, Strategic Intelligence. I read it. You should read it. Time is running out. Go to rickardswarroom.com that's all one word. Rickards war room Rickards with an S. Go now and claim your free book. That's rickardswarroom.com do it today. The vehicle is imposition of taxes on Americans and that has always been the core power of Congress. So to have the President's foreign affairs power trump that, that basic power for Congress seems to me to kind of at least neutralize between the two powers.

[Justice Kagan]

The executive power and the legislative power.

[Ben]

Let me say two things in response to that. First, the notion that these are the taxes are all borne by Americans, are not borne by foreign foreign producers who are, whose goods are imported as is empirically. That's not, there's no basis for that in the record. It's actually a mix.

[Charlie Kirk]

Who pays the tariffs? If a tariff is imposed on automobiles, who pays them?

[Ben]

There's a. Typically there'd be a. Regardless of what the importer of record is, there'd be a contract that would go along the sort of line of transfer that would allocate the tariff and there'd be different. Sometimes, sometimes the foreign, the foreign producer would pay them, sometimes the importer would bear the cost. The importer could be an American, could be a foreign company. A lot of times it's a wholly owned American subsidiary of a foreign corporation. So it gets allocated. The empirical estimates range from like 30% to 80% of like how much is borne by.

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean it's been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for significant reduction in our deficit. I would say that's raising revenue domestically.

[Ben]

There certainly is an incidental and collateral effect to the tariffs that they do raise revenue. But it's very important that they are regulatory tariffs, not revenue raising tariffs. And the way you can see this, I think if you look at this policy, this policy is by far the most effective. If nobody ever pays the tariffs. I say two policies, right? So if you look at the trade deficit emergency, if nobody ever pays the tariffs and instead Americans direct their consumption towards American producers and stimulate the rebuilding of our hollowed out manufacturing base, then the policy is by far the most effective. So a tariff, a regulatory tariff that.

[Justice Kagan]

Why not do what the statute permits? Bar importation of products altogether. That would be the most effective way to do it.

[Ben]

The question you follow the statute.

[Justice Kagan]

The statute says the President can do that. What it doesn't say is the President can raise revenue.

[Ben]

What it says he can regulate importation and go hundreds of years the way.

[Justice Kagan]

You were causing it. Subjecting some countries and not others to importation bans. There's a lot of verbs, but none of them include generating Revenue as a side effect or directly.

[Ben]

Let me address that verb point, if I may, because think about the canonical example, a statute that refers to a list of, of swords, knives, daggers, dirks and pikes. There you look at those, that list of things, and you say, aha, those are all weapons. Therefore a pike is a spear, not, not a fish in that particular context. Now look at this list of verbs, block, prohibit, capel, direct, and so forth. You don't look at that naturally, as an ordinary reader and say, oh, look, they're all not revenue raising. What you say is they're all very broad, powerful, you know, general actions of these general.

[Justice Sotomayor]

The verbs that are in the statute are actually doing something. I mean, they're in the statute for a reason. And as I understand it, Congress actually explained to us in its Senate report and House report when IT enacted the 1941amendments to TWIA what it was doing. It said that what we are doing is authorizing the President in the Senate report, quote, to control or freeze property transactions actions where a foreign interest is involved. There's similar language about controlling, freezing, control in the House report. So I appreciate that. Generally you can look at these words and you can imagine that they mean certain things, but here we have evidence that Congress was actually trying to do a particular thing with respect to the authority that it was presenting to the President, and that thing was not raising revenue.

[Ben]

I think that what the powers that Congress was conferring on the President are best understood through the plain text of the statutes, which includes regulating.

[Justice Sotomayor]

No, I know, but some of us care about the legislative history. And so the plain text of the statute has certain verbs in it. It also has regulate commerce, as you say. And when I look at the legislative history, it appears as though Congress was trying to give the President the authority to, quote, control or freeze property transactions where foreign interest is involved. And in the TWIA context, that makes perfect sense because we're talking about a wartime dynamic. And what is happening is the President needs the authority to prevent trading with the enemy in the midst of a war. And that seems to be the focus of this statute. So I guess I'm concerned about just sort of taking a particular word here and there and saying that the general view of it might include raising revenue, when in fact it looks as though the aim of this was really to give the President a certain kind of authority to freeze the assets of the enemy.

[Ben]

And let me say two things in response that first, as the notion that this is a revenue raising tactic or power, it is not. We are asserting a regulatory power. It's a delegation. The power to regulate foreign commerce. The, the way to control imports traditionally has been to tariff them. They say, well, you can impose quotas. Well, quotas are essentially economically, you know, economically equivalent to tariffs. So the question is why would you be able to quota under regulate but not tariff under regulate when the tariffs are themselves regulatory. And let me turn back to the question I was the response I was.

[Justice Sotomayor]

Going to justice to illustrate, could the answer be that in other places where Congress wants that particular form of regulation to be used, they say impose duties. They say you can tax Mr. President. Here they don't say that.

[Ben]

I'd say two things in response. That's the very argument that this court rejected in Algonquin, that the fact that these other specific statutes, if we disagree.

[Justice Sotomayor]

With you, that Algonquin is a similar context. Do you have another statute or another circumstance?

[Ben]

And again, not to say Algonquin again, but obviously discussed the phrase adjust imports and they said the natural way to do that is to tariff them. And they specifically said it makes no sense at all to authorize quotas, which was conceded that that statute did authorize, but not tariffs because those are equivalent.

[Grace]

But it's not just by any means necessary which kind of beefs up the adjust. And also and this is actually I just don't know the answer to this question. So maybe you can help and maybe the other side can help as well. Algonquin was very careful to always call it a license and a licensing fee. And in the oral argument that came up too, the distinction between a tariff and a licensing fee. And I can understand how in some contexts it would be very difficult. You would press on it and you would say, well, if this license fee is raising revenue, then it actually functions as a tariff. But what is the significance of that? Because in IPA it also says it refers at protection, particularly to licenses. It says you can license and license would be a way of giving permission. That's actually the language also used in the Civil War one and what is it against Kent Exactly.

[Ben]

Yes, it does.

[Grace]

It was licensed. It was a license fee. And that's a way to grant permission that you wouldn't otherwise have to trade and import and let it through. So tell me what the distinction is between licenses and fees. And if it matters, it's hard for.

[Ben]

Me to see one because what President Lincoln said is, okay, we're going to allow imports from hostile foreign powers, basically rebellious Confederate states of cotton, subject to a license. And but you got to pay 4 cents a pound in cotton, when you do it, that's the condition that is is is so nearly equivalent to a tariff that says you can bring these goods to our country, but you got to pay a ad valorem assessment on it. And so. And of course they have in their briefs conceded that quotas apply, that licensing may apply. There is the language in the beginning of 1701 that talks about instruments, you know, or other methods, instruments, licenses.

[Grace]

But if that were true, why couldn't you just call this a license? And it's also true that in the cotton example, the court said the exaction itself was not properly a tax but a bonus required as a conditioned precedent for engaging in the trade. So it seems like it was a little squirrely about how it was proceeding. And if there really is no distinction, why couldn't you just call it a license?

[Ben]

Here very briefly, the other two cases, you know, the Polk case and then the President McKinley case, talk about duties. So I see an equivalence there. Mr. Chief Justice.

[Charlie Kirk]

Thank you, counsel.

[Ben]

Justice Thomas, anything further? The other side is going to argue, make an argue on delegation, I believe. Would you anticipate that and give us your understanding of the delegation argument? Yes. Justice Thomas, I'd say a couple things in response to that. First of all, this court has stated that the non delegation doctrine does not apply with anything like the same force as it does in the domestic context, in the foreign context. And that again to cite Dames and Moore, again, Dames and Moore cites Youngstown and Youngstown. And footnote two view of Justice Jackson's opinion, he goes into detail about this. He addresses Curtis, right. He says there's a lot of broad dicta in Curtis Wright, but the holding of Curtis Wright, the ratio dissidendi is that the, not the domestic non delegation doctrine does not apply with the same force in the, in the foreign context. And then he used that phrase does not apply. He says the strict limitations on delegation that apply, you know, in the internal context do not apply in the external context. And so we rely on that line of cases. And further reasons I talked about earlier, we were talking about a situation where the President has his own inherent authority to address foreign arising emergencies and Congress is conferring tools on him that expand his ability, his capacity to do so. We are in the area of Youngstown Zone 1 a few times you have alluded to the history as being important in interpreting the statute and also that this language comes from the Trading with the Enemies act and that has its own pedigree. Could you just sketch out this direct line that you were alluding to as a basis for interpreting the current emergency statute as you would like it interpreted. Yes. Justice Thomas and turning back to the response I was giving to Justice Barrett earlier, there is, I think it's very well set out in Professor Bombsize amicus brief. There is this history of presidents using a tariffing power or a tariff equivalent power very, very close to tariffing power in wartime, to tariff trading with enemies. And that is when the Trading with the Enemy act was enacted in 1917, it was deliberately evoking that. And when it brings in the power to regulate importation, it's essentially codifying for the inherent power the President's already recognized to have. And then in 1933, when that power is expanded to an area where he wouldn't inherently have it, the peacetime context that codification, the meaning of that remains the same. The regulated importation language that's brought in from Twill and then ultimately to IPA in 1977 is carrying with it that connotation. And that's reinforced by all the cases we've cited in our brief where there's been extremely broad delegations of the power to tariff specifically and the power to regulate foreign commerce more generally going back to the time of the founding, which ties to your question about non delegation.

[Charlie Kirk]

Justice Alito, the court of the CCPA said several said things in Yoshida that are helpful to your position, but it also said some other things. It said that future search charges, quote, must of course comply with section 122 of the Trade act of 1974. And it said that the Trading with the Enemy act did not authorize the President to, quote, fix rates of duty at will without regard to statutory rates prescribed by Congress. So do you think that Congress, to the extent Congress had that decision in mind and relied on it, do you think it also relied on those statements in the opinion?

[Ben]

Not in the same way, because those statements are read into other provisions of TWEA that Congress did not enact in an epa. They may still be there in twill, but those are limitations that it wouldn't make sense to do. And I think the significance of Yoshida is at a higher level. Keep in mind that their principal position is no tariffs at all. Regular importation just doesn't carry a connotation of the power to tariff. And we say we've got historical sources going back to Givens against Ogden that say the opposite. But more fundamentally, everyone knew that at the the time IPA was enacted that regulated importation had just very visibly and very prominently been upheld. To include a sweeping global tariff. Thank you, Mr. Somayor.

[Justice Kagan]

I'd like to go back to Justice Barrett's question on the word license as used in ipa. It's not used as a verb, it's used as a noun. The President may, under such regulations as he may prescribe by means of instructions, licenses or otherwise, then do what the verbs permit him to do. By license, he can nullify, void, prevent or prohibit any acquisition, et cetera. So license is not being used as a verb, that through licensing, he can raise revenue. He can only use licenses to accomplish the verbs. So I don't understand how we can treat licensing as equivalent to revenue raising. As used in ipa. The license is only to accomplish what B permits.

[Ben]

In Hamilton against Dillon, licenses. Once you have the license, then you had to pay the fees. But that's the point I'm making, which.

[Justice Kagan]

Is that the only use of license here is a noun you can license to accomplish the powers that be gives the President.

[Ben]

Let me be clear. We rely on the phrase regulate, importation. We're not saying that exactly.

[Justice Kagan]

You're not relying on licenses for that reason?

[Ben]

No, I only cite that language, introductory language, about, you know, instruments, licenses, another layer of breadth in this particular case.

[Justice Kagan]

Counsel, would you listen to my question? You're not relying on license for the reason I just said, because it is a noun, not the verb. You're relying on regulate, correct?

[Ben]

Yes, relying on regulate, importation.

[Justice Kagan]

And despite the fact that no other president in the history of AIPA has ever used. Has ever imported. Used tariffs as a power under eafa.

[Ben]

Well, President Nixon did so under a.

[Justice Kagan]

Predecessor, and we have all the limitations of that. All right, Number two, whenever Congress intends to permit taxing and regulate, it uses the word tax and regulate in every other statute, correct?

[Ben]

I don't concede that. I mean, two very visible examples again are TWEA and Section 122.

[Justice Kagan]

We're back to the question here. Okay, thank you, Council.

[Charlie Kirk]

Justice Sonora.

[Justice Alito]

No, she's Justice Sotomayor. She just finished.

[Charlie Kirk]

Justice Kagan.

[Justice Kagan]

General and their friends.

[Justice Alito]

I want to take you back to Justice Thomas question about non delegation. And if I understood your answer correctly, it was really similar to the answer that you started off with when you talked with Justice Thomas about the major question doctrine, which is sort of everything's different because the President has independent constitutional powers in this area. And so that if one does not think that with respect to tariffs, if one thinks that a tariff is a taxing power, is a regulation of foreign commerce that is really delegated by the Constitution, To Congress, that argument does not disagree, does not sound so well. And in fact, when you look at J.W. hampton, which gives rise to the non delegation test that we usually use, J.W. hampton is a tariffs case. And the Court did not say, oh, we need some special new principle here, some stricter rule because we're dealing with tariffs in which presidents are directly concerned. As a matter of foreign relations, it an un the test we use for all non delegations. So how does that fit with your theory?

[Ben]

Eight years later in Curtis Wright, the Court held the non delegation doctrine for domestic affairs does not apply with the same forces, but not with respect to.

[Justice Alito]

Tariffs, not with respect to quintessential taxing powers which are given by the Constitution to Congress.

[Ben]

I think justices of this Court have recognized in their opinions that one of the reasons that the non delegation document doctrine, you know, that intelligible principle test has impact as much punch as Justice Kavanaugh said in one of his opinions, as it might otherwise have done, as it did arise in the foreign affairs context, because there the Court has historically been very, very comfortable with very broad delegations. Chicago and Southern Airlines, another case from the 1930s, shortly after J.W. hampton talked about the very large delegations of the foreign commerce power being very effective. And of course, this goes back to the very dawn of the Republic in 1790. First example, Congress conferred on President Washington basically the entire Indian commerce power. He said, go, you know, get licenses right to do commerce with the Indians, and they'll be subject to whatever rules and regulations President Washington can make. So I do think there is a profound consistency between the announcement of the intelligible principle test in JW Hampton and then the subsequent recognition by this court in Curtis Wright that the non delegation document doesn't apply to the same force.

[Justice Alito]

Math in consumers research. Just last year we had a tax before us and the question was, was this a delegation issue? It was of course, a much smaller tax which dealt with many fewer taxpayers. Notwithstanding that we said if there's no ceiling on this tax, we sort of assumed that if there were no ceiling on this tax, it would raise a delegation problem. And most of the opinion was given over to showing that there in fact was a ceiling on the tax, not a quantitative one, but a qualitative one. But how does your argument fit with the idea that a tax with no ceiling, a tax that can be anything that here the President wants, there an agency wants, would raise a pretty deep delegation problem?

[Ben]

First of all, I can't say enough. It is a regulate regulatory tariff, not a tax and that I think ties to my response to that, which is that this is a totally different context. This is iepa, a statute that Congress carefully crafted to grant the President admittedly broad powers to address foreign arising emergencies. It's outward facing to foreign affairs where there's the broadest level of deference to the political branches. This court has recognized in many cases and imposed not a floor or limit on the amount of a tariff that could be imposed very naturally, because, for example, as this court said in Loving, quoting, you know, Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist Number 23, it's impossible to foresee either what exigencies may arise or what tools may be needed to address those edges, the means that may be required to address those existencies. Instead, Congress grant very bad powers, but they're confined to a particular domain. This domain is any property in which any foreign government or any, any national thereof has any interest. So the sort of discipline, if one were to apply, we say you shouldn't, but if you were to apply the non delegation doctrine, the domestic facing non delegation doctrine in this context, there's a significant limitation there.

[Justice Alito]

My last question really does have to do with that point, which is how or whether this is confined. Because if you look at title 19, which is loaded with tariffs and duties of various kinds, all of them have real constraints on them. They are, you know, you can't go over X percent.

[Charlie Kirk]

One of the. We'll make sure this all gets played. One of the most important arguments in the Supreme Court, you see how tough it is. That's the Solicitor General of the United States, John Sauer, that did so much great work for President Trump. Solicitor General, you got to be ready. Normally walk in there, you've got your case, your brief, you're going to take your, I don't know, 10 or 15 minutes to present it. Boom, right at the start, they're up in your face with these questions and you see how complicated you are and you don't have time to look it up. You got to know it. That's the, that's the amazing thing about these arguments right there. And the Supreme Court so far has gone, has, don't say gone along, but they've been very adamant that they're not the Warren Court, that they're not a activist court. They have come back on these, remember the Article two powers of the President and the, quite frankly, the maximalist strategy of those Article 2 powers. As Chief executive officer, as commander in chief and as chief magistrate and chief law enforcement officer here it's about essentially President Trump's trade and tariff policies and the underlying laws that he used to stitch that together. And right there getting hammered as he should. These are, this is a very, very important argument. It's the basis for redoing the commercial relationships in the world and restoring America as a manufacturing superpower. A manufacturing superpower. Okay. Senator Hawley is running a few minutes late. He's going to come to the top of the hour. We got John Solomon, got big breaking news in the investigations, plus more of the politics. Let me just go over. There's a article in, in Politico now, an interview. Grace and Mo, if you can make sure that's put out so people can read it doesn't, you know, get it past the paywall at Politico. It's time to double and triple down. President Trump is still the vehicle for get to low propensity voters. Why do you understand he's trying to do something with, with the country now? Look, look, he's been, you know, had a huge emphasis on the international side because we are in the beginning stages of the third World War and he's tried to put that to bed. Also hemispheric defense. And like I said, I don't agree with all of this. I particularly think the Middle east has been way overplayed and now it's time. The Middle east is a sideshow and Israel is a sideshow to a sideshow. We got to get focused and particularly focused here. American for America first and American citizens first.

[Ben]

First.

[Charlie Kirk]

But when you've made a bet like on the big beautiful bill, you got to execute, you got to execute on it. And right now that's the key part. If it's a supply side tax cut, then we got to make sure that all these investments that are supposedly going to be done are done. It can't be any more wish list anymore. Just get on it. Designate somebody on the cabinet to do it. President Trump's too busy. Can't do everything. He's flying down today for a day trip down to Florida to talk to a business council. About what? About investment in the United States of America. That's what he should be doing. The arrested guys in the Cabinet, Besant, Lutnick, all these guys, you got to execute on, on this, on the big beautiful bill. And I believe they're over there right now talking about the filibuster. And he had breakfast at the Senate and a bunch of those guys want to crater right now. And you cannot crater on giving illegal aliens health care. That's what we have. The problem. You have Last night in New York City. Let's face it, you can't do that. You can't crater on this. You got another reconciliation. How about this for the reconciliation? Let's now raise the taxes on the wealthy. What we should have done the first time to start to close this budget deficit and to make sure we have to borrow less money because the borrowing costs themselves, as we've said over and over again, add to the inflation. It's hard to get the inflation under 3% when you're borrowing so much money. Just a basic fact. Where do you learn that? Go to birchgold.com promo code ABAN the end of the dollar empire. Find out all about the inextricably linked nature of the capital markets in the US dollar and what that means for gold and the price of gold and gold as a hedge in times of financial turbulence. Plus, you get to Philip Patrick in the team, most importantly to Philip Patrick in the team. They can talk to you about all the tax deferred methodologies, how they can roll over 401ks ras, all of it. Talk to them today. Take a short commercial break. Home Tadalak. Now more than ever, man, if 80 or 90% of your home or your net worth is top of your home and if you're an average American, it's at least that. If you're lucky enough to own one. If you're under 35 years old, you don't own one. That's going to be worth it out, right? Don't let that dream turn into the worst nightmare you ever had. Let somebody get into your title. Take a second mortgage. I don't. Well, you got a hard money lender, you got to pay it back. Your life changes. Hometitle lock.com promo code Steve, you're talking pennies a day for this. Check it out. Natalie Dominguez and the team, short break, second hour, next. Okay, let's be honest. You never thought it would get this far. Maybe you missed the last IRS deadline or you haven't filed taxes in a while. Let me be clear. The IRS is cracking down harder than ever and this ain't gonna go away anytime soon. That's why you need Tax Network usa. They don't just know the irs. They have a preferred direct line to the irs. They know which agents to deal with and which to avoid. Their expert negotiators have one goal. Settle your tax problems quickly and in your favor. Their team has helped clear over $1 billion in tax debt. Whether you owe 10,000 or 10 million, even if your books are a mess or you haven't filed in years. Tax Network USA can help. But don't wait. This won't fix itself. Call Tax Network USA right now. It's free. Talk to a strategist. And finally, put this behind you. Call 1-800-958-1000. That's 1-800-958-10000 or visit Tnusa. Com Bannon. Make sure you tell them, Bannon. You'll get a free evaluation. That's 1-800-958-1000. Do not let letters from the IRS or your failure to file work on your nerves anymore. Take action.

[Ben]

Action.

[Charlie Kirk]

And do it today.