Episode 4905: SCOTUS Listens To Oral Arguments On Trump's Tariffs

Summary

Summary of Bannon's War Room: Episode 4905

"SCOTUS Listens To Oral Arguments On Trump's Tariffs"

Date: November 6, 2025
Host: Stephen K. Bannon
Main Guest: David J. Lynch (Washington Post, author "The World’s Worst Bet")
Other Voices: Constitutional law experts, legal analysts, trade policy experts, and political journalists

---

1. Episode Overview

This episode focuses on the Supreme Court's historic oral arguments regarding President Trump's use of emergency powers to levy unilateral tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The conversation centers on the scope of executive authority, the constitutional balance of powers, and the broader political and economic impact, especially for Trump’s economic agenda seeking to reverse globalization’s effects on American industry.

---

2. Key Discussion Points and Insights

A. The Constitutional Question: Balance of Power

Topic:

• Can the President unilaterally levy tariffs under IEEPA, or is this an overreach of executive authority traditionally granted to Congress (the power to tax and regulate commerce)?
• What precedent would SCOTUS set regarding separation of powers in times of declared emergencies?

Notable Insights:

• Constitutional Law Expert: Emphasizes the political process’s check: Congress can terminate emergencies, but only with a veto-proof majority.

  "If [the President] declares an emergency and Congress doesn't like it and passes a joint resolution, yes, he can absolutely veto that." (00:18)

• Legal Analyst: Raises concern about an executive power ratchet, diminishing Congressional authority.

  "Congress, a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the President. So one-way ratchet..." (00:31)

• Legal Commentator: Notes the Supreme Court’s pattern of expanding presidential powers, but highlights today's skepticism as justices grill the limits of emergency power in trade.

  "...today the justices seem skeptical over an emergency power that President Trump has made the central feature of his second term..." (01:10)

B. The Major Questions Doctrine and Its Politics

Topic:

• The "Major Questions Doctrine"—should presidential actions with significant economic or political impact require explicit new Congressional authorization, even if there is an existing statute?

Key Moments:

• Federalist Society’s evolving stance on executive power applies, regardless of party.

  "Gorsuch at least seems to feel that the Major Questions Doctrine does apply to Donald Trump..." (04:54)

• Conservative justices appeared split on the doctrine's reach, revealing its application is not strictly partisan.

  "It looks like at least amongst the Republican justices, they seem to be evenly split..." (05:29)

C. SCOTUS Oral Arguments: Impressions and Expectations

Guest: David J. Lynch, in the gallery

• Describes the room as intensely focused, with probing questions from justices, likening the argument to a legal "Ali-Frazier fight":

  "It was like watching the legal equivalent of an Ali Frazier fight. Both sides...made their cases to the best of their ability." (11:34)

• Justice Gorsuch is highlighted as especially sharp and skeptical, pressing the Solicitor General on future hypothetical abuses, such as a Democratic president declaring a climate emergency and imposing steep tariffs:

  "Wouldn't this reading of the Emergency Economic Powers Act allow a Democratic president to impose a 50% tax on imported cars and imported auto parts?" (13:54)
  Solicitor General concedes: "very likely that would be the case." (14:42)

• Lynch interprets the justices’ tone as skeptical towards the Administration’s sweeping claims.

  "A majority...asked some pretty skeptical questions of the Solicitor General, which makes me think the President's emergency tariff plans anyway might be in some trouble." (11:34)

D. Economic Policy and the Controversy of Trump's Approach

Topic:

• Trump is first to use IEEPA (traditionally for sanctions) as a basis for broad tariffs, which he calls essential to reverse decades of industrial decline and economic emergency caused by globalization.

Key Insights:

• Trump's "emergency" is defined as the persistent trade deficit, labeling it an existential threat.

  "The President's identification of the trade deficit as an emergency...we've run an annual trade deficit every year since 1975..." (20:52)

• This strategy is controversial:

  "He's the first president to see in that law a power to impose tariffs." (20:52)
  "The advantage of using IEEPA is it does convey broad and immediate powers..." (21:34)

• If the Court rules against Trump, unwinding these tariffs could involve massive refunds and new legal maneuvering:

  "They've...collected something like $90 billion via these emergency tariffs. If the court were to invalidate all of them and order a refund..." (23:38)

E. Larger Themes: Globalization, Domestic Politics, and Populism

Bannon and Lynch Discuss:

• The disconnect between economic theory and lived experience—many economists downplayed offshoring’s effect, while communities were devastated.

• Bannon frames Trump’s tariffs as a necessary and radical disruption to a failed bipartisan consensus on trade.

  "He's trying to reverse it and he's trying to do it as a shock to the system, as he is a disruptor, because there are other ways to do this. They just take forever. President Trump's making the case...the trade deficit is an emergency. It has to be dealt with." (40:51)

• Lynch summarizes the past thirty years of globalization as causing both great prosperity and severe dislocation, especially in manufacturing communities, blaming policymakers for failing to protect those left behind.

  "...the so called China shock...that's not going to be the last time. The American worker is challenged by time of tumult and upheaval and artificial intelligence may well be the next punch that's thrown. We got to figure these issues out." (34:50)

---

3. Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• Legal Analyst: "Congress, a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the President." (00:31)
• David J. Lynch: "...Like watching the legal equivalent of an Ali Frazier fight. Both sides...made their cases to the best of their ability." (11:34)
• Justice Gorsuch (paraphrased by Lynch): "Wouldn't this reading of the Emergency Economic Powers Act allow a Democratic president to impose a 50% tax on imported cars...?" (13:54)
• Solicitor General: "Very likely that could be done." (17:03)
• Stephen K. Bannon: "This is the primal scream of a dying regime...Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved." (06:47)
• Lynch: "Trump is taking a radical action—he’s delivering a shock to the system to reverse what he says are decades of damaging trade and economic policy." (40:51)

---

4. Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00 – 01:10: Congressional checks on emergency powers and presidential veto.
• 01:10 – 02:00: Supreme Court’s recent pattern of expanding executive authority.
• 02:00 – 05:29: Oral argument focus; questions on taxation powers—Supreme Court skepticism.
• 11:34 – 14:42: David J. Lynch’s courtroom impressions; Justice Gorsuch’s pointed questions on hypotheticals.
• 17:03 – 17:17: Solicitor General concedes that broad emergency powers might allow for climate-based tariffs by a Democratic president.
• 20:52 – 22:42: Explaining IEEPA, the nature of Trump’s 'emergency', and the decades-long trade deficit.
• 23:38 – 25:34: What happens if the tariffs are struck down? Refund logistics and alternative legal frameworks.
• 31:27 – 34:50: Lynch on globalization’s impact and the inadequacy of the policy response.
• 40:51 – 42:55: Bannon’s summation of what's at stake for Trump's economic program and for American industrial policy.

---

5. Tone and Language

The episode maintains Bannon's signature populist, combative tone, focusing on the notion of an "American emergency" caused by globalization and elite neglect. The legal segments are earnest and technical, with moments of humor and cynicism (e.g., "like an Ali-Frazier fight"). The overall tone is urgent—underscoring the pivotal nature of the Supreme Court’s looming decision and its resonance beyond the legal sphere into all facets of US politics and society.

---

Episode Takeaways

• SCOTUS’s ruling on Trump’s emergency tariff authority is seen as pivotal for the scope of presidential power, economic nationalism, and Trump’s wider agenda.
• The episode lays bare tensions in American governance: debate over the proper limits of executive authority, and whether emergency powers can be used to radically reshape economic policy.
• Both left and right have reason to watch the case: the precedent could empower future presidents of any party.
• Underlying everything is the unsettled legacy of globalization—how American workers, law, and politics adjust to its disruptions.
• Memorable, headline scenario: A justice asks, could a future president use this same law to declare climate change an emergency and slap huge tariffs on imports? The government’s answer: "Very likely." (17:03)

---

For listeners new to these debates:
This episode provides a front-row seat to how global economics, presidential power, and the law intersect—with all the drama, urgency, and consequence typical of Steve Bannon’s War Room.

Transcript

[Constitutional Law Expert]

In January 2023, Congress voted to terminate one of the biggest IEBA emergencies ever, the COVID emergency. And the President went along with that. So what the statute reflects is there's going to be the ability for a sort of political consensus against a declared emergency.

[Legal Analyst]

What happens when the President simply vetoes legislation to try to take these powers back?

[Constitutional Law Expert]

Well, he has the authority to veto legislation to terminate a national emergency, for example. I mean, he retains the powers in the background because I still on the books. But if he declares an emergency and Congress doesn't like it and passes a joint resolution, yes, he can absolutely veto that Congress.

[Legal Analyst]

So Congress, a practical matter, can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the President. So one way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.

[Constitutional Law Expert]

I disagree with that. In the recent historical counterexample of Congress's termination of the COVID emergency demonstrates that political, the political oversight with the President's.

[Legal Analyst]

Ascent, with the President's ascent. In fact, you know, once he lost.

[Constitutional Law Expert]

It by a veto proof majority in the Senate, I think the position didn't realize and that's, that's the political process working. There was a.

[Legal Analyst]

It takes a super majority against veto majority to get it back. Yeah, okay.

[Legal Commentator]

Supreme Court is considering that and they might even be drawing a line here. The conservative majority has already done quite a bit to expand the authorities of the executive branch under President Trump. You know, this applying their blanket immunity for what they call official acts, allowing mass layoffs of federal workers, allowing the firing of heads of independent agencies, limiting injunctions that would block President Trump's agenda, or any president's agenda for that matter. Allowing the President to cancel billions in funding allocated by Congress. But today the justices seem skeptical over an emergency power that President Trump has made. The central feature of his second term in office, the ability for a president to levy massive tariffs unilaterally. When Congress has the power of the purse.

[Supreme Court Analyst]

They were asking for authority essentially to levy taxes. As Justice Kavanaugh said today, the Supreme Court needs to figure out what it means to regulate imports. According to the President and his legal team, that would mean including, or that would include, I should say, Katie, the imposition of tariffs. According to the challengers, that authority essentially to tax is reserved exclusively to the Congress.

[Legal Commentator]

So they did sound skeptical in places, certainly. I wonder what your expectation is for when they might rule on this, because usually we get these rulings in June, but this is something that Americans are dealing with every single day.

[Supreme Court Analyst]

So I'd like to say this is an educated guess, but I'm not all that educated. So it's just a guess. But the Supreme Court, at the government's request, did fast track this argument, Katie. And so it makes sense to me that they would probably try and fast track an opinion. Normally when they hear cases in October and November and December, we can expect a decision, you know, next June. I imagine it would be quicker than that.

[Legal Analyst]

I want to explain to me how you draw the line, because you say we shouldn't be concerned because this is foreign affairs and the president has inherent authority. And so delegation off the books, more or less.

[Political Journalist]

That's true.

[Legal Analyst]

What would. What would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war to the president?

[Constitutional Law Expert]

We don't contend that he could do that if it.

[Legal Analyst]

Why not? What's the reason to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the power to declare war to the president?

[Constitutional Law Expert]

Well, we don't contend that. Again, that would be you.

[Legal Analyst]

Do you say it's unreviewable. There's no manageable standard, nothing to be done. And now you're. I think you tell me if I'm wrong. You backed off that position.

[Constitutional Law Expert]

Maybe that's fair to say.

[Legal Analyst]

Okay, all right.

[Constitutional Law Expert]

That would be an abdication. That would really be an abdication, not a delegation.

[Legal Analyst]

I'm delighted to hear that.

[Political Journalist]

You know, I've covered the Federalist Society, which is kind of the lawyer's wing of the Republican Party, for more than a decade now. And beginning in the Obama administration, they're very concerned about President Obama and later President Biden making aggressive assertions of executive power. And they started to. The Federalist Society started to come up with new theories for how you could reign in presidential power. The one that they eventually settled on is this thing called the Major Questions Doctrine, which is the idea that when a president does something that's too ambitious, it has too much of an impact upon our economy or too much political impact. That's not allowed. It doesn't matter if there's an existing statute that allows them to do it. They got to go back and they got to get a new law. And one question going into this oral argument was, now that we have a Republican president, would the justices actually follow this Major Questions doctrine that they came up with to stop presidents like Biden and Obama, or would they give Trump an exemption to it? And Gorsuch at least seems to feel that the Major questions doctrine does apply to Donald Trump, Roberts Chief Justice Roberts also asked some questions suggesting that he believed that it also applies to Republican presidents. Not all of the Republican justice justices were there. I think that Thomas and Kavanaugh and Alito are probably going to vote with Trump in this case. But it looks like at least amongst the Republican justices, they seem to be evenly split on whether or not this doctrine should apply to presidents of both parties.

[Trade Policy Expert]

Larry I came away very, very optimistic. The Solicitor General presented a strong case for the President's use of the iepa, the emergency tariff powers. That's President Trump has used to balance trade, to negotiate with the Chinese on fentanyl to secure rare earth magnets to get the Indians to stop buying Russian oil. And you know that the Solicitor General made a fantastic case that the purpose of the tariffs is to rebalance global trade. We were in an economic emergency. We were near a tipping point. And you know, you and I know exactly what that looks like. And President Trump has brought the US Back on the other side. I thought that the plaintiffs almost embarrassed themselves. They clearly didn't understand foundational economics. They didn't understand the trade policy they were talking about. And I'm very optimistic after listening to the questions at SCOTUS that the IEEPA ruling is going to come. President Trump, in this administration's way.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

This is the primal scream of a dying regime. Pray for our enemies because we're going medieval on these people. Putin's 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 that, but you're not going to stop it. It's going to happen. And where do people like that go to share the big lie? MAGA MEDIA I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience. Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose? If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved. WAR ROOM here's your host, Stephen K. Band. It's Wednesday, 5th of November in the year of our Lord 2025. About this time one year ago, we were starting to get the exit polls. The exit polls were coming out that talked about how the evening was going to progress to. It got to about, I don't know, 10 o', clock, 10:30, when we knew that President Trump was going to win re election. I'll have more about that later in this hour on this sacred anniversary of the greatest political comeback in American history. But today also, let's get to the work of today. Today was another. It was absolutely historic. Okay. The theory of the case, remember in the years in The Wilderness Project 2025. Russ Vogt, CRA Stephen Miller, America First. Prardi's also the team over at CPI of which I'll be addressing tonight later at one of their conferences. Everybody working on all of these aspects of the second term, right, which we were very confident we were going to have the political ground game to get the low propensity voters to turn people out. You had to have policies unlike the first term, which kind of surprised us when we won that we needed a depth of public policy, public intellectuals, networks of people, subject matter experts, all of it. We worked for years and years and years. And that's kind of the catchphrase for that is Project 2025. The central beating heart of this was, as we've called the unitary theory of the executive or Article two, the vesting clause of Article two, the maximization. He's chief executive officer, he's commander in chief. He's the chief magistrate and chief law enforcement officer. So he can hire and fire anybody. You know, the appropriations bill is a ceiling, not a floor. As commander in chief, he has the inherent powers of the Constitution, particularly in emergencies, give him extraordinary powers to keep the nation safe. And then as chief law enforcement officer, extraordinary powers, particularly in emergency, powers to act in defense of the citizenry and the country. This gets down to the centrality of President Trump's Make America Great America first, of changing the commercial relationships that have essentially ripped off the country and ripped off working people for decade and decade and decade. Both political parties, no political parties particularly at fault here. All of them neo neoliberal globalist today for over three hours. Historic. And we played about an hour live on the show and I realized the audience was mesmerized. It went for three hours. We will play this again, if not tonight, then tomorrow after the show's over and maybe have some commentary. Absolutely. Extraordinary hearing today, and I can tell you on Capitol Hill, and this is how much bringing jobs back and bringing manufacturing jobs back I have never seen, quite frankly, this was like Dodd's level, Dobbs level protest outside working class people, younger people, some of the credentialed class. But clearly the messaging on tariffs, the messaging on trying to bring jobs back has been twisted, right? Because people think very, very differently than the folks in the show. I've asked David J. Lynch, author of an extraordinary book, the World's Worst, how the Globalization, globalization Gamble Went Wrong. He's chief global Economics correspondent for the Washington Post. David, you were actually in the gallery on this historic day. We've got a couple of minutes here still left in the segment. I'd like you just to put us in the room first because I was absolutely mesmerized by the arguments of both parties, particularly. It just went on and on and on. The questioning could not be tougher. What was it like in the room?

[David J. Lynch]

Well, Steve, if you were sitting alongside me, you would have been in what we call obstructed view seating. So it was more of an auditory experience than much of a great viewing experience. But that said, it was historic. There was a real atmosphere in the room. The questioning was quite serious and probing from all the justices, I think, and for all the attorneys. And it was like watching the legal equivalent of an Ali Frazier fight. Both sides, I think, stumbled in places and both sides made. Made their cases to the best of their ability. I do think coming out of it, though, you know, the justices did appear, or a majority, I should say, did ask some pretty skeptical questions of the Solicitor General, which makes me think the President's emergency tariff plans anyway might be in some trouble.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Yeah, this is, you know, I pride myself as one of the things I did when I was in the White House. There was a small five man committed to kind of vet the first and second Supreme Court justice appointment. And Gorsuch was the. Was. We screened it down and presented the President with a number of alternatives. But Gorsuch was the one that we thought would be a great first pick. And Mike Davis, the viceroy we have on all the time, would clerk for him. So we're very fond of Justice Gorsuch and one of the reasons that he was so highly recommended is his intellectual capacity and capabilities. He might have been the sharpest questioner. That's why we took a couple of clips at the beginning. We got about a minute. Let's focus on Gorsuch for just that minute. He was pretty skeptical, would you say?

[David J. Lynch]

Absolutely. And he, he asked it a pretty probing question, asking if in the event of a. Of a Democratic. Is, is that music coming on your end, Steve, or is it on my.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Yeah, yeah, no, that. No, no, that's our exit. That's our exit music.

[David J. Lynch]

Sorry?

[Stephen K. Bannon]

For the segment. You're good. We, we give it some music in the background when we end a segment to give some drama to it. How's that?

[David J. Lynch]

I see. But no, I do think. I do think Gorsuch asked the. A key question because if you accept the government's argument here that President Trump has this sweeping authority to levy all sorts of emergency tariffs. You've got to ask yourself in 2029 or 2033 or whenever, what about a Democratic president? What about President Gavin Newsom declaring a national emergency about climate change? And this is what Justice Gorsuch asked specifically about. Wouldn't this reading of the Emergency Economic Powers act allow a Democratic president to impose a 50% tax on imported cars and imported auto parts? And the Solicitor General reluctantly concluded that it was very likely that would be the case.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

David J. Lynch, the author of the book the World's Worst Bet is with us. We're going to take a short commercial break. We're going to return in the war room. Just a moment. 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.

[David J. Lynch]

On Getter yet?

[Legal Analyst]

No.

[David J. Lynch]

What are you waiting for?

[Legal Commentator]

It's free, it's uncensored, and it's where all the biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

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.

[Political Journalist]

That's right.

[David J. Lynch]

You can follow all of your favorites.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

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

[David J. Lynch]

Download the Getter app now.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Sign up for free and be part.

[Legal Analyst]

Of the new plan. Could the president impose a 50% tariff on gas powered cars and auto parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change.

[Constitutional Law Expert]

It's very likely that that could be done. Very likely.

[Legal Analyst]

I think that has to be the logic of your view.

[David J. Lynch]

Yeah.

[Constitutional Law Expert]

In other words, this administration would say that's a hoax, it's not a real crisis.

[Legal Analyst]

But I'm sure you would.

[Constitutional Law Expert]

Yes, but that'd be a question for Congress under our interpretation, not for the courts.

[Legal Analyst]

All right.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Okay. David J. Lynch joins us right now. David, that was another dramatic moment in over a three hour. And folks should understand they allocate sometimes an hour and a half for these things. But to go three hours of intense, intense back and forth, and it was incredible. If you wanted to learn something about American history, global economics, the law, the Constitution, it was absolutely one of those like an NFL playoff game. It was just extraordinary. Both lawyers and I realized, Scott Bessen, our former contributor here and close friend, colleague, said about how the other side I thought they did pretty good. I did, I thought they did pretty good. I thought that the solicitor general, you have to buy kind of the theory of the case, I guess. David J. Lynch, you've done this book, talk about the rise and fall of globalization, and you say in the book it turned out to be particularly politically maybe one of the worst bets ever on a global basis. Why is it so controversial what President Trump is trying to do and reverse that and reverse it quickly, Sir Well.

[David J. Lynch]

I think it's controversial because you get, as you say, competing theories of the case. The president's view is that just about everything that went wrong in US Manufacturing communities is the fault of free trade agreements that we started in the 1990s and pursued for for some time thereafter. Mainstream economists, of course, will say, look, much of the manufacturing job loss was due to automation that would have happened anyway, just like the automation we've seen over the decades in farming. We can produce a lot more food today than we could 100 years ago with a lot fewer people on the farms. Same is true in manufacturing. But of course, trade did have an impact. And where particularly the opening to China or China's integration into the global trading system really had an impact was on specific manufacturing communities and specific cohorts of people, specific groups of people, those with the least education and the fewest skills, they really took it in the chops. Political leaders starting back with Bill Clinton and subsequently said, don't worry, we're going to take care of those people. And where the gamble went wrong, where I argue in the book the bargain was not upheld, was that part never happened. The the domestic policy response that there should have been to make sure that everybody could benefit from this global integration, which to some degree is unstoppable. It's just the way things are going. But we left people unprotected and they suffered as a consequence. And there was a political blowback from that, which leads you to Donald Trump.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

And so, and what Trump is saying, it's so controversial, is he's calling upon emergency powers. In fact, they're knitting together like they're trading with the. I mean, we saw the Solicitor General walk through kind of the process, how he got there. You're knitting together, trading with the enemies with other underlying documents. Why is it so controversial that he called, he's called this an emergency and said, hey, look at how I'm solving this. And I'm solving this by knitting together a number of different laws or regulation that exist out there, but haven't really been knitted together to make this argument that this is our solution to this emergency which has stripped America of its industrial might.

[David J. Lynch]

Yeah, I think the controversy is that he's the first president to use this almost 50 year old law, the International Emergency Economic IA PA is the acronym. He's the first president to see in that law a power to impose tariffs. It's the standard law that presidents of both parties have used to impose financial sanctions and economic sanctions like those we put on Russia, those we put on some Chinese actors, the Iranians, et cetera, over the years. So that's part of the controversy. The other part of the controversy is the President's identification of the trade deficit as an emergency. We've, as you know, Steve, run an annual trade deficit every year since 1975, when I was in high school. And so there are a lot of people who have pushed back on that and said that's not really the definition of an emergency. The administration's counter, as Scott Bessant said in the clip, was that 50 years of this have brought the US economy to a, quote, unquote, tipping point. I don't think the administration has really elaborated on exactly how imminent that tipping point is or how it would manifest itself. But you know, the advantage of using IA is it does convey broad and immediate powers on the President. So he could act without a lot of bureaucracy, without a lot of time wasting, and just come out on a given day and say, bang, tariff of X on goods from country Y. And we're done and dusted. The alternatives, which is what the administration might be forced to fall back on, are other sections of U.S. trade law that are more cumbersome but can ultimately get you to the same place when you say cumbersome.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

So, and clearly today, Gorsuch asked a lot of pointed questions and he seemed a little skeptical. But you can never, you know, oral arguments are oral arguments. They often cut very differently than what people said in the hearing. But the timing of it got to be a big deal, right? The thinking of the timing of it, particularly for the analysts and observers also, what happens if they come back and just say, you can't use this? I mean, how do you unwind basically, this whole commercial activity that President Trump's had for the last since Liberation Day, which I think was the 2nd of April of this year. And also about the timing, I think they made a good point that this is one they normally hold to June, normally hold these results till June. But on this one and the one on the redistricting, because you got primaries, you may have to come up with answers to this in January, February.

[David J. Lynch]

That seems to be the thinking. I mean, the court agreed to take it up on an expedited basis. So the implication is the ruling will come on an expedited basis. What, what will happen? You know, they've, they, the government have collected something like $90 billion via these emergency tariffs. If the court were to invalidate all of them and order a refund to all of the importers who've paid them, and that's not certain, the government would then be in a position of having to set up some administrative procedure to make that happen. There's one sort of past example of a case like this, something called the Harbor Maintenance Fund, years and years ago, I won't bore you with many of the details, but in that case, there was an administrative process set up and companies got their refunds, but it took a while. In this case, the five businesses that are direct participants in these lawsuits that have been consolidated before the court, they would definitely get a refund right away. Everybody else might have to apply through this bureaucratic channel. That could take some time and be unpopular. But the other thing that would happen is the administration, they're already working on this, would have a fallback strategy. If the court were to invalidate all of them, I'm sure the president would very quickly come back and say, okay, in light of that, I'm now going to take the following actions under section 122 of the 1974 Trade act or section 338 of the Trade Law of 1930, and he would, I would assume, cobble together an alternative framework that would get him, if not entirely what he has Today, in terms of a tariff structure most of the way there.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

As you see it today, how do you think this thing plays out?

[David J. Lynch]

Well, you know, my, my time in the Supreme Court is limited, so I'm, I'm reluctant to venture much of a guess. I, I would, I would say my thinking on this has changed over the months. When, when the lawsuits were first filed, I felt that the administration's argument was kind of a stretch, and I thought it was, frankly, sort of a slam dunk for the, for the petitioners. Then I actually read the administration's brief and as is almost always the case, you know, a good lawyer can make a good argument. And I came away from that thinking, huh. Well, you know, the administration does have an argument here. I'm not sure it's ironclad, but it's well presented. And then I talked to some more trade attorneys and they, you know, these are specialists, far more than I am, and they saw the ambiguity in the law and the potential for it to go both ways. So I came in today feeling a little bit 50 50. The skepticism of some of the questioning has left me, at the end of the day inclined to think that the court, you know, may be prepared to rule against the president, at least to some degree. But as you say, trying to read too much into oral arguments can be a mistake.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

David, can you just hang on for a second? We're taking another short commercial break. I want to talk to you about the book and quite frankly, how globalization underlies so much. You can go from the election last night in Manhattan to much of what's happening around the country. People talk about the economy, jobs, all of it. It still gets down to the basics of the global economy and what's happening. You said just a few minutes ago, hey, the power of this idea of what's happening may be too powerful to kind of stop or reverse. David J. Lynch, the global economic correspondent for the Washington Post, is with us. He was in the court today for historic, I think, over three hours of oral arguments. Quite mesmerizing. And of course, President Trump, it's central to his economic plan. That's why Scott Besant's been out working the TV channels. Birchgold.com go check out right now. Birchgold.com promo code banded the end of the dollar empire. Hey, I realize you got many choices when it comes to who you choose for your cell phone service, and there are new ones popping up all the time. But here's the truth. There's only one that boldly stands in the gap for every American that believes that freedom is worth fighting for. And that's the team at Patriot Mobile. For more than 12 years Patriot Mobile has been on the front lines of fighting for our God given rights and freedoms while also providing exceptional nationwide cell phone service with access to all three of the main networks. Don't just take my word for it, ask the hundreds of thousands of Americans who've made the switch are now supporting causes they believe in. Simply by joining Patriot Mobile switching is easier than ever. Activate in minutes from the comfort of your own home. Keep your number, keep your phone or upgrade. Patriot Mobile's all US based support team is standing by to take care of you. Call 978 Patriot today or go to patriotmobile.com Bannon that's patriotmobile.com Bannon use the promo code Bannon for a free month of service. That's patriotmobile.com Bannon or call 972-PATRIOT and make the switch today. Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon. So, so much of like last night and the politics of our time are predicated upon the economic realities of globalization. So David, how has the book been received, particularly by the business meeting? I know our audience members that purchased the book the first time you were here. I got tremendous feedback from people. Like I said, it's a very accessible way to begin to understand a quite complex topic. Right. And a topic that underpins so much of what's going on not just in the world's economy, in people's personal lives, but also in the politics of the United States and quite frankly the great powers. So how's the book been received?

[David J. Lynch]

Well, the reception's been good. There was a the Financial Times gave me a nice review a week or two ago and the Irish Times, the Irish finance minister in fact reviewed the book for the Irish Times and had very, very complimentary things to say, which I appreciated as a Irish American. And I'll be talking to Bloomberg next week. So it's moving forward and selling well, which I'm gratified by could always have more attention. Of course, you know any authors out there in the marketplace peddling his book, he can never have enough attention.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Do you think that particularly we see nights like last night or what happened a year ago. And so much is tied to when people talk about globalization. The jobs and manufacturing jobs moved away. And you saw today, particularly with the commentariat both on the left and the right talking about these incredibly intense arguments to the Supreme Court. And you see these justices who are obviously nine of the smartest people in the legal profession in our country wrestle with it. Do you think we've done a good job of actually helping people to understand what this great force that's out there called globalization and the internal industrial logic of it and why? Quite frankly, there have been winners and losers. And if you don't, as you know, we are, we're hardcore populists and economic nationalists. We believe in President Trump's tariff program. In fact, we are, you know, we even have ideas maybe even more extreme than that. Do you think, though, the people have done a good job in explaining this so basic average citizens can have a meaningful conversation about it?

[David J. Lynch]

The short answer is no. And that's one of the reasons I wanted to write the book and I did want to make it. I'm glad you described it as accessible because I didn't set out to write a book for economists or trade specialists. I tried to write a book for the average curious and informed person who wants to try and understand what the hell's happened over the last 30 years or so. Because I think we have all these kind of unresolved conflicts and questions from the period that's described as the hyper globalization era. And I don't think we can, I don't think we're going to be able to move forward and prosper for the next 30 years if we don't understand what we got wrong about the past 30 years. And like so many debates in Washington, you know, you've got folks in sort of two camps. There's the people I think of as the traditional pro trade liberalization folks who, you know, and this is maybe only slightly a caricature, but think everything was done fine, nothing was done wrong. Anybody who disagrees is just a troglodyte protectionist who doesn't get it. And then the folks on the other side think everything about trade and globalization is a conspiracy by the elites to screw the common man. And, you know, I personally don't think either one of those views captures some of the nuance that's necessary to figure out where we went wrong. And to my mind, where we went wrong goes all the way back to the stuff Bill Clinton used to say in the 90s, which was that, you know, he saw it coming. And I think I describe him in the book as kind of the godfather of American globalization, that there were going to be winners and losers, and that was inevitable. You're never going to have an economy that makes 100% of the people happy 100% of the time, but recognizing that it's your responsibility as governing policymakers to develop programs and strategies and remedies that will enable as many people as possible to weather the storm and to come out doing okay on the other side. And I think it became too easy for folks in Washington, and I include myself in this. I was not at all clairvoyant about these issues, you know, 25 years ago. But it's easy when you've never lost your job, never been out of work involuntarily, when the only time you have when you're jobless is, you know, a sabbatical from a university job or you're in between assignments at a central bank or a think tank, it's easy to sort of not really come to grips with the human toll of joblessness. And having gone through it briefly myself a few years ago and just tasted it for a brief moment in time, you know, it's something that people need to understand and need to empathize with other folks in the economy about. And so again, you know, we've got, we can't go back in time and undo what's happened. But the so called China shock that hit us around the turn of the century and into the first decade of this century, that's not going to be the last time. The American worker is challenged by time of tumult and upheaval and artificial intelligence may well be the next punch that's thrown. We got to figure these issues out.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

The AI jobs apocalypse, which you talk about here a lot in the war. David, appreciate you for writing the book and taking the time, making it accessible to people. Coming on War Room, we are proudly part of the troglodytes. We're part of the troglodytes here. So we're trying to reverse a process that people say is irreversible, but we'll keep fighting. Thank you. So what's your social media? Where do people go get the book and where they follow you? On social media, I'm everywhere.

[David J. Lynch]

I'm on X and blue sky at davidj. Lynch. I'm not much on Instagram. I'm on TikTok. I probably spend too much time on TikTok. My wife would say.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Sir, thank you so much. Appreciate you.

[David J. Lynch]

Thanks a lot, Steve. Appreciate it.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

So President Trump, this gets back to, look, I'm probably going to run out of time today and so I have to carry some of this over tomorrow. I think we've won 20 cases at the Supreme Court or 21. I mean, it's been pretty overwhelming. Mike Davis on here, the talking about Pam's Kind of winning streak. There it is. All of this audience, remember, let's go back and frame this. All of this is playing into that. The power Article 2 powers. And essentially the court has been saying, the Roberts court has been saying, we're not the Warren court. We're not going to intercede or interject our things into processes we think can be answered or remedied by a thing called politics. We're not going to get involved in politics. We're not a political institution. We're a legal institution. So to date, President Trump has really had support. And let's go back even for the immunity, nine nothing immunity and remember Colorado, of which Ludwig wrote, oh, the Colorado judges thing is magnificent. And it was 9, 0 supporting President Trump. This may be the most important of all, of all the others. There have been some monumentally important ones. This may be because it's so absolutely central to President Trump's economic program. I mean, he is trying to reverse, and I'll say this in David Lynch, David lynch, obviously, and he says at the beginning of the book, hey, he was kind of a globalist. People didn't even think about it this way when they first started covering this topic. It was all going to be, and I can tell you, going to Harvard Business School, same way. There was never any question that this was going to add to the net value of the country and everybody's going to prosper and all this is going to be great, is going to be more efficient, more economic, and those benefits would spread to everybody. That turned out to be exactly the opposite. In fact, the financial crisis of 2008 and the trade deficits and the trade deals that basically sucked out America's manufacturing superpower and disperse it to the world, particularly to China and other parts of Asia, because of, quite frankly, labor compare, you know, comparative advantage they had in labor and environment and, you know, all sorts of things that it didn't turn out. President Trump is trying to reverse this. I think this is what folks should understand. He is trying to reverse it and he's trying to do it as a shock to the system, as he is a disruptor, because there are other ways to do this. They just take forever. President Trump's making the case and we've talked about trade deficits forever. And Scott Bessant's right. If you talk to the Wall street crowd or like we had these big fights with Gary Cohen in the first term, a trade deficit doesn't mean it's an accounting function. That's not true. That's not true. The trade Deficit, it has to be paid for. That's one of the reasons that we don't produce anything. And we have such enormous debt and people have such incredible personal debt. The trade deficit is an emergency. It has to be dealt with. This is one of the key arguments. President Trump, he's trying to reverse this process of open borders and, you know, free trade. Free trade and open borders have gone so far to destroy this country. It sucked out the muscle of this country, of our manufacturing superpower. People actually make things and all the ecosystem that comes around it. When you have manufacturing, there's all types of service industries around it. There's, you know, there's all the social, you know, restaurants and coffee shops and tailors and all those things in the town that support the people that actually make these great wages. Manufacturing, that was America at its peak, and we gave that away. And people made money off it. The corporatists, the shareholders, and Wall street and the American people took it on the chin brutally. And President Trump is trying to reverse this, and he's trying to do it quickly. Said, this is an emergency. We can't go on like this because people talk about it. Trump is action, action, action. This is action. And it was dramatic and quite frankly, it's radical. And you saw it today, and that's why the hearing took so long. These things were briefed. Read the briefing papers and I'll get Grayson Moe that will give you a link to go if you're so interested, and I know some people are, or if you're in college or high school and this strikes your fancy, it's an incredible topic to drill down on because it's about the comparative economic nature of nations. President Trump's is a dramatic move and it was complicated. And that was laid out today. And you have guys like Gorsuch. What I loved about this as a teaching moment and exercise is the complexity of the arguments, the great questions that are asked, and they bang, bang, bang off the top of the head. And those lawyers, the Solicitor General and counsel, I guess, for the plaintiffs, you know, had to stand up there and you got to cite the reference right there. You can't tap dance around and they're calling you out. And you saw a couple times, particularly Gorsuch, kind of Gorsuch, unrelenting logic. A couple times, I think got the Solicitor General that, you know, a little off guard. I think they came back fine. I'm not so sure how important the oral arguments are in the first place, because I think so much of this is in writing that's one of the things that President Trump changed about selecting Supreme Court justices. No longer did he want to go on biography like Sandra Day o', Connor, because that can always disappoint. No longer did he want to go to like state, state judge, like Souter, which was a New Hampshire just kind of payoff to the Sununus, which turned out to be another disaster. He wanted written opinions and written opinions over a period of time ensured the intellectual firepower. And Gorsuch is one of the, you.

[Trevor Comstock]

Know.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Is one of the, you know, rising stars, obviously on the court, but it brings a tremendous amount of intellectual firepower and was quite engaged in this today and had some incredible questions. Where do we stand? I know seemed a little skeptical in some of the questioning. I do think they will come back, since this went in on a kind of a expedited hearing that I will think I do think that we're going to we're going to hear back on this sometime shortly in the future, because everything is predicated upon this. All the tariffs, every bringing the commitments to either pay the tariffs and or move manufacturing back over here. A lot of it is inextricably tied to this, the ramifications on this and President Trump's economic plan is I can't overstate how important it is. That's why you had the whole Supreme Court area blocked off. You had a huge kind of protest outside, the police everywhere, Three hours packed. Historic President Trump and his agenda. Short commercial break Back in the Mormon.

[Trevor Comstock]

Moment.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

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, Money GPT, 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 Rickards War Room.com that's all one word. Rickards War Rooms records with an S. Go now and claim your free book that's Rickards war room dot com. Do it today. Here's your host, Stephen K. Ban. Okay, so we've, we got a big one today. I think they're thinking over the White House and I do think you're seeing a, you're going to see a pivot. I'm not so sure a pivot because they've been working on domestic, but he's been spending so much time under national trying to stop the Third World War. Obviously last night's going to have an impact and people are just kind of giving this pass of. Well, you know, don't worry, it's blue states that's. The hour is late here, folks. We are burning daylight. We are burning daylight. And they're not easy fixes. Look, those were races that you're probably in all hindsight not going to win. Although Trump came close in 24 and the gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey came close, came not, you know, pretty close. Caught up on Murphy a couple of years ago. It was the scale of the blowouts. I mean, these are 10 and 15 point losses. You got to get, you got to get realistic here. It's not about blue states, it's about you lost areas where you won in Virginia. And this is why Youngkin's finished the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Republican Party is done for a generation. The people stepping now are going to have to go back to basics and rebuild this thing. And man, is it going to have implications. Virginia is going to go 10 1. And this is why I'm hugely advocating you got to drop a real lawsuit out in California and start going to court and arguing this thing was totally illegitimate and illegal. Just like on Mamdani. You need to do the pick and shovel work. And hey, guess what? I think there might be some pick and shovel work going on right now to find out if the Ugandan is also for last six years, an American. I highly doubt it. If you absolutely apply the rules here, I highly doubt it. And in the situation like that. The guy gave the speech last night, he threw down. Okay, I hear you, tough guy. You got it. I hear you. You're barking this and you're barking that and you're telling Trump. I got four words for you. Turn the volume up. Okay, brother. Hear you. Zorhound or Zoran? Zoran. That looks. What planet was that from? I would argue the couch at Animal House, but hey, that's just me. But it's got to be combated. It has to be combated. You can't take this passive approach. And Scott Pressler is a great guy. We're doing a book with him. We think the world of Scott Pressler done an amazing job of going around and this guy, you know, with very little help and resources. But that's not the answer. First off, that's just signed them up. You got to get them out. In low propensity voters, you got to get out. And the way they get them out is have a guy named Donald J. Trump at the top of the ticket, full stop. And when somebody shows me that they can solve for that part of the equation, I'm all ears and all eyes. But I've seen it up close and personal now for, I don't know, a decade. And I'm not buying. I'm just not buying it right now. We're in a revolution and we have to win. If we don't win, the country's gone. The stakes could not be higher. It's very simple. This is a binary function. This is black and white. We win and they lose. This is just like going against the evil empire in the Soviet Union, but now it is here in the United States of America. This is not a foreign threat. This is a internal threat. This is a clear and present danger of an enemy. All enemies, foreign and domestic. Well, we got a couple, three foreign, but man, we got more than a couple, three domestic domestic enemies. Full stop. And on stage last night in New York City. That was an enemy. That was an enemy. Trevor Comstock, you're here. Part of the leg of our coalition, Make America Healthy again. I don't think that we emphasized that enough in this election the other night, but you do it every day at your company, this magnificent little company, Sacred Human Health. What do you got for us this afternoon, sir?

[Trevor Comstock]

Yeah, good to see you, Steve. So I just wanted to elaborate a little bit further on our flagship product, which of course is our 100 grass fed beef liver. And for those who don't know, I just always like to make the simple analogy that beef liver is basically like nature's multivitamin. So with it, you get a ton of vitamins and nutrients in a wide array of them, such as, you know, vitamin A, B12, CoQ10, folate, zinc, the list goes on quite a bit. And then also, as I had mentioned, you also get the. A lot of those vitamins and minerals that most people are deficient in. And then so common things like choline, K2, selenium and copper. So right there, it's a pretty powerful product in itself, but of course, you know, a nice value add that people tend to rave about is just the nice natural energy boost that they often get after taking it. So, you know, basically instead of those quick energy highs that you sometimes get if you take, you know, too much caffeine or other general stimulants, the beef liver just adds a nice steady and natural lift and helps you feel a bit more vibrant. So, and that's mainly just because you're getting the bot, the nutrients that your body actually needs to thrive on. So like I said, it's a pretty powerful product. And then on top of that, what's great about it is that aside from it being 100 grass fed and natural, the body can actually absorb these nutrients and retain them as opposed to just flushing them out when, you know, you're oftentimes like maybe taking like a multivitamin that's synthetic or has a lot of synthetic ingredients within it or just any other synthetic vitamin in general for that matter. So again, right off the bat, you're kind of getting a much better bang for your buck because your body can retain these nutrients and absorb them much more efficiently. So it's an amazing product for overall health and vitality. I can't say enough about it. I know the war room posse loves it. It's definitely their favorite and still our number one product. So I definitely encourage people to check it out if they, if they haven't already.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

One last thing I want to. I know you got to bounce if you have never taken something like this before, because the lads or the younger folks in the audience, particularly young guys, this got to be a thing a couple of years ago, grass fed beef liver. But for those that have not, don't go to those podcasts, don't go to those websites. If you're totally unfamiliar with any of this and you go to the website, what are the two or three most compelling arguments if you're just a middle aged person, of why this can immediately not just give you energy boost, but do so much more for you. What is it, sir?

[Trevor Comstock]

Yeah, I mean, there's a lot I could go on for that. Again, I just got to break it down to the fact that your body can actually absorb the nutrients within the beef liver because it is a natural product. Whereas oftentimes if you're taking these other synthetic formulas or greens powders, they just have a ton of unnatural ingredients which your body can't recognize. So that's why people retain the nutrients and then they get that energy boost to go with it, which of course people love. But yeah, because it's a natural product, your body Recognize it. Recognizes it and utilizes it like it's supposed to.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

Trevor Comstock, Sacred Human Health, part of the whole Make America Healthy Again movement. Where do they go? One more time.

[Trevor Comstock]

Yeah, you can go to sacredhumanhealth.com and then you can use code War room for, for 10% off. And yeah, we got you covered all on all that.

[Stephen K. Bannon]

It's the one year anniversary of the greatest comeback in American political history. We're going to commemorate that all week here in the war room. I'm going to be giving some remarks later this evening for Senator Dement and Mark Meadows and the folks over at cpi. Another one of these great foundational element institutions of the MAGA movement that would be Make America Great once again. Short break. Back in the War room for the second hour of the afternoon and evening edition. 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 going to 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 letters from the IRS or your failure to file work on your nerves anymore. Take action, action, action. And do it today.