Georgia Howe (2:32)

Now, earlier you mentioned markets. How much did they fall?

Cabot Phillips (2:35)

Well, if you're a fan of buying the dip, you are in luck because Wall street took a beating yesterday with trillions of dollars in market cap wiped out within hours of markets opening. The Dow plummeted 1400 points. The S&P fell 4%. The Nasdaq fell 5%. Elsewhere, major U.S. brands with supply chains outside the U.S. like Nike, Ralph Lauren and HP saw double digit declines. But it was midsize U.S. companies that were the hardest hit. The Russell 2000 index, which includes smaller stocks, opened down nearly 7%. And the U.S. dollar slipped to its lowest point of the year, sinking more than 2% compared to the euro, Japanese yen and Swiss franc. Put simply, it was arguably the worst day on Wall street since COVID wrecked the global economy. For their part, the White House urged patience, calling on Americans to trust Donald Trump's plan. Here's press Secretary Caroline Levitt making that case on cnn. To anyone on Wall street this morning.

Georgia Howe (3:26)

I would say trust in President Trump. This is a president who is doubling down on his proven economic formula from his first term. As the president declared yesterday, this is indeed a national emergency and it's about time we have a president who actually does something about it.

Cabot Phillips (3:42)

And look, there is no doubt this is a high risk, high reward plan. Some US Banks like Goldman Sachs raised the possibility of a recession to 35%. But in a best case scenario, businesses bring manufacturing stateside, our trade partners lower their tariffs and the US Brings in massive new revenues. Here's Vice President Vance defending the move on fox.

Pete Hegseth (4:01)

During the first Trump administration, everybody said that Trump's tariffs were going to be inflationary. Back then, what actually happened? We had 1.5% inflation. We had the fastest growing economy in a generation. This is a big change. I'm not going to shy away from it. But we needed a big change. Lawrence, we cannot keep going down the Joe Biden globalist pathway where we have $2 trillion of PE time debt and deficits. We have manufacturing disappearing. That is not working for Americans.

Cabot Phillips (4:29)

Amid the turmoil Thursday, the Trump administration got some welcome news from one domestic manufacturer looking to capitalize on Liberation Day. Ford announced a new From America for America policy. American shoppers will now have access to employee pricing on new cars from now until June.

Georgia Howe (4:45)

Now, how are other countries reacting?

Cabot Phillips (4:47)

Well, it's been a mixed bag. Some dug their heels in vowing to raise rates even higher. Beijing, for example, promised, quote, resolute countermeasures, while EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen is already finalizing countermeasures saying, quote, if you take on one of us, you take on all of us. But other leaders expressed more cautious optimism and a willingness to cut a deal Britain's Keir Starmer reiterated that his, quote, intentions remain to secure a deal. We saw a similar willingness to work on a deal from leaders in Brazil, Singapore, Switzerland and Vietnam. The White House is betting that we are in a better spot than our competitors to withstand a trade war and that eventually even our foes will be be forced to come to the table. Here's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick with a message to our trade partners on cnn. We are the consumer of the world, right? We buy $20 trillion worth of goods and we are basically the buyer of everybody else's in the world's items. So what is the point of them going higher so that we go higher? And the White House says they are already in talks with a number of countries. We'll be keeping a very close eye on those negotiations this weekend. In the meantime, though, a new age of American trade policy is upon us.

Georgia Howe (5:57)

All right. Well, it's both exhilarating and a little nerve wracking. Cabot, thanks for reporting.

Cabot Phillips (6:02)

Anytime.

Brandon (6:06)

Some razors are made for soy lattes in safe spaces. However, Jeremy's razors are made for men with a backbone and a beard to tame. It's engineered with five stainless steel blades and zero apologies. No lecture, no pandering, just a razor that works. Find out why a quarter of a million men switched the politically incorrect razor for men shave boldly, live freely. Visit Jeremy's razors.com today.

Georgia Howe (6:30)

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced this week plans to adopt the same fitness standards for both male and female service members.

John Bickley (6:38)

Joining us with more is Daily Wire reporter and editor Virginia Cruda, who served in the army for 10 years herself. Hey, Virginia. So first, what exactly has Hecseth announced here?

Virginia Cruda (6:48)

Well, he's announced that he's going to officially address what he has described as a decline in physical standards for service members, particularly in combat arms roles. Specifically, he says it is not acceptable for the military to hold different standards for men and women. And he promised immediate change. Here he is in a video statement on Monday.

Pete Hegseth (7:08)

For far too long, we allowed standards to slip and different standards for men and women and combat arms, Moses and.

Jarvis Caldwell (7:16)

Jobs, that's not acceptable.

John Bickley (7:18)

So what is Hegseth really saying here? Does this mean an end to women in combat roles or is there another way to look at this?

Virginia Cruda (7:26)

He's not restricting women from taking on combat roles at all. He's simply saying that once the training standards are set, they will not be modified simply because the person doing the training happens to be female because combat training is and should be so intense it's entirely possible that this will mean fewer women are able to complete it. And if that's the case, there will be fewer women in combat arms jobs. But it won't be because they're women. It will be because they cannot meet the prescribed standards. Those who can will continue to serve in that capacity. We should also note that Hegseth followed his initial announcement with a second video explaining that the new revised standards would only impact combat arms jobs. Here's some of that.

Pete Hegseth (8:06)

We're ensuring that any combat position across any of the services, and the services are evaluating that, has the same standard for men and women, which means anybody can join. But the standard is to meet what it takes to do that combat job, rigorous physical standards, so that your sons and daughters, those that join our military, have the best possible units, the most lethal units.

John Bickley (8:31)

All right, so give us some context for all of this. How did we get here?

Virginia Cruda (8:35)

So to really break this down, you have to go back to 2013, when former President Obama's Defense Secretary Leon Panetta opened up combat arms. Moses to women. That acronym stands for military occupational specialty, and it refers to whatever specialty training a soldier might have after going through the basic combat training that everyone does. Before Panetta changed things, women were already serving in supplemental roles that would occasionally put them in combat situations. They often served as medics or vehicle operators, for example. But they were not put intentionally into jobs like the infantry, where the only place they could go to do their job effectively was direct combat.

John Bickley (9:14)

But then Panetta decided to change all of this. What was the rationale there?

Virginia Cruda (9:19)

It was all in the name of equality. The official policy statement was that if women could do the job, they should be allowed to have the job. But I, along with a lot of others, predicted early on what would happen once Panetta opened that door. Very few women, if any, would be able to meet the tough physical demands of infantry training. So in order to be progressive and promote gender equality, either the training standards would have to be lowered across the board, or the women would be held to a different and lower standard.

John Bickley (9:46)

And that, according to the Defense Secretary's announcement, is exactly what happened. So why didn't anyone reverse course before? Now?

Virginia Cruda (9:53)

It all comes down to the politics, especially in today's political climate. No one wants to be the guy who told women they do not have what it takes to serve in combat roles. And even though that's not really what Hegseth is saying here, that's how it will be portrayed by critics in legacy media.

John Bickley (10:09)

Major moves by the new Defense Secretary. We'll see how this is received. Virginia, thank you so much for reporting.

Virginia Cruda (10:14)

Absolutely.

Georgia Howe (10:18)

Colorado's Democrat controlled legislature is poised to pass a series of radical left policies that would establish the state as a transgender sanctuary. The new laws would also make so called dead naming and misgendering discriminatory acts.

John Bickley (10:33)

Joining us to discuss is Colorado State Representative Jarvis Caldwell. Thank you so much for joining us.

Jarvis Caldwell (10:38)

Yeah, absolutely.

John Bickley (10:40)

So first of all, will you tell us what just happened? We have a law that was just passed in Colorado. Catch us up to speed here.

Jarvis Caldwell (10:46)

Yes, sir. So House Bill 1312, also known as legal protections for transgender individuals, just went through the House Judiciary Committee last night. We voted on it at 1:00 this morning and it passed along party line votes. So it still has to go to the full House for votes and then it'll have to go over to the Senate and assuming it passes all of that, then it'll go to the governor's desk.

John Bickley (11:10)

All right, so let's walk through what's exactly in this. This is from the summary. Section 2 provides that when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider dead naming, misgendering or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender affirming health care services as types of coercive control. What are we supposed to make of that?

Jarvis Caldwell (11:38)

Yeah, so that's probably the most scary thing about this bill is now when you're talking in terms of custody, the misgendering of a child is considered child abuse. That means when a judge is making custody decisions, if one parent is not affirming of the child's trans identity crisis and the other parent is affirming of it, then the preference for custody is going to go to the affirming parent.

John Bickley (12:07)

Now section three establishes effectively what is called a transgender sanctuary law for the state. Can you explain what's going on there?

Jarvis Caldwell (12:16)

So this is a question I raised in committee because I've had one of my district attorneys review this section and they are confident that this violates the full faith and credit clause, Article 4, Section 1 of the US Constitution, which says very directly that states will honor and recognize rulings of other states with section three, basically, if one parent were to take a child to the state of Colorado to get gender affirming care and the state that they came from did a court ruling to bring the child back, Colorado will not recognize it if this law passes.

John Bickley (12:52)

So defying other states rulings. Now I also want to highlight sections 8 and 9. They define dead naming and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the Colorado Anti Discrimination act and prohibit these discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation. What does that mean exactly?

Jarvis Caldwell (13:12)

Yeah. So if you look under the Colorado Anti Discrimination act, places of public accommodation is basically anywhere outside your own home. So we're talking all businesses, we're talking public facilities. But if you misgender or as they call dead, name someone, you could be in violation of the Anti Discrimination act, which could make you civilly liable and bring you before like an ethics type committee. That's one of the most troubling pieces of this, is that this is frankly, a First Amendment violation. It's a religious violation if you call somebody the wrong name.

John Bickley (13:48)

Final question. Is there anything Republicans can do to stop this from going through?

Jarvis Caldwell (13:52)

You know, unfortunately, with our numbers, not at the moment. And so I don't see any roadblocks from here to the governor's desk. So unless our Democrat governor, Jared Polis, decides that this is just it's too much all at once and vetoes it, unless that happens, then I don't see any roadblocks for this going through the legislature.

John Bickley (14:12)

Scary stuff. If that does happen, it will be fascinating to see how the Trump administration responds. Representative Caldwell, thank you so much for joining us.

Jarvis Caldwell (14:19)

Yeah, absolutely. I really appreciate it. I'm a big fan of you guys. I listen to you and Ben Shapiro every day. So thank you so much.

John Bickley (14:25)

Well, we certainly love to hear that. Thanks again.

Jarvis Caldwell (14:27)

Thank you, guys.

Georgia Howe (14:31)

Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news. You need to know.