← Hold These Truths with Dan Crenshaw
Hold These Truths with Dan Crenshaw
SITREP #7: Tariff Battles, Panama Canal, USAID, & “The Gaza Riviera”
00:24:58
The Situation Report for January 24 – February 5th. Rep. Crenshaw analyzes the recent tariff battles with Colombia, Mexico, and Canada. He covers the U.S. interest in the Panama Canal and how China became a major player in the region. And he...
Loading summary
Transcript3 lines
- [00:00]
A
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created. As a member of Congress, I get to have a lot of really interesting people in the office, experts on what they're talking about. This is the podcast for insights into the issues. China, bioterrorism, Medicare for all in depth discussions, breaking it down into simple terms. We hold. We hold. We hold these truths. We hold these truths. With Dan Crenshaw. The eagle has landed. Situation report number seven. This is your news sit Rep. We sift through all of it accurately, analytically, so that you don't have to. So today we are covering January 24 to February 5 and there is a lot to cover. Tariffs, cabinet picks, Gaza, Panama, quite a bit. So it's been two weeks into Trump's second term and the news cycle and the world has been completely reshaped by warp speed changes coming from this White House. Worth noting, unlike in 2016, when Trump and his team were honestly still learning the inner workings of the federal government, they've now had eight years to plan the policies they want to implement. A lot of those policies have been planned and written down well in advance, mostly by the America First Policy Institute. So they are ready to hit the ground running. If you haven't noticed tariffs, you've definitely noticed the conversation on tariffs. So let's talk about that now. Throughout the 2024 election, President Trump repeatedly made it clear that tariffs were coming. Pundits and experts speculated on the potential benefits and drawbacks of a trade war with various allies and adversaries, citing past disputes that dragged on and led to negative consequences. And this is all a fair debate to have tariffs definitely have trade offs, good and bad, just like any policy does. I think famously Thomas Sowell said there are no policy solutions, there are only trade offs. And that's our job to assess those trade offs. Now, President Trump's primary goal in leveraging the strength of the US Economy appears to be coaxing trade or national security concessions out of other countries. That makes sense. In other words, these tariffs are a negotiating tool rather than a long term economic burden, which indeed they can be. The first tariff dispute started a week and a half ago when the President of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who years before, by the way, running for office, he was a member of a Marxist guerrilla group and somehow got elected as one of Colombia's first left wing socialist presidents. He refused allow two US military aircraft into the country which were carrying approximately 80 deported Colombian nationals into their home country. He announced this on a via social media. So why did he do that? Well, At a interview late last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that President Petro had seen two videos posted by deportees on social media. These videos show deportees attempting to flee from US Forces while in transit and were subsequently being reprimanded. As now, despite previously agreeing with U.S. state Department to accept deported Colombian nationals, Petro in a fit of outrage, changed his mind. Should be said he drinks a lot. So I know this just from my ties to Colombia. In response, President Trump announced emergency 25% tariffs on all Colombian imports, threatened to double them to 50% within a week, and implemented visa restrictions on Colombian government officials. Within hours, Petro and the Colombian government acquiesced again to deportations without any restrictions. In other tariff actions, President Trump announced incoming tariffs on China, Mexico and Canada last Saturday, including 25% tariffs on all Canadian and Mexican imports, 10% tariffs on Chinese goods, and a reduced tariff on Canadian oil. Now why would you do that? Because, well, we use Canadian oil a lot for our refineries. You don't want gas prices to go up. So this executive order fact sheet states that the president intends to use these as leverage to reach historical bilateral economic agreement. These have pretty immediate effects. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canada's still Prime Minister Justin Trudeau folded with on a day of Trump's announcement. Both pledged to deploy thousands of troops to their US Borders to help combat illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking. Canada agreed to invest 1.3 billion on border reinforcement, helicopters, tech personnel and Trudeau announced an appointment of a fentanyl czar and I believe also announced that Canada would designate the cartels as terrorists, just as terrorists, just as President Trump has recently done. In response, Trump delayed tariffs on Canada and Mexico for a month in order to ensure compliance with. Well, the 10% tariffs on Canada took on. Sorry. While the 10% tariffs on China did in fact take effect Tuesday. From my own point of view, I've personally asked that one of our priorities for asks for Mexico be that they also welcome increased US Cooperation to fight the cartels. I think this is actually possible because of the new administration in Mexico. They took power last October and they have a lot better people in place when it comes to security concerns that I think the last administration did. I think there's hope on the horizon for that. Now let's talk Panama Canal. There's a lot to unpack here. I want to give you guys some background on the Panama Canal and where this is all coming from. So in recent developments concerning Central America, Trump sent Secretary Rubio on his first overseas trip to Panama amid his calls for the United States to take control of the Panama Canal. So real quick, let's review why the canal matters and some history here. So the US is its biggest user. 40% of US container traffic passes through annually. The canal also handles $270 billion in cargo, accounting for of global maritime trade, with 72% linked to US ports. Even more importantly, from a national security perspective, any disruption in access to the Canal would vastly impede the Navy's ability to move resources around the world. So it's important, traveling through the Panama Canal drastically reduces the time and cost of moving vessels between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. That's why it was built in the first place, reduces that by approximately 20 to 30 days. Now, Trump and many in the media have reported recently that Trump or that China has gained significant influence over the Panama Canal in recent years. So let's dive into that a little bit. You've heard the statement that China owns both ends of the Canal, but what does that really mean? Well, it means this. A Hong Kong based company called CK Hutchinson holdings operates two ports at both entrances of the Panama Canal. Now that doesn't necessarily mean they or China own both ends of the Canal. Put simply, a port is not a canal, but they sit closely to the canal locks at either end. So in a worst case scenario, and this has been put forth by our own military, our own Southern Command commander, in a worst case scenario, in theory, the People's Republic of China could use Chinese owned vessels to blockade access to the Canal. Now, that would be an act of war in and of itself and but frankly has little to do with the existence of the ports nearby. The Chinese choose the extraordinary measure of blockading the Panama Canal. The the existence of these ports isn't necessarily a game changer one way or the other. Now don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean that we like the Chinese owning so many ports in the Western Hemisphere. This is a broader problem that we've seen. Now, two things can be true at once. One, we oppose China expanding its influence or acquiring strategic assets near the Canal, such as bringing Panama into its Belt and road initiative in 2017. And two, as of now, China doesn't control access to the Canal in any way and it's not clear how they would, except for the basically the act of war that I mentioned earlier. Now, the good news is that after Secretary Rubio's visit to Panama, their president, Jose Molino announced that it would not renew its membership into the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative when it expires in the next two to three years. That's a great step in the right direction. Panama has long been a very solid ally to the United States. However, U.S. officials remain concerned that China could exploit a crisis to disrupt global shipping or restrict US warships access. It's an unlikely, but it is a worst case scenario. Additionally, two Panamanian lawyers filed a lawsuit with the country's Supreme Court to cancel CK Hutchinson holdings contract to operate those canals ports, citing issues of national sovereignty and external influence. We like that. Beyond discussions about the canal, Secretary Rubio and President Molino explored avenues for increased US investment in Panama. They also addressed shared concerns such as migration and drug trafficking, underscoring the importance of bilateral cooperation in these areas. Again, it's important to note that this is that Secretary Rubio's first visit was right to Central America. This marks a gigantic shift, one that I've long called for, to a focus on our own Western Hemisphere. Again, some more context about how the Chinese get involved in the Western Hemisphere. Since Xi Jinping took power in 2012, the Chinese Communist Party has tightened control over the private sector, embedding CCP influence in corporate governance through party cells, state investments and subsidies. And under China's military civil fusion doctrine, all PRC investments serving state interests, including Hutchinson Ports, are now subject to China's National Security Law. That means that if China wants a company in China to be an arm of the Chinese government, it has to do it. This was the argument against TikTok, for instance. So this integration gives Beijing strategic leverage and it poses risks to U.S. interests and allies. And while PRC officials deny state control over this company in particular, it doesn't mean they can't have it in the future. Chinese business leaders admit that firms aligned with Beijing thrive while the independent ones struggle. The other hard part about this entire debate is that US companies in the US writ large, we can't compete with China. When it becomes to giving free money to developing countries. The question is often asked by countries who are our allies. Hey, if you want us to. To. To. To tell the Chinese to kick rocks and not build a port here or not build a subway system here or not or not put Huawei into our telecom system, then give us an alternative that's at a better price. And often we can't because we don't have tens of or hundreds of billions worth of subsidies given to companies to do that, we can never out subsidize the Chinese. So in effect, we've largely ignored Panama's infrastructure needs, creating an opening for China that's an unfortunate reality now, since Panama recognized Beijing, China has invested $2.5 billion in strategic projects, including those ports to held telecommunications and roads. A PRC firm is building the fourth Canal Bridge after US Companies declined to bid. Hutchinson Ports controls key canal ports until 2047, which cements that influence in the region. So we'll see if that changes given those those legal actions to the Supreme Court of Panama. All right, moving on. A lot of news about Doge and usaid. So what is dosh? The Department of Government Efficiency was created by executive order from President Trump on January 20th by restructuring an existing entity called the US Digital Service. Now this was originally created by Obama in 2014 to improve government websites. This is a special office within the executive office of the president, employing around 200 politically appointed personnel for a two year term in past administrations. Now, Doge doesn't seem to have near that number under Trump, not yet anyway. And it's unclear exactly how many people are working with Elon Musk on it at this time. There's a handful of software engineers that have been identified online, but it's a small team. The big news this week, the Trump administration is actively working to dismantle USAID and reabsorb it into State Department control directly under Secretary Rubio. So how did this all start? And what is USAID? The US Agency for International Development was established by Congress during JFK's administration to deliver aid to post Soviet states and counter Soviet influence abroad. Today, the agency has broadened its scope, serving as the primary implementing body for US Foreign assistance worldwide. Its programs are supposed to deliver aid on behalf of the US Further US Interests in an effort to counter China, counter Russia influence and propaganda, strengthen relationships with our international partners. Now this is of course a good thing if it's done correctly. But the question is, is it done correctly? Now, Republicans have held for decades that USAID fails to align its actions on the ground with our broader strategic foreign policy and national security priorities. Meanwhile, Democrats are now arguing that any foreign aid, no matter what it's for, is a force multiplier for the US Brand. But the truth is we absolutely should evaluate whether aid is working. And yes, it's been done before. What's the whole point of giving out money and waving the American flag overseas? Right? We build schools, we help poor countries with humanitarian aid and projects so that American influence remains strong when we need it. Now, there is strategic value in that, again, if it's done with a strategic mindset. But we've seen some pretty ridiculous examples of aid given out by usaid, exposed by Doge this week. So let's name a few. $70,000 for a DEI musical in Ireland, $47,000 for a transgender opera in Colombia. Honestly, just having grown up in Colombia, that's a weird place to have a transgender opera, but apparently it happened. And $32,000 for a transgender opera in Peru. Additionally, USAID spent $20 million to create an Iraqi Sesame Street. Look, should there be an Iraqi Sesame street? That's that's proposing good American values. Does it need to cost $20 million? These are questions that should be asked millions more to farmers in Afghanistan to switch from growing opium to food crops. Not a bad idea in theory, but the reality is that poppy production, which by the way is the precursor for heroin, nearly doubled. These revelations have fueled calls, understandably, for a reassessment of USAID spending priorities. So has all aid been paused? No, not necessarily. That's not true. What some people are saying still delivering on essential programs like the president's emergency plan for AIDS response. But what is the status of USAID now? And my other agencies come under the same scrutiny. So to give you some details, on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he was now serving as the acting director of usaid. He's taking it over completely. That makes sense. It's already part of the State Department. He placed non essential USAID staff on administrative leave. He highlighted that many USAID programs are conflicting, overlapping or duplicative now raising the possibility of reforming the agency's infrastructure. But it has to be done in consultation with Congress. Unsurprisingly, Democrats and left wing activists have been extremely upset about all of this. They've mobilized several protests in opposition to the president's actions. On Monday, congressional Democrats staged a protest outside usaid, on Tuesday outside the treasury, and on Wednesday outside the Department of Labor building. They're hoping that these protests will mobilize their base against Trump and start to turn public opinion against DOGE efforts to cut wasteful spending. Now, not all Democrats, especially not the smart ones, are on the same page. Some high profile Democrats like Democrat political strategist David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel, former House leader, Chicago mayor and diplomat, told Politico that Democrats were walking into a trap. And that, quote, this is not the Hill I'm going to die on. That makes a lot of sense. I think the American people just generally speaking are skeptical of where our money is going abroad. It is often talked about. It's a tiny part of the budget, but we still don't like to see wasteful spending. And Secretary Rubio has emphasized that reforms are necessary to ensure USAID focuses on strategic and impactful initiatives rather than just funding wasteful or politically motivated projects. These programs are now under review to determine their effectiveness and relevance to US Foreign policy. From my own experience in the military, going through embassies, as a congressman going through embassies, I agree with this. I have often seen that look with, even with good intentions, there are young, bright eyed, bushy tailed, recently graduated from liberal arts schools, people who work in these programs who think they're doing a good thing by giving away money to whatever cause. But there is, there is a failure to attach that to a strategic mindset and that has to be looked at. In a parallel move, the Trump administration is considering targeting the Department of Education for similar reforms. The President has announced plans to significantly reduce or entirely eliminate the department, aiming to reaffirm education as a state issue. Months ago, we nominated Linda McMahon as Secretary of Education, and he's repeatedly said that she should put herself out of a job by overseeing the department's dismantling. Executive order is reportedly in the works to initiate this process of stay tuned on how this all plays out. But it could involve shuttering programs not protected by law and urging Congress to pass legislation to formally close the department. President Trump told the media that he wanted to let states run the schools and that despite the fact we spend more people than any other, we spend more per pupil than any other country in the world and we're ranked very badly, he's not wrong. While the White House has indicated they would like to take action through executive force, they will almost certainly need legislation to close a cabinet level department Now. Trump told reporters, I think I'd work with Congress. We'd have to work with the teachers unions because the teachers unions are the only ones that seem opposed to it. These initiatives reflect Trump's campaign commitment to reduce the federal bureaucracy, cutting approximately 200,000 jobs, selling off half of properties that it manages. Now let's move on around the world to Gaza. This is a big one this week as well. So Trump's proposal for the US to take over Gaza, resettle Palestinians elsewhere and transform the area into an international vacation destination has sparked global condemnation and disrupted probably 80 years of policy pushing for a two state solution. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, France, China. Other nations rejected the plan, citing violations of international law, potential regional instability. Palestinians say they fear another nakba, Arabic for catastrophe. They're talking about another mass displacement like in 1948, so they obviously strongly oppose it. Hamas dismissed this as absurd. Not that we care what Hamas thinks. Trump claims that Jordan and Egypt might accept resettlement, but they have denied this, understandably so. They've they don't want millions more people just entering their country now since negotiating a hostage impossible ceasefire agreement. This is his first major announcement on Middle east policy.
- [18:26]
And he outlined a vision for transforming Gaza into a Middle Eastern riviera where international communities could coexist peacefully. In conjunction with his plan, Trump proposed the permanent relocation of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. He also suggested the United States could take a long term, long term ownership position over Gaza, relocating its residents to a good fresh, beautiful piece of land in another country while redeveloping the war ravaged territory under U.S. control. So how are Trump Admin admin officials playing catch up on this? Shortly after the event, Secretary of State Marco Rubio tweeted gaza must be free from Hamas as as the POTUS shared today, the United States stands ready to lead and make Gaza beautiful again. Our pursuit is one of lasting peace in the region for all people. So that's kind of a vague statement there. Yesterday, Rubio followed up his tweet by telling reporters that Trump was only proposing to temporarily move Gazans out of the territory to allow for reconstruction, insisting that Trump did not commit to putting US Troops on the ground. That was reaffirmed during a White House press briefing in this morning by President Trump. In a post on Truth Social, he said and was as much as I would love to read this in Trump voice, it would just distract you all the the Gaza Strip would be he said the Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of Fight the Palestinians. People like Chuck Schumer, you just have to laugh at that would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities with new and modern homes in the region. They would have a chance to be happy, safe and free. The US Working with great development teams from all over the world, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on earth. No soldiers by the ocean be needed and stability for the region would reign.
- [20:06]
You know, the argument there is like they've been saying for a long time, it's the world's biggest prison, so why wouldn't you want to leave? But that being said, most countries oppose Trump's proposal. Most notably Saudi Arabia said it would not establish ties with Israel without the creation of a Palestinian state. That contradicts Trump's claim that Riyadh was not demanding a Palestinian homeland when he said the US Wants to take over the Gaza Strip. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered high praise for President Trump on Tuesday, stating that the proposal for the United States to take control of Gaza and remove nearly 2 million Palestinians demonstrated his willingness. Willingness to challenge conventional thinking, that's for sure, and approach the issue with an outside the box mindset. Hamas rejects the proposal, of course, as it's a recipe for generating chaos and tension in the region. A little bit of background on what the current plan is. The second phase of the three part Gaza ceasefire agreement began on February 4. Very recently. The first phase, which took effect on January 19 after 15 months of conflict between Israel and Hamas, included a temporary halt to fighting, the release of some Israeli hostages held by Hamas, and the freeing of certain Palestinian prisoners. In the second stage, the remaining living Israeli hostages will be released in exchange for more Palestinian prisoners and the IDF will complete its full withdrawal from Gaza, making the ceasefire permanent. Third and final stage involves the return of deceased Israelis in the launch of a major international reconstruction campaign to rebuild Gaza's devastated economy and infrastructure. Of course, there's no actual plan for that and this is kind of where Trump comes in. And if I'm going to give an analysis here, analysis here, this is, this is very typical of the President. He's going to throw a big idea out here and force people to talk about it, because no one's talking about how exactly Gaza is going to be governed and how that reconstruction is going to happen. His proposal to turn Gaza into a hotspot destination, it seems bizarre at first, might be challenging to implement, of course, but it's, it's not far off. There's a reason Gaza has been fought for by Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Muslims, Crusaders, Ottomans, British Israel. It has the benefit of geography. As a coastal enclave sitting on the rift of north and south, east and west, it joins Asia to Africa. It's not far from Europe. That geography has made it a major area of commerce and trade throughout history. Less than a century ago, Tel Aviv, a major destination now, is nothing more than sand dunes. Sharm El Sheikh, the premier diving resort on the Red Sea, was developed from a fishing village to a tourist center under Israeli control in 1968. Let's not forget, by the way, that's part of Egypt now. Let's not forget, in his first administration, Trump proposed the Peace to Prosperity plan. Never got implemented, but it was a proposal which would have given Palestinians $52 million to turn Gaza into the Riviera of the Middle East. It was funding for homes, businesses, art education programs for simply disarming Hamas and other terrorists in a demilitarized Gaza. They didn't take them up on that and said they committed atrocities on October 7th. So let's not dismiss completely the possibility that it could be a hotspot destination at some point. But and maybe this seemingly outlandish proposal is exactly what spurs the Arab countries in the region to finally take the responsibility they need to take for that outcome. So maybe let it happen. On Cabinet officials so confirmed this week, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of the VA Doug Collins. Collins all confirmed RFK's nomination for Secretary of Health and Tulsi Gabbards as director for National Intelligence are headed to the Senate floor. And Cash Patel for the FBI looks likely for next week. The Senate has remained in session to get these nominations pushed through. Today we're voting on the Halt Fentanyl Act. This here's what it does really quick. It permanently makes fentanyl and its analogs a Schedule 1 drug which allows prosecutors and law enforcement to actually do their jobs to prosecute it. Now, it's been temporarily a Schedule 1 drug since 2018. Democrats make the argument that this is going back to the 1980s, 1990s and mass incarceration. That's nonsense. Since this has been in place already for seven years, we're just making it permanent. It should be bipartisan and easy to do, especially with tens of thousands of deaths from fentanyl. Lastly, if you read nothing else, read Sean Derns. The US Looks south. National security challenges loom close to home. This is in the Washington examiner, and it highlights the Trump administration's appointments of Latin Americanists. He points to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has years of policy experience in the region, and Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau, who served as Trump's ambassador to Mexico from 2019-21. Border czar Tom Homan, who served as acting ICE director Dern writes that the US Mexico relationship has been in a state of undeclared crisis. I agree with that and it's to be seen if our two administrations can work together and get us back on a solid relationship of security, trade and coordinate cooperation. I personally work on that quite a bit. And that's all for today, sir. Thanks.