← The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
The 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson
Tariffs!-Mexico, Canada & China-What's It Mean for You? plus Kash Patel Shines at Hearing
00:35:06
Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:01]
Ben Ferguson
Well, good. Monday morning it is verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you. And Senator, we've got a lot of breaking news, including tariffs and retaliatory tariffs. On top of that.
- [00:12]
Ted Cruz
Well, this is a very big week. On Tuesday of this week, President Trump is going to impose 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico, 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada, except for energy, 10% tariffs on all energy imports from Canada, and in addition to that, an additional 10% tariffs on all imports from Canada. These are a big deal. They have already started retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico. We're going to talk about what that means. We're going to talk about how that's going to impact American farmers, American ranchers, American manufacturers, American consumers. We're going to talk about what's likely to play out in the days and weeks and months ahead. We're also going to talk about the big hearing we had last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee for Kash Patel. Kash Patel is nominated to be the director of the FBI. He is one of the very top targets the Democrats are going after. They're trying to take Cash Patel down. I don't think they're going to succeed. I think Cash did a very good job. But we're going to break that down for you as well. And finally, we're going to talk about the status of US Airlines flying directly to Israel. They have halted all flights ever since October 7th. We're going to talk about my predictions for what's going to happen there as well.
- [01:29]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, that's going to be a very big news for a lot of people as well that are looking to get to Israel. Want to talk about Israel for a second and say thank you to so many of you that have stood up with the people in Israel and for more than a year of war they've been dealing with it, terror and pain In Israel, there's still a great demand for basic humanitarian aid. That is where the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has supported and continues to support those in the Holy Land still facing the lingering horrors of war and those who are desperate for need right now. Your gift today will provide critically needed aid to communities in the north and south that have been devastated by the ongoing war. Your generous donation will help deliver food for those in need, including evacuees and refugees from war torn areas, first responders and volunteers, wounded soldiers, elderly Holocaust survivors and families who have lost everything and so many more. You can give hope during a time of great uncertainty. So give a gift to bless Israel and our people by visiting supportifcj.org that's one word, support ifcj.org or you can call them 888-488ifcj. That's 888-488-ifcj 888-488-4325 or supportifcj.org so, Senator, let's talk about how we even got to the prospect and the premise for tariffs. Let's start so people understand that first, because I think there's a lot of people that don't understand that basic aspect because it is complicated.
- [03:14]
Ted Cruz
Well, listen, I think these tariffs are very different. I think the Mexico and Canada tariffs stand on a very different footing from the China tariff. And President Trump uses tariffs for several different purposes. One, President Trump is quite fond of using tariffs as leverage to force other countries to do things that he wants to do unrelated to economics and trade, for example, and we talked about this on last week's podcast. When the nation of Colombia refused to allow US Planes to drop off illegal immigrants who had come from Colombia, President Trump responded immediately by threatening 25% tariffs and then threatening to ratchet them up in a week to 50%. That caused Colombia to cave immediately within about eight hours. That's an example of that. I think the Mexico and Canada tariffs fall into that category. The president has explicitly tied those tariffs to border security, to stopping the flow of illegal immigration coming into this country, and also to stopping the flow of fentanyl coming into this country. We're going to talk about that a little bit more, but I want to draw a distinction between that and the tariffs against China separate. And apart from using tariffs as leverage on other countries, President Trump just likes tariffs. When he sat down with all the Senate Republicans a couple of weeks ago, he went on for probably 20 minutes about it. He said tariff is the most beautiful word in the English language and he loves tariffs. And by the way, that has been the single most consistent policy view of Donald Trump going back to the 1980s, going back to when Ronald Reagan was president. Donald Trump was advocating for terrorists back then. You'll recall in his inaugural address, he said we're going to replace the Department of Internal Revenue with we're going to create the Department of External Revenue. And so in my view, the China tariffs of 10% he is viewing as a long term revenue stream. He doesn't intend to lift those tariffs. He intends for those to be in place. He intends for those to decrease the production of what's being made in China. He wants that to move more production to the United States. But understand that tariffs, predictably, that they are a tax that consumers pay. They, they will drive up the prices of imports coming from China. Now, they're designed to drive up the prices of imports coming from China because they, they are designed to make products produced in America more competitive. So the China tariff, I don't expect the president to lift it in four years. I expect that to be. And in fact, he may well impose more tariffs on China. Look, I actually think that makes sense in a broader sense. And I can tell you the advice that I've given President Trump, the advice that I've given his incoming cabinet when it comes to tariffs is focus in the long term on two things. Number one, China and China has seized far too much of our critical infrastructure. We are too dependent on China. And I want to delink our economy from China. And so these tariffs will accelerate that process. But number two, what I have urged the President is reciprocity. There are countries we trade with who have high tariffs on our goods and we have lower non existent tariffs on their goods. And I think that is us being taken advantage of. And so my hope is that he will use targeted tariffs to press reciprocity. Now, I'm going to make a prediction, Ben. My prediction is that the Trump administration will lift the tariffs, will end the 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada. I'm going to throw out a date 36 days from now. I don't know.
- [07:05]
Ben Ferguson
So this is clearly short term in comparison to China, is your point.
- [07:09]
Ted Cruz
I do not think we will see these tariffs in place for four years. I don't even think we'll see them in place for one year. And we can talk about the magnitude of them and why. I can tell you, I met a couple of weeks ago, the Canadian energy minister came to meet with me and understand we import a ton of oil from Canada. You remember the first Trump term, Remember the big fight over the Keystone pipeline?
- [07:33]
Ben Ferguson
Oh, absolutely.
- [07:34]
Ted Cruz
And we were all in favor of it. Republicans were in favor of it. Drill, baby, drill. Keystone pipeline.
- [07:39]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah.
- [07:40]
Ted Cruz
That pipeline was to import oil from Canada. The Keystone pipeline flew, flowed from, or was going to flow from Canada down to the United States. They have massive oil reserves in Alberta, the tar sands there. And the Keystone pipeline was to carry that oil down to the United States. Now, when the Canadian energy minister came to my office two weeks ago, he was pressing their internal studies that showed that a 25% on Canadian oil and gas would drive up the cost of gasoline in the United States, in the Midwest by 80 to 85 cents a gallon. Now that's a pretty significant consequence, which is why the Trump White House did not impose a 25% tax on Canadian oil and gas, but only 10%. And I know the Trump White House, Canada shared with them the very same studies they had. I don't know how true or accurate they were, but they claim that was what their empirical economists were predicting. And listen, it's not crazy because there are a number of refineries, particularly serving the Midwest, that are dependent upon Canadian oil in particular. And one of the things that you know, but our listeners may not is different refineries are built and designed to refine different oil that comes from different parts of the world, whether Canada or the Permian Basin or the Middle East. And it is very costly and very expensive for a refinery to shift from one type of oil to another. So the refineries, the, that are right now refining Canadian oil, they don't have a whole lot of options to shift, which is one of the reasons why driving up the cost of the Canadian oil significantly, I think predictably would have real effects in the gasoline market. You'll see some effects on gasoline, but at 10% instead of 25, I think the effects will not be as marked.
- [09:31]
Ben Ferguson
So you look at that and you say, okay, if they know this is going to be a short term thing, can't they just wait it out? And this goes back to the game because they're also retaliating with their own tariffs.
- [09:43]
Ted Cruz
Well, they are, but, but listen, this, this is a game of inflicting pain. And, and these tariffs, I believe will, will inflict some pain on the United States. They will drive up cost for consumers. But you can predict they will inflict more pain on Mexico and more pain on Canada because their economies are much more dependent on exporting to the United States than our economies are dependent on importing from them. And so the levels of pain are disproportionate. Now I'm going to share with you some analysis from an economist who I know and respect is one of the best economists who's analyzing what's going on. And here was his analysis. His analysis was that the effective tariff rate, if Mexico and Canada and these tariffs remain in effect for a year, that it would raise approximately $150 billion of new tariff revenue on an annual basis and is the fiscal equivalent of a 10 to 11% increase in the corporate tax rate. So that's not small. And the scale of these tariffs this economist is continuing is significantly larger than Trump's tariff increase on China in 2018 and 2019. Those tariffs in 2018 and 2019 were about $30 billion a year in revenue. These tariffs, if they stay in effect for the entire year, are projected to be four to five times larger than the 2018-2019 tariffs when fully implemented. Now, here's another aspect of this, and this is the same economist who's very good, which is expectations for tariff increases happening in the Trump administrations were relatively low. Betting markets had the odds of 35% for an early tariff increase. And Mexico was mostly priced in, but Canada was not. So the financial markets were pricing in some tariff increases. Treasury Secretary Scott Besant observed recently that for every 10% increase in tariffs, a 4% currency depreciation. So the Mexican peso right now has a 9.4% depreciation relative to the dollar since August 1, which, which suggests that a lot of the tariffs were already priced in Canada's is about half of that. So, so, so Canada, you could expect to see more depreciation of the Canadian dollar. And you know the point of that, that's one of the reasons I don't think these will remain in effect for long. As I said, my prediction is 36 days. And here's what I'm predicting will happen in 36 days. In 36 days or so. That's a number picked out of the hat, but that gives you a sense of how long I think it will be. The President will announce with a lot of fanfare, major concessions from Mexico and Canada that they are going to invest in a massive way in securing the border. They're going to put Mexico's going to put soldiers on their southern border. They're going to reinvigorate the remain in Mexico policy. They are going to lean in and Canada is going to as well. I can tell you, when I met with the Canadian energy Minister, my advice to him, I said, listen, Trump is not bluffing. You are making a mistake if you think Trump is bluffing. And he said, well, look, we're already promising all sorts of steps to help secure the border. I said, great, whatever you're doing, make it bigger, make it bolder, do as much as you can, because this is not a bluff. And I think the end of these tariffs, I think these tariffs will be lifted, but they will be lifted only after Mexico and Canada make massive commitments to help secure the border. And I gotta admit, if that's the case, listen, Texas will feel some real pain, in particular from the tariffs on, on Mexico. Understand that Texas and Mexico engage in hundreds of billions of Dollars of trade back and forth, Cars, many, many cars and trucks sold in the United States. The cars on the supply chain go back and forth from Texas to Mexico to Texas to Mexico, sometimes four or five times in the construction of a car. If these tariffs remain in place for a long time, you could expect significant upward pressure on the price of a car. That's not good and it's not good for Texas farmers and ranchers. In the long term, if this ends up being a relatively short term tariff and the effect is to produce a massive change of behavior from Mexico especially, but also Canada, to help secure the borders and to help stop the fentanyl flow, it will be a huge victory. But that is dependent upon Mexico and Canada now stepping up and acting. And I think the pain inflicted will accelerate that process.
- [14:40]
Ben Ferguson
Well, and then this goes back to the practicality aspect of this. And for people that are listening, what Donald Trump is saying is it is worth this short term rise in some things for us to get a secure border where we're not letting in millions of people and rapists and sex trafficking and fentanyl and everything else that's been flooding our border, because there's a clear mandate there. And this is the way to use leverage to get that done.
- [15:12]
Ted Cruz
So that's true. But, but let me give another benefit of this. And there was actually a quote of a national security analyst in the New York Times who, who, who says Trump, quote, will need to kill a chicken to scare the monkeys. Now, what, what that quote means is, is showing the world that he's serious about tariffs, that his threats are credible. And listen, I think it says a lot that these tariffs were announced right at the same time that Trump sent his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio down to Panama. I think these tariffs are speaking very clearly to Panama. I think these tariffs are speaking very clearly to Greenland and to Denmark. And these tariffs are speaking to people around the globe that, that Trump is perfectly willing when he says he'll impose tariffs, he'll do that. And that deterrent effect, I think is enormously valuable. So it's not just the change of behavior from Mexico and Canada, but it's the rest of the world saying, holy cow, this guy will really do this. And so we need to act accordingly. That's a big deal.
- [16:25]
Ben Ferguson
You mentioned Panama. And this broke on Sunday afternoon. And is this one of those victories that comes out of these tariffs? And that is the fact that we heard from the president of Panama that they, quote, have decided not to renew the 2017 memorandum of understanding with China Regarding the Belt and Road initiative, like immediately following that meeting with Marco Rubio.
- [16:48]
Ted Cruz
Absolutely. That is a significant victory. And look, we predicted. We did a podcast immediately right at the beginning of the Trump administration, talking about Panama, Greenland and Canada. And at the time, I said, listen, Canada is not going to become the 51st state. That what Trump's talking about, Canada becoming a state, I believe was just trolling Justin Trudeau, and it remains the most epic troll in history. It literally caused Trudeau to announce his resignation within days, and I think he was just yanking his chain. Greenland we've talked about before, I think they're a very strong national security and economic reasons why acquiring Greenland makes sense now. I don't think it should be done through force. I think it should be done through negotiations. I think we should offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark. I think it's in Denmark's interest to do so. I had a long conversation with the Danish ambassador about exactly this, and I said, listen, Denmark is a friend. You're an ally, but friends and allies can talk honestly with each other, and I think it's in your interest and our interest for America to acquire Greenland. I think it would also take a referendum of the Greenlanders. But there are only about 50,000 Greenlanders. Number one, if Greenland became an American territory, US citizenship is an incredibly valuable inducement we have. And for the Greenlanders, the opportunity to become American citizens is a big deal. Not only that, look, I could imagine a scenario where, where the Greenlanders get a direct payment. If you can imagine Greenlanders getting 50 grand each for 50,000 of them, that'd be pretty darn compelling if you had a referendum. And the upside of being acquired is that you get some direct form of compensation. And beyond that, if Greenland was an American territory, I think the American investment that would flow into Greenland, both for its geopolitical location on the Arctic, for national security and defense, but also because of the vast, critical minerals and resources, I think that investment would be in the billions of dollars. And that if you're a Greenlander, I could think of an awful lot of reasons why you say, hey, we're not getting much from being part of Denmark, but if we could be part of America, that's a big step forward.
- [19:09]
Ben Ferguson
So you look at that and then you go back to this broader question, and you see what President Trump's strategy is. He's taking on a lot of these issues. I've heard people say, well, he's just gonna be stretches too thin too quickly. It doesn't seem to be the case at all in reality, it seems that a lot of this was planned out and the people are in place and the people around him to see these things through.
- [19:34]
Ted Cruz
Look, border security is the clearest and most direct mandate from this election. And I think almost any step he takes to secure the border is, is good and beneficial. It's why Colombia made a lot of sense. They're leaning in hard on that, and that is very positive. We need to keep doing that.
- [19:51]
Ben Ferguson
Final question on this one for people that are saying, well, the prices is something that I care about more than the border security and I don't want to pay $0.10 more a gallon or whatever the number is. Is that something you say this is where you have to decide what's more important in general?
- [20:08]
Ted Cruz
Well, well, look, it also comes down to whether this is short term or long term. If this is, if the Canada and Mexico tariffs are a matter of weeks or a month or so, and it induces a significant change in behavior that secures the border and results in a lot less murderers and gangbangers and rapists coming into this country and a lot less fentanyl coming into this country, that's an unambiguous win. If the result of this tariffs is just ongoing tariffs driving up prices for a long, long time, then that is not nearly as beneficial. And so the outcome is significant. And as I said before, I think the Mexico and Canada tariffs are very, very different from the China tariffs. I expect the China tariffs to stay in place all four years of the Trump administration, and I think they're serving a very different function.
- [20:55]
Ben Ferguson
I want to move on to another big issue, and that is confirmation hearings. Cash Patel's was, was at the end of last week as well. And we are now seeing a lot of people that are getting their ad. See you later. Thanks for serving. You're out of a job in the deep state. This is another reason why we need to get Cash Patel in there quickly. Let's talk about where that is. And also, you had a very interesting back and forth with him over some of the things that the left is trying to attack him on.
- [21:27]
Ted Cruz
Well, the hearing. The Democrats went after Cash Patel furiously. As I said on Hannity last week, the hearing reminded me of Shakespeare's Macbeth. It was a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. The Democrats did not get any traction. They were foaming at the mouth. They were coming after him ferociously, and yet I don't think they moved a single vote. I think Kash Patel will get confirmed. Now. Every Democrat on the committee is going to vote no. And my guess is every Democrat in the Senate is going to vote no on him. But I think we will get. We might get to 53, but we will, at a minimum get to 50 with JD Vance breaking the tie. And I don't think the hearing moved a single vote. When my questioning occurred, you know, the week before, I had spent a couple of hours helping Moot Cash Patel, helping get him ready. I actually got to play Sheldon Whitehouse, who's a very liberal senator in the Moot. And I gotta say, it was fun. Just raving at him, screaming at him. I tried to insult him. I was a total jerk in the, in the mood, which, which if you're doing a moot, well, explain for people.
- [22:39]
Ben Ferguson
That don't know how this works. You get people, and I've gotten to do this a couple of times. It's really fun. You get somebody ready for a confirmation hearing and, and, and many people like you just described, you play the other side. You try to get them ready for what they're going to face. And the setting that you do it in, was this more relaxed or was it more formal?
- [22:59]
Ted Cruz
I don't know. It was done exactly like a hearing. He was sitting at a table, we were around him, like firing questions at him. And sometimes you do it this way, sometimes you don't. But in this instance, they gave me the role of Sheldon Whitehouse, who's one of the most partisan Democrats on the committee. I've served with Sheldon 13 years. I know him well. And so, you know, I mean, I was screaming at him, and I mean, my questions were wildly unfair, but you gotta get ready for wildly unfair questions. I was not trying to be nice to him in the mood because that, if you're doing that, you're not doing your job in a mood. And I gotta say, he did. So it was interesting in the mood. A couple of times, like, Cash would try to pop back and we would stop and say, look, it's not your job to punch the Democrats in the face in this hearing. My advice, by the way, to every hearing nominee is be boring right now. Today you've got the votes to be confirmed. From the Democrats perspective, the only way they can change that is get you to say something in the hearing where you step on a landmine and blow yourself up. If you don't do that, you will be confirmed and you will go do the job the President has asked you to do. And so a good role of a hearing, you know, someone you know very well is John Ashcroft. So when I was a young baby lawyer, I was part of the team that helped prepare John Ashcroft for his confirmation hearing to be Attorney General. And I was, you know, 30 years old, a baby lawyer, but I'd been on the Bush campaign and Ashcroft gets nominated bag. So I remember we're prepping him, and just like with Kash Patel, we were asking horrible questions. We were asking. I mean, we were just. Just. And in the prep session, Ashcroft would get pissed and he yell at us, and we'd say, senator, you're exactly right. That question was terrible. It was unfair, it was dishonest, it was abusive. Senator, can we remind you, you have the votes right now. Like, they want you to get pissed. And so I was glad he yelled at me, and he yelled at the other people in the mood because it got it off his chest. And I still remember you go back and watch Ashcroft's confirmation hearing, and there was one exchange, and I'm paraphrasing, it was 24 years ago, but he had given a speech about the Second Amendment, and he had talked about the Second Amendment that the framers had intended as a Second Amendment, as a check on tyranny from the government. And Ted Kennedy, who was questioning him, goes, tyranny from our government, the American government. You know what? That is treason, man. I say, you're a traitor. And he, like, screams at the top of his lungs calling Ashcroft a traitor. And at the actual hearing, Ashcroft, I don't think his heartbeat exceeded 65 beats a minute. And he very calmly said, senator, if I'm confirmed as Attorney General, I will follow the law and I will enforce the law. And it got confirmed. So Kash Patel, likewise. He got some of his yelling out at the mooters. Actually, not much. He did a good job of not losing his cool in the moot and then in the hearing. I think he did an excellent job. When it came to my turn, they had been beating him up a lot on January 6th, and so I wanted to give him a chance to get out some basic facts. So give a listen to my cross examination of Cash Patel this past week on his confirmation hearing for Director of the FBI. You will be and have been accused of just about everything they can. But I want to focus on what several Democrats have done recently, which is trying to blame you for the violence that occurred on January 6, which even in the annals of ridiculous attacks, this one really takes the cake. So. So let's just. Let's just focus on some facts. Let me ask you A question. What role did you occupy in the days immediately before January 6th?
- [27:10]
C
Chief of Staff of the Department of Defense.
- [27:12]
Ted Cruz
You were the Chief of Staff at the Department of Defense?
- [27:16]
C
Yes, sir.
- [27:16]
Ted Cruz
So to be clear, you were not rioting at the Capitol?
- [27:20]
C
No, sir.
- [27:21]
Ted Cruz
Where were you physically on January 6th?
- [27:25]
C
In the office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon.
- [27:28]
Ted Cruz
And what were you doing on that day?
- [27:32]
C
On that day, specifically responding to preparing to mobilize and deploy the National Guard once we got the lawful request from the local governing authority, which was the mayor of D.C. and the speaker of the House.
- [27:44]
Ted Cruz
Now, how many days in advance were you working to prepare the Department of Defense to help secure the Capitol on January 6?
- [27:50]
C
Days in advance, Senator, we were in the Oval Office on an unrelated national security matter with the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and myself. And the President authorized up to 20,000 plus National Guardsmen and women to secure any security measures necessary related to the Capitol. So we were moving to the fullest extent of the law before the requisite request came from a local governing authority days ahead of time.
- [28:16]
Ted Cruz
And while you were Chief of Staff at dod, how many times did DOD approach Capitol Police and ask if they needed National Guard assistance?
- [28:26]
C
I believe those letters are well documented. Numerous instances. And numerous of those instances, they were. Those requests were shut down.
- [28:35]
Ted Cruz
Now, am I correct that the Capitol Sergeant at Arms said assistance was unnecessary?
- [28:40]
C
That's correct, Senator.
- [28:43]
Ted Cruz
Who did the Sergeant at Arms report to?
- [28:45]
C
The speaker of the House.
- [28:46]
Ted Cruz
That would have been Nancy Pelosi at the time, is that correct?
- [28:49]
C
Yes, Senator.
- [28:52]
Ted Cruz
And would that also be Chuck Schumer, then the Senate Majority Leader?
- [28:57]
C
The sergeant at arms? Yes, Senator. Reports up there.
- [29:01]
Ted Cruz
Did Mayor Bowser, the Democrat elected mayor in D.C. either request or allow National Guard assistance?
- [29:09]
C
She put in writing on the days leading up to January 6, a declination for national Guard additional support. And that letter is available publicly to the world.
- [29:18]
Ted Cruz
So. So. And just to speak English, for folks at home, a declination meant she said no, don't send National Guard. Is that right?
- [29:25]
C
Yes, sir.
- [29:28]
Ted Cruz
Let me ask you a simple question, because from the questioning from my Democrat colleagues, they might think otherwise. Do you condemn violence against law enforcement?
- [29:36]
C
All of it.
- [29:38]
Ted Cruz
And by the way, is that true whether the violence is right wing or left wing or anywhere else, there is.
- [29:44]
C
No discriminating between types of violence against law enforcement.
- [29:49]
Ted Cruz
And do you believe those who assault and commit violence against law enforcement should be prosecuted and should be sent to.
- [29:56]
C
Jail, especially those that kill him?
- [30:00]
Ted Cruz
May I ask you how many years have you worked in public service?
- [30:04]
C
About 16, Senator.
- [30:06]
Ted Cruz
And how many years have you worked in particular in law enforcement and prosecution and national security?
- [30:12]
C
Over a decade, Senator.
- [30:15]
Ted Cruz
You know, I have to say it is ludicrous but sadly predictable that Democrats are endeavoring to tarnish you to paint a false caricature based on innuendo and smoke. And so you're working to protect the Capitol on January 6th, and yet they're trying to blame you for the violence that occurred. Let me ask you this just as a straightforward matter. What is the job of the FBI and what will the FBI's role be if and when you are confirmed as its director?
- [30:58]
C
The simple motto on the website of the FBI's homepage is to protect American citizens and uphold the Constitution. If I am confirmed as the next director of the FBI, that's what we're going to do and redirect resources and making sure that occurs every single day.
- [31:13]
Ted Cruz
Thank you for your willingness to do so. And this committee will hold you to account on restoring integrity at the FBI. And I thank you also for your commitment to transparency. I think that is incredibly important to bringing back integrity, and I'm grateful for it.
- [31:28]
Ben Ferguson
Wouldn't it be nice if the media would fact check the Democrats on the committee that were trashing him, trying to connect him to January 6th like he was an insurrectionist in their words, and just tell the story of what he was actually doing? I'm so thankful that you asked those questions.
- [31:42]
Ted Cruz
Yeah, don't hold your breath on that. The media has their story to tell and they're not going to get let facts get in the way.
- [31:48]
Ben Ferguson
So last question on this. This is a really important position, being in charge of the FBI. When are you guys going to actually get to vote on this?
- [31:57]
Ted Cruz
So we will vote on Cash Patel in a week. So this week there'll be a markup. But the way the Senate Judiciary Committee works is the minority has a right on any vote to hold it over for a week and delay it for a week. So they will do that this week, and so they'll delay that. Now, Pam Bondi will be confirmed on the floor of the Senate this week. So by the end of this week, she'll be attorney General. Next week we'll vote on Cash Patel and Judiciary Committee, and then I'll go to the Senate floor after that.
- [32:25]
Ben Ferguson
All right. Lastly, you, during the Panama hearing, brought up something that was interesting and I want to ask you about it. We mentioned it earlier, and that was talking about the flights going back into Israel. Give Everybody, an update on this one because it really is important.
- [32:43]
Ted Cruz
Well, the reason I brought it up is one of the witnesses we had at that hearing was an international law professor who's an expert on treaties and testified about the Panama Canal Treaty who was in Israel. And we had asked him to come back to D.C. to testify in person. But there are no direct flights right now from the United States to and from Israel. And so it would have taken him, I think, over 30 hours to get here. It was very expensive. So we ended up having him testify via video conference, which is a general matter. I don't want to have happen in the Commerce Committee. But I made an exception because it was so time consuming and expensive for him to get back to the United States. And his testimony was particularly valuable. All three major US carriers suspended air flights to and from Israel following October 7, and they had been suspended the entire time. Now, Delta has announced publicly it tends to intends to resume service to and from Israel. That's a very good step. To date, neither United nor American has done so. I predicted, in fact, I predicted the week of inauguration, all three US Carriers will resume air flights, will announce that they're resuming air flights to and from Israel within 30 days. I think it is time for that to happen. You used to have Delta, United, American, all flying to and from Tel Aviv. I think within 30 days all three will announce their resuming air flights to and from Tel Aviv. By the way, to be clear, European airlines are flying into Israel, regional airlines are flying into Israel. You can get there, but you gotta fly, go to somewhere in Europe and then cut down. You gotta connect through somewhere else. If the other airlines of the world can fly to and from Israel, there's no reason for the United States airlines not to do so. And I think within 30 days you'll see all three of them. Delta's already done it, but I think you'll see United, American follow suit very soon.
- [34:41]
Ben Ferguson
Yeah, well done for them to be the first ones to do it. It's always good news. Don't forget, we do the show Monday, Wednesday, Friday. We're going to keep you up to date on the confirmation hearings, the votes and the breaking news, obviously on these tariffs. So hit that subscribe or auto download button on those in between days. Grab my podcast, the Ben Ferguson Podcast. I will keep you updated on the breaking news in between and the Senate. I will see you back here on Wednesday morning.