← Hold These Truths with Dan Crenshaw
Hold These Truths with Dan Crenshaw
SITREP #8: Trump Talks to Putin, Judges Meddle in the Executive Branch, & Goodbye Pennies
00:29:29
The Situation Report for February 6 – 12. Rep. Crenshaw breaks down the latest developments in U.S. – Mexico relations. He covers President Trump’s most important moves in domestic and foreign policy. He analyzes the blitz of stays issued by...
Loading summary
Transcript9 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. All right, this is the situation report number eight. The SITRAP covering the news from February 6th to the 12th because all other news sources tend to suck. So we're giving you the right stuff today. We're going to talk about the Gulf of America Proclamation. Some really interesting develops in Mexico regarding cartels and American involvement. We're going to talk about penny production. We're going to talk about the debate over whether district judges can really put injunctions on executive actions. We're going to talk about Hamas delaying a hostage deal and what's going to happen in Gaza Doge and closing the cfpb. So lots to get to. All right, let's start with something you might not have heard recently. This week, the Mexican Senate voted 107 in favor. That's out of 128 senators. So that's an overwhelming yes vote to authorize additional U. S Special Forces to conduct training inside Mexico with the Mexican Navy. That is known as SEMAR in Mexico. That's an acronym that's different from the army, which is called sedena. Now, why is this an interesting development? One, there's a, it's a huge, I think, political statement from the Mexican government that indeed we're going in the right direction. We're getting more US Cooperation, not less. Now, is this a massive change? Yes and no. It has long been the case, even under the last Mexican administration that U.S. special forces would do around 17, what's called JSATs, which are joint training exercises with the Mexican Army Special Forces. But we had given up or not by our, by our choice, but by Mexico's choice, our relationship with Los Marinos. So the Marines, or maybe their equivalent of U.S. navy SEALs, my friends who were assigned to this years ago would go down to Mexico and do joint training operations with the Mexican Navy Special Forces. That's what's being brought back. And that's a great development. It's still in small footprints. They define how many members of the US Military can come down at a time. It was, it was with, with, with the army, it's 11 with the navy. Now in this new proclamation, it's just 10, but it's, it's still a good sign. Of course, I will be pushing for a lot more than that. Mexico needs a lot more than that. And when we talk about Special Forces going down to train other Special Forces units, you know, it's a couple of weeks at a time. It's great. You're building relationships, you're going to the range, you're doing some tactics. You need a much stronger and constantly deployed force, in my opinion, to have a real effect, especially with what Mexico is dealing with, which is an actual massive and well funded insurgency right inside its country. But let's not complain about small steps in the right direction now, on a lighter note, President Trump has officially rebranded the Gulf of Mexico as Gulf of America. He even signed a presidential proclamation declaring February 9 as Gulf of America Day. Gotta love this. It's not even really that controversial in my opinion, since, since all Latin Americans view themselves as Americans, maybe this makes the most sense. Now, if you haven't tried it already, open up Google Maps and you'll find that Google has indeed as has indeed also labeled as the Gulf of America. So thank you, Google. It should be said in a more serious note that the proclamation doesn't change maritime law, which is maintained through international treaties in a body called the International Maritime Organization. But it's a message. It underscores Trump's broader strategy of reasserting American influence in the Western Hemisphere, particularly as China and Russia seek to expand their economic and military footprint in Latin America. The reaction from Mexico wasn't great. The President Sheinbaum called the move an act of provocation. But we have noted, and U.S. officials have noted, this is a branding exercise. It's not a policy shift. Everyone calm down. And again, despite some of these.
- [04:20]
Public statements, there's, there's more good things than bad things happening with our relationship with Mexico. We need to stay on that track and keep our eye on the prize, which is killing cartels. Also, we're not making pennies anymore. The Treasury Department, at Trump's direction, has announced the US Mint will halt penny production. Probably a long overdue decision, considering pennies cost more to produce than they're actually worth. Thanks inflation. So you're not. You're still going to have your pennies.
- [04:50]
This is just removing an inefficiency. We spent about $185 million producing pennies. They cost 2.72 cents to manufacture, so that's almost three times their actual worth. They're not being pulled from circulation. You can still use pennies. You can still find and collect old pennies, but production will cease by 2026. So maybe you should start collecting. Now, onto some trickier news. Activist judges are back at it. Liberal district court judges have issued nationwide injunctions against multiple Trump executive orders. Now, in the bold words of our fourth Chief justice of the United States, Chief Justice John Marshall, who's famous for establishing judicial review, he was Chief justice from 1801 to 1835. So this is early in our founding, when these debates were happening, he said, it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. So in other words, through though it's unarticulated in the Constitution, judicial reviews and established power that acts as an article of faith, it's how our federal court courts exercise checks and balances over other branches of government. And this power, well, some might argue is essential to maintaining the rule of law. Now, I mean, I take one look at that quote, and I immediately have some problems with it. I don't think it's the judicial branch's job to say what the law is. That's Congress's job. We write the laws. We literally say what they are.
- [06:14]
The judiciary's job is to interpret those properly. When I think there is some vagueness as to how to interpret those laws, and it is a check, for sure, but ultimately they are Article 3 of the Constitution. Article 1 is Congress. That is the most powerful. That is the most powerful branch of government. We write the laws. So judicial review happened whether we like it or not. And it's been used for, I mean, well, over a couple centuries now. And needless to say, courts and judges, even the Supreme Court, don't always get it right. So it's another question of should these judges have so much power? I mean, let's not forget in 1857, the Supreme Court ruled the Dred Scott case that Africans were not conferred citizenship under the Constitution. 1896, the court upheld segregation as constitutional. In the Plessy Vers. Ferguson case in 1944, the court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. And don't even get me started on Roe v. Wade. So they don't always get it right. All of that said, in the last 25 years, individual U.S. district Court judges increasingly have exercised judicial review by granting sweeping injunctions blocking presidential executive orders and policies. Now, again, it's one thing for Supreme Court to get it wrong. That is the highest court in the land, very clearly endowed with that power by the Constitution. I think a lot of people rightfully question the power of unelected lower level judges granting sweeping national injunctions. I mean, the ink was hardly dry. And President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship order when a federal judge in Washington state issued a nationwide injunction blocking it. In similar cases, other district judges have invoked stays on Trump's executive orders, removing DEI programs, pauses to federal spending, and Trump's plan to revoke California's electric vehicle mandate. Now, I'm sure there's a, there's definitely an argument and a debate within each of those subjects. Maybe some are right, some are wrong. Either way, this is judicial activism and this is the same playbook used during Trump's first term. They issued 64 nationwide injunctions blocking many of his administration's policies. Over the weekend, Vice President J.D. vance posted on X Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. I agree with that. Of course, the argument is over whether it's the legitimate power or not. And this sparks a nationwide debate, I think a debate we need to have over whether these clearly partisan judicial tactics are constitutional and protected by historical precedent. These injunctions are controversial because the U.S. supreme Court has never actually really ruled on them. And now the debate is heating up. Are, are these injunctions themselves unconstitutional? Do they set a dangerous precedent should the Supreme Court step in? So let's, let's talk about the for and against arguments here. Supporters argue these injunctions are necessary. And to be clear, you know, the shoe fits on the other foot. We, we conservative judges have used them against Biden as well in the last four years. But supporters of injunctions as a whole would say they're necessary to prevent executive overreach. Judicial review exists for a reason. It's to check presidential power when it's clearly violating the Constitution. Of course, clearly violating the Constitution is indeed itself a subjective term. It would, they would say it's necessary to ensure uniformity in the law. Without nationwide injunctions, laws could apply differently depending on what state you're in. They would say it's necessary to protect constitutional rights when a president enacts a policy that is likely unconstitutional. Nationwide injunctions prevent immediate harm while courts review the case. They would say there's historical precedent. While controversial, nationwide injunctions have been used for decades. Trump's executive order banning WeChat was blocked nationwide by a Republican appointed judge in California. And judicial restraint exists. But most judges don't issue nationwide injunctions lightly. Most of them. Many federal court courts decline to block presidential orders unless the case is exceptional. And I think maybe that's where we've Seen things veering off. I, I think there's a sense and a rightful one that, as opposed to, to, to, to sticking to what's exceptional. They're going after everything. I mean, the most obvious one would be removing DEI own executive branch. That one seems pretty obvious to a lot of us that the executive would have power over what kind of things are being taught within, within his own branch of government. Again, the president isn't firing any employees from the legislative branch. Can't fire my employees. You can't. You know, if, if an office here in Congress, you know, I'm right next door to aoc. If they want to have a DI program in their office, they're allowed to. President Trump in the executive branch can't have an effect on that. But should he be able to have an effect on DI programs within the Department of Interior? Well, it's an executive. It's an executive agency, I would say, of course. And does the judiciary really have a say in that? Again, the people in favor of judicial injunctions say both sides use them. As I mentioned, Biden saw 14 of his executive orders blocked in his first three years. So both sides can use them as a check. Now, opponents of judicial review, that includes conservatives. Some legal scholars, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, argue these injunctions are deeply flawed because, well, they give too much power to a single judge. One, one unelected district judge can block a president's policy for the entire country, even if other courts disagree. That seems like a pretty bad thing. It also encourages forum shopping or court, you know, court shopping, really. Activists, group groups, they, they cherry pick where they file cases, picking courts likely to side with them. That's why most Trump injunctions came from Democrat appointed judges. And they would say that this sets a dangerous precedent. If a single judge can block a presidential order, what happens when the next administration takes office? It creates legal chaos and, and legal warfare. And again, there's a lack of Supreme Court clarity here. The Supreme Court's never ruled definitively on whether nationwide injunctions are constitutional. Gorsuch has called them cosmic injunctions in order to warn the court will need to address them. It also would argue that this, it's disruptive to executive power. Courts are supposed to review laws, not govern the country. Nationwide, injunctions undermine their president's ability to act and at least inconsistent enforcement. If one judge blocks a policy nationwide, but another court upholds it elsewhere, federal agencies have no idea what to do. Is there a fix?
- [12:32]
People have. People have proposed fixes. Legal experts suggest the following. Maybe random Case assignment for injunction requests. Okay. So that would, that would do away with that problem of court shopping, having a three judge panel instead of a single judge issuing nationwide orders. So again, getting rid of that problem of having one person unelected with too much power and of course, getting this to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court clarification on the limits of these rulings. Like any policy issue, there's, there's benefits, there's drawbacks to, to all of these reforms. But the, but the important takeaways here are this type of injunction, it's not new. There's been an increasing number of them in the past couple of decades. And I think over issues that are clearly politicized, President Trump and Vice President Vance are definitely not wrong to question something that is so obviously constitutionally murky. So I think the Supreme Court needs to provide clarity. So just to provide some clarity here in all of these injunctions, it's not as if a particular judge just woke up one day and decided to establish an injunction. That's not exactly what happens. Somebody has to file a case. They're basically suing and they have to have standing to sue. And the judge then makes a decision. Now, there's an open question too, is whether the executive branch actually has to follow that decision if they choose not to follow that decision. Because I've heard legal scholars say this before, for the executive, by following that injunction, is choosing to follow it.
- [14:09]
And if they choose not to follow it, that's what forces the question up to the Supreme Court. In theory, President Trump of all people might be the type to say, we can ignore your injunction. We will continue on as planned and the Supreme Court will decide. The Supreme Court is again the constitutionally established.
- [14:30]
Check on, on, on whether this particular decision is legal or not. And I think we might expect that and, and rightfully so. I think that that concept, that conversation nationally needs to happen, that just that decision on how we move forward needs to happen, because I think we've seen legal chaos for too long. Okay. Moving abroad. Hamas delays hostage deal and Trump does not like that. On Monday, February 8, Hamas announced it would suspend the planned hostage release set for Saturday, February 15, citing alleged Israeli cease fire violations. They said the Custom Brigades accused Israel of delaying displaced people's return to northern Gaza, restricting aid and carrying out attacks. Now halting the release violates the ceasefire that was agreed upon and hostage agreement between Hamas and Israel, which risks its collapse, potentially reigniting the war. That would not be good now. Following that announcement, Trump responded calling for all hell to break loose. If the hostages weren't released by Saturday at noon, which is that, that's coming up quickly. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu echoed this warning, vowing to resume intense military action if Hamas fails to comply. Additionally, recent pictures of released Israeli hostages have shocked the world. Many of them are, are extremely emaciated with obvious signs of brutality. During a Super bowl interview, Trump commented. I watched the hostages come back and they looked like Holocaust survivors. I don't, don't know how much longer we can take that. These survivors had obviously been held deep in captivity, deep in tunnels underneath Gaza for around a year and you know, not given the proper treatment. A lot has been talked about about President Trump's suggestion of a, of a Gaza Riviera. This of course created a, a lot of comments from all sides and nevertheless, during a Tuesday meeting with President Trump, King Abdullah II of Jordan offered to take in 2000 sick Palestinian children from Gaza. Accepting more displaced Palestinians on the could also create political chaos and issues for Jordan which already hosts over 2 million Palestinian refugees. That's, that's 20% of the population. Some estimates say it could be more like 50%. It sort of depends on how you, how you, how you actually categorize Palestinian versus Jordanian. A lot of what argued that's the same ethnicity. Now historically, Arab nations including Jordan, have resisted absorbing additional refugees in efforts to support the existence of a Palestinian state. So there's twofold issue here. They want a Palestinian state, but they also can't take in more refugees because it creates an untenable political situation for themselves at home. That's the same with Egypt, that's the same with, with Jordan. And so Jordan's king is, has always been in a tough spot. He can't see be seen as betraying the Palestinians, especially with mounting security concerns that come from years of illegal weapons smuggling from Syria. At the same time, he has to be weary of accepting large numbers of Palestinian refugees because it creates a hot spot for militancy within his own country. History, of course, serves as a warning. His great grandfather was assassinated by a Palestinian nationalist in 1951 and his father was forced to expel militants after the violent clashes of Black September, the 1970s. So now the King has to navigate intense regional pressure while safeguarding Jordan's security. For people unaware of our relationship with Jordan, we have an extremely close relationship with, with Jordan. A long, long time friend of the United States. He's very much a Western educated, perfect English speaking leader and is, is, is provides very clear and sound insight. And on the, on the ground truth of what's going on in the Middle East. He's actually here in Washington right now. We just met with him. So they are, they are very deeply involved in figuring out what the next step is for, for Gaza and the West Bank. And I think everyone is very clear, Israel from throughout that Hamas cannot have a future. That much is clear. The question is, who is that future leader for the Palestinian people over Gaza and the West Bank? So Egypt has a big role in this as well. While they rejected the proposal to resettle any Palestinians in Egypt, again for a lot of the reasons I explained, they will agree and come out with a plan soon of prioritizing Gaza's reconstruction without displacement and advocate for a two state solution. So they announced this week they'd release a proposal to rebuild Gaza while ensuring Palestinians remain on their land and pledge to work with the US Towards a just resolution. And of course, President Sisi needs to understand that it better be a really good plan because you're dealing with President Trump, who is a real estate mogul himself. He's going to know what a good development plan looks like. So hope the Egyptians come out with something good. I mean, if you've ever visited ancient Egypt, they might know what they're talking about. There's some pretty impressive things there. So we'll see what they come up with. But worth noting again, I've noted this in the last podcast, President Trump's unorthodox grand proclamations. What they have the effect of doing is forcing everyone into the room and not leaving until they come up with something. And that's the benefit of what's happening here. So there's a lot of good things behind the scenes. That being said, President Sisi did have a planned visit here to Washington February 18th. He's postponed it because of the proposal by President Trump to relocate Palestinians from the Gaza Strip. And the administration has gone back and forth on what they mean by that. And we'll get into the details on trying to follow every single comment. But I think again, the bigger picture here is President Trump is getting people into the room. That's what's happening. And it's a good thing worth noting too. I mean, Egypt is a massive recipient of foreign assistance from the United States. So we do have a lot of influence there. It's over a billion dollar, billion and a half dollars, almost a year now. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Egyptian Foreign Minister Brother Abdulati on Monday to discuss post conflicting planning for Gaza. So this is, this is happening behind the scenes. And, and I think there's more to be seen. Rubio will is set to visit Israel, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, following his stop at the Munich Security Conference this week, which I will also be at. This marks his second international tour as Washington's top top diplomat under the Trump administration. And Rubio will first arrive in Israel on February 13th before traveling to the Gulf. So not a lot of easy solutions here, but you have to commend Trump for getting, getting the right people in the room to, to to come up with a plan and getting Hamas to understand that they should probably take him seriously if he says all hell is going to break loose if you don't release the hostages. On a totally different note, some interesting developments in the tech world. A group of investors actually led by Elon Musk made a 97.4 billion dollar offer to purchase OpenAI. Now OpenAI is the company behind Chat GPT, which everyone's aware of. This was an unsolicited offer. It was quickly rejected by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. Now a little bit of background here for those who care. This was a. OpenAI was actually started as a non profit organization. The mission to develop AI technology to qu benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return. That's nice. Now when they launched Chat GPT and investor interest in AI ballooned, this did change things for Sam Altman. He's laid out a strategy to convert OpenAI to A for profit company, much to the chagrin of some of its employees. That plan succeeds. It'd be one of the largest charity to a for profit venture conversions in history. Not to mention that the nonprofit OpenAI's investors are locked in negotiations as to how much they'd receive in compensate and compensation if it were to convert. So there's some interesting business background here. All this and contentious history between Elon Musk and Sam Altman. Elon was an early investor and co founder of OpenAI. He poured $45 million into it. According to court documents. He recruited top AI scientists for the project. He stepped down from the organization's governing board in 2018 and ceased any further investment in 2020. His withdrawal was allegedly to protest Altman's early plans to commercialize the venture in 2024. In response to the public announcement of Altman's plans to convert Open Eye to a for profit venture, El his lawsuit alleges that the co founders of OpenAI engaged in fraud and breach of contract with their plan to convert the nonprofit into a corporation.
- [22:49]
Again, not the first time They've, they've taken open AI to court. They've long had issues. It may be worth noting Microsoft, the current majority partner in OpenAI, has a pretty significant concern regarding their compensation if Altman succeeds in converting OpenAI to A for profit company. They've been pulled into Elon Musk's previous lawsuits against their subsidiary and any corporate reshuffling of OpenAI will have to happen with Microsoft's consent. So it's a hefty sum to buy them out of a significant ownership. Why does this matter? Well, it matters because of President Trump's.
- [23:26]
Announcement of this project called stargate, of which OpenAI is a leader and Elon Musk isn't part of it. Other players in that project include Oracle, Nvidia, Microsoft. So this new uncertainty over OpenAI's future will possibly complicate fundraising efforts for what was teed up to be a multitrillion dollar growth opportunity. Goldman Sachs estimates maybe $7 trillion in global economic growth in the next decade from, from AI and tech giants in America will potentially be at the lead of this. That's, that's the idea, that's the idea behind Stargate. Let us lead it instead of China. Onto other news. Doge is at it again and Trump is making good on his promises on government efficiency. So let's talk about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Has a nice name, makes you feel like you're being protected by, by predatory financial institutions. It was indeed created under Obama's Dodd Frank act after the financial meltdown of 2008, maybe with some good intention, because if you recall that that financial meltdown was, was effectively caused because people stopped paying their mortgage payments. So there's a personal responsibility issue there too. But it was, it was also argued that, that financial institutions were lending to people that they really shouldn't have been lending to in the first place, giving them loans that they really had no business getting in the first place because it was just so easy to give those loans. And there was, there have been other programs previously, sort of a, you know, again, well intentioned programs helping poor people buy homes that were causing this massive bubble to take place. And then when people just stop paying their mortgage payments, the bubble is exploded. And we all remember what happened from that. So it had potentially good intentions protecting consumers from unfair financial practices. That, that's, that, that, that sort of predatory lending, if you will, that, that led to a lot of this. But keep in mind this, this, the particular agency is Senator Elizabeth Warren's baby. So that might tell you something, make you Be a little bit skeptical of it. So it's been criticized for a long time, myself included, as an unaccountable regulatory agency with unchecked power free from congressional oversight. It's also very duplicative. It has the same regulatory functions as the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of Currency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the authorities of the Department of Justice. The ftc, which is the Federal Trade Commission, and the sec, the securities and Exchange Commission. That's a, that's a lot, that's a lot of overlap. So this closure is spearheaded by Doge, again, Department of Government Efficiency, run by Elon Musk, in concert with Trump's initiative to eliminate wasteful bureaucracies. So the key functions, in theory would be absorbed into the treasury and the ftc. Same oversight, but without the regulatory blow, and also with some added oversight from Congress, which is again, the big complaint over the con, over the cfpp. Make no mistake, this will still be fought and questioned, blocked potentially by, by courts. Getting back to our question of judicial review. So even if it doesn't work, I think the benefit, and it continues to be the benefit of these conversations, is that whether it's about USAID or the Department of Education, it's forcing constitutional questions to be answered, maybe by the Supreme Court, maybe by Congress. In other news, let's go back overseas. And it is very significant diplomatic development. President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin have agreed to commence immediate negotiations aimed at ending the ongoing war in Ukraine. Of course, this is a Trump campaign promise, and it's a good one. We can talk why Ukraine is in American strategic interests all day long. I've always said the simplest answer to that is you have to have Putin regret it. And if you're getting put into the negotiation table, there's an element of regret there which re establishes American deterrence, which is the most important thing we've had for the last 80 years. It's created all the good things that you have in life. Before World War II, it was pretty normal for dictators to invade other smaller countries and take their stuff. And for thousands of years, that was human history. It was global chaos. There was no real global economy, no real norms that we lived by. And there's obviously been an effort by a bloc of countries like China and Russia to disrupt that American led order that we have profited from massively. It's not so much about Ukraine, it's about American deterrence. You get, you get Putin to the negotiation table, you get an end of the war. Look Some people aren't going to like how that where those lines end up. But for American deterrence, this is very important and it requires leverage. And additional leverage has been added to the equation. Just very recently. There was Biden's. There was Biden's, I think too late of a decision to allow weapons to be used by the Ukrainians inside of Russia. That has created a lot of problems for Russia, helps them leverage us to get to the negotiation table. There's been additional sanctions on Russian oil and gas. That's a good thing too. And Putin knows that he's now facing a Trump administration which has a lot less hesitancy to use sanction power than the Biden administration did. So with more leverage comes the ability to get someone to the negotiation table. I've long argued this. So within that conversation, a few things happen. There was an invitation to Moscow. During the call, Putin extended an invitation for President Trump to visit Moscow, which he accepted. And that would be the first direct contact between the two leaders since February of 2022. President Trump plans to inform Ukrainian President Zelensky about the conversation. Probably this, which probably already happened, as I tell you this and the agreed upon negotiations. He emphasized the mutual desire to halt the ongoing conflict, expressed optimization, optimism about working closely with both Russia and Ukrainian leadership to achieve peace. They also this week. This development comes right after a recent prisoner exchange where Russia released American teacher Mark Fogel in exchange for Russian national Alexander Vinic. This exchange is seen as a good step toward building that mutual trust and potentially resolving the conflict in Ukraine. So we'll see where that goes. That's all for today. Thanks.