Donald Trump (7:29)

To all Iranian patriots, keep protesting, keeping take over your institutions if possible, and save the name of the killers and the abusers that are abusing you. You're being very badly abused if the numbers are right. Now I hear five different sets of numbers. I hear numbers, look, one death is too much, but I hear much lower numbers. And then I hear much higher numbers. But I say save their names because they'll pay a very big price. Then I've canceled all meetings with the Iranian officials until the senseless killing of protesters stops. And all I say to them is help is on its way. You saw that I put tariffs on anybody doing business with Iran.

Ben Shapiro (8:13)

The transformative effect on the region would be incredible. Obviously the government of Qatar, which is just a cutout for the Iranian government, is protesting to the United States, complaining about all of this. The government of Qatar, despite spreading literally billions of dollars in public relations around the globe, is meeting with little success with the Trump administration, who's watching all of this unfold. Obviously, if the Iranian regime were to change, that would be a sea change in geopolitics. Iran is a large scale supplier of oil to China. Iran is a large scale supplier of Shahid drones to Russia. Iran is of course the chief sponsor of of global terrorism on planet Earth, having spread its terror tentacles not only throughout the Middle east, but also into Europe and into Latin America. If the Iranian regime were to change, that would weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon. You might see an actual decent government there with the cap, with the capacity to destroy Hezbollah. You might see the possibility of an actual broad Abraham accord like agreement between Iran and Israel. You might see the Islamist government of Turkey boxed in. I know there's been a lot of talk recently about the supposed moderation of the Turkish government of which I see zero evidence. Certainly getting rid of the most cancerous regime in the Middle east would be helpful to the interests of the United States. That doesn't mean the United States. Again, I'm going to say it for the 100th time. This does not mean that the United States ought to put hundreds of thousands of troops, tens of thousands of troops on the ground in Iran's topple the regime. No one is talking about that. What we are talking about is a risk reward calculation whereby American action, targeted American action, could have disproportionate effect on the future. Not only of the Middle east. But on geopolitics as a whole, imagine if the Houthis weren't harassing shipping in the Red Sea anymore because their sponsor state Iran was gone. Imagine if the Chinese had to be a little bit more careful about their playing around with anti American forces in the Middle east because again, the mullahs weren't there to help them out. Imagine if the Russians did not have a gigantic supply of weaponry coming in from Iran. Things change radically when terrible regimes go. I've seen some talk about what replaces the Iranian regime. Well, I mean, there are a lot of possibilities as to what replaces the Iranian regime. The Iranian people will have to decide what replaces the Iranian regime. But any suggestion that what is likely to replace the Iranian regime is worse than the current Iranian regime, I'm going to have to see a chart on what you think is worse than the current Iranian regime, which again, the largest state sponsor of terror on the planet, a regime responsible for at least a thousand deaths in Iraq of American troops, a regime that has threatened Saudi Arabia, that has threatened the uae, that has threatened Israel, that has spread its terror tentacles through Syria into Lebanon, that has been involved with terror attacks in Europe. Again, it's very there are arguments against regime change. That is not a particularly good one. All right, coming up, President Trump speaks to CBS News about what's going on in Iran first and say I'm short on sleep. I'm sure on sleep because I'm traveling and that means that I did not spend enough time the last couple of nights on my Helix Sleep mattress. See, finding the right mattress doesn't have to be complicated. Our sponsor Helix actually makes it incredibly straightforward with their Sleep quiz, which matches you to the perfect mattress based on your specific preferences and sleep needs. They're not just another mattress company either. Helix is the most awarded mattress brand out there with glowing reviews from major publications like Forbes and Wired folks, not just marketing hype. A study they conducted found that 82% of participants actually saw an increase in their deep sleep cycle while sleeping on a Helix mattress, which is pretty impressive when you think about how crucial quality sleep is for everything else in life. Again, Helix sleep makes me sleep better when I'm at a hotel. I just don't sleep the same way because I don't have the personalized mattress. They even offer free shipping straight to your door, a 120 night sleep trial so you can actually test it out in your own home. They back everything up with a limited lifetime warranty. Start sleeping right tonight by ordering a Helix mattress today. Head ON over to helixleep.com BEN for 20% off site wide. That's helixleep.com BEN for twenty percent off site wide. Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you. Helixleep.com Ben well, President Trump was on CBS with Tony Dukapol and was asked about the Iranian regime's approach to all of this. Here is what he said. Have they crossed your red line or as the line moved?

Donald Trump (12:37)

I haven't heard about the hanging. If they hang them, you're going to see some things that I don't know what your where you come from and what your thought process is, but you'll perhaps be very happy. What do you mean by that? We will take very strong action if they do such a thing. We will take very strong wrong action. We don't want to see what's happening in Iran happen. And you know, if they want to have protests, that's one thing. When they start killing thousands of people and now you're telling me about hanging, we'll see how that works out for them. It's not going to work out good.

Ben Shapiro (13:11)

Again, the president is not fond of making threats that he does not fulfill. This is what makes him totally different, totally different from every other president of my lifetime, particularly Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who made empty threats all the time. They drew red lines and, and then they violated those red lines. They violated those red lines repeatedly over and over and over again. Well, Donald Trump is not fond of setting lines that he does not then enforce. There's been an argument made that any sort of American intervention will create a rally round the flag effect in Iran. While not while there are literally hundreds of thousands of people in the street protesting the regime and being shot to death, I don't think that all those people in the streets protest protesting the regime and watching their family and friends get shot in the face or in the chest are going to be upset if an F35 hits an IRGC base. Trey Yingst reporting from the Middle east, says, well, actually, President Trump's pretty popular in Iran. He goes on to say, I have to emphasize that among Iranian people, Trump is the most popular person right now. He has so much popularity because of the steps that he took toward preventing the growth of terrorism in the Middle East. They respect him. That is exactly right. Meanwhile, what is Iran doing? Iran is not just mowing people down in the streets. Apparently. Now they are preparing to hang dissidents. They have apparently arrested tens of thousands of people and they have said they're going to execute anyone who has participated in this quote unquote revolt. According to the Wall Street Journal, Iran is also trying to jam Starlink so information can't get in or out of the country. Users are now being hunted. Over the weekend, authorities began searching for and confiscating Starlink dishes in western Tehran. According to Amir Rashidi, director of digital rights and security at mian Group, a U.S. nonprofit opposed to Internet censorship. Rashidi said it's electronic warfare. He said that the disruptions are worst in the parts of Tehran where the protests are taking place. And in the evening when the demonstrators gather, President Trump said that he is going to attempt to get the Internet going again, if that is possible. That might mean having to smuggle in some actual dishes to ensure reception inside Iran. It's a dangerous business, obviously, for everyone involved. Now, I will point out there are a number of people in the online right space who have been kind of dismissing all of this as it's been going on, suggesting that it's the quote, unquote, work of the neocons. Again, just going to point out, ain't been no neocons in the Republican Party since the end of the Iraq war. People who are for full scale nation building war on behalf of populations only to have to place hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground in transformative fashion. That does not exist inside the Republican Party and has not for at least a decade. Instead, what's actually happening is that a lot of people on the horseshoe theory right are mirroring Ben Rhodes foreign policy on the left, the Barack Obama foreign policy indistinguishable. And many of them are simply dismissing a lot of the numbers coming out of Iran. How can we trust these numbers? You'll notice that these are the same people perfectly willing to trust Hamas's numbers in the Gaza Strip. The same people who in specious fashion were labeling Israel's targeted action in the Gaza Strip a genocide have gone extraordinarily silent when it comes to Iran. Literally just mowing down protesters in the streets. Pretty incredible stuff from our human rights loving friends. A bottom line is this. It seems that some sort of action is likely imminent. People who are claiming that this will somehow split the Republican Party. There was a report in the Washington Post suggesting that Iran is actually relying on that split in the Republican Party to do its work, which is, I assume, why there were clips of Tucker Carlson appearing on Iranian TV during the blackout. That split does not exist inside the Republican Party. It did not exist with regard to bombing the Fordo nuclear facility, a measure that was approved of by well over 90% of MAGA voters. If President Trump chooses to take targeted military action against particular IRGC assets inside Iran, I guarantee you MAGA is not going to be split on that issue. There'll be some very loud online influencers, boosted algorithmically, who are going to claim that Trump has somehow sold out the United States of America by hitting a regime responsible for the death of legitimately thousands of Americans over time, and threats to our allies around the region and the globe. That is not just a minority voice inside the Republican Party. That is a fringe voice inside the actual Republican Party at this point. How about internationally? Well, if the President were to authorize military action at this point, targeted strikes again against Iranian facilities inside Iran, or let's say that we were to sink the Iranian navy the way that the Reagan administration did in the 1980s, which I think we should do, frankly, there is no blowback possible in, in the middle of the Gulf of Aden for the United States doing all that. As far as the Iranian numbers currently being reported, I don't know the answer as to how high those casualties are. I know that they are not coming from the regime that is interested in spreading terror around the globe. So, as I've said, those numbers could be in the low Thousands, meaning like 3,4000. Those are the reports coming again from sort of independent human rights agencies. It could be as high as 12 or 20,000. We don't know the answer to that. That's. That is a large range. But mowing down protesters at the pace of presumably hundreds, if not thousands a day, because most of these killings started on Saturday. That is certainly happening. And the people who are out there claiming, oh, you know, this is. This is just people who are stumping for war. Please explain to me why the mowing down of 3,000 or 4,000 protesters is somehow significantly better than the mowing down of 10,000 protesters in Iran under Internet blackout? We cannot have the information. We don't even know what's going on. Am I more likely to trust Iran International, a publication associated with sources in Iran, than I am Hamas, an actual terrorist group that makes it its job to lie? I'm more likely to trust that. At the very least, I'm not going to believe what the Iranian government tells me because the Iranian government and Hamas are aligned. So there's been a lot of talk, again, about the unpopularity of President Trump's international policy. That is not true in the areas in which he has acted. So to take a recent example, There's a poll done by Atlas intel in Latin America of approval for the US Military operation to arrest Nicolas Maduro. Here are the numbers. In the Caribbean, plus 67, 82% approved. Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, 77% approved. Paraguay. Uruguay, 72% approved. Colombia, this Gustavo Petro's country, 70, 64% approve. 11% undecided. Argentina, 62% approved. In Venezuela, where they're not allowed to talk about it, obviously 47% approve. 28% say don't know, but they approve, obviously. In Mexico, 55% approval rating. So President Trump is pursuing what is pretty obviously the most popular foreign policy globally of all time. And he's doing so in America's interest, not because they love it in Mexico, but because it's good for the United States. Meanwhile, a lot of media attention at home continues to focus in on ice. Now, as I've said repeatedly, the best thing for states to do would be to cooperate with ice. There have been an enormous number of arrests made by ICE across the country in red states. In fact, many more in some red states than in some blue states with far less controversy. Why? Because when states cooperate with the federal authorities, when they arrest somebody for a crime and then they report to ICE that the person is an illegal immigrant eligible for deportation, it means that ICE can simply go to the jail and pick up the illegal immigrant as opposed to having to do a raid. And yet, Democrats seem to have staked a lot of their political future on the idea that resisting ICE is a positive good. President Trump, for his part, put out a statement on Truth Social yesterday urging Minnesotans to cooperate with ice. Quote, do the people of Minnesota really want to live in a community in which there are thousands of already convicted murderers, drug dealers and rapists, violent release and escape prisoners, dangerous people from foreign mental institutions and insane asylums and other deadly criminals too dangerous to even mention? All the patriots of ICE want to do is remove them from your neighborhood and send them back to the prisons and mental institutions from where they came most in foreign countries who illegally entered the USA through Sleepy Joe Biden's horrible open borders policy. Every place we go, crime comes down in Chicago. Despite a weak and incompetent governor and mayor fighting us all the way, a big improvement was made. Thousands of criminals were removed. Minnesota Democrats love the unrest that anarchists and professional agitators are causing because it gets the spotlight off of the $19 billion stolen by really bad and deranged people. Fear not great people of Minnesota. The day of reckoning and retribution is coming now again. The big question for Democrats here is, why don't you just cooperate with ice? I've said many times that specificity, clarity is the best aid to good government. So if Democrats object to a particular arrest and they should explain why, if they object to a particular operation, they should explain why they should not simply go out there and label ICE state sponsored terrorists. They should not simply go out there and claim that ICE is the Gestapo. Doing that is likely to result in, number one, more action against ICE agents on the ground, necessitating, wait for it, even more ICE agents on the ground. Meanwhile, the president announced yesterday that all payments, all federal payments to sanctuary cities would stop on February 1st. His idea is, listen, if you're not going to work with us to facilitate deportation of criminally illegal immigrants, then why should we send you money?

Donald Trump (22:36)

Additionally, starting February 1st, we're not making any payments to sanctuary cities or states having sanctuary cities because they do everything possible to protect criminals at the expense of American, American citizens. And it breeds fraud and crime and all of the other problems that come. So we're not making any payment to anybody that supports sanctuary.

Ben Shapiro (22:59)

Again, that is the predictable result of not working with the federal government. It doesn't mean turning local police into federal agents. It means that if you know as a local police force that somebody has violated federal law, why would you not, in the name of the local taxpayer, pass that on to the feds? It's always been a wild policy. But really what's being generated here is, of course, more conflict with local people, people who, in somewhat delusional fashion, think that they are performing an act of heroism when they perform federal crimes by obstructing ICE in the pursuit of its duties. This has resulted, of course, of course, in additional clashes between ICE and people on the ground who are not really targets of, of ice. According to the New York Times, in and around Minneapolis in recent days, in quiet residential neighborhoods and busy shopping districts, at gas stations and big box parking lots, chaotic scenes are unfolding, an escalation of tensions between residents and federal agents as the Trump administration intensifies its immigration crackdown. In Minnesota after the killing of Renee Goode by an immigration officer last week, State Representative Michael Howard, Democrat, said it feels like our community is under siege by our own federal government. Now again, you know, where people don't feel under siege, where law enforcement is cooperating in the capture and deportation of criminal illegal immigrants, then they don't feel under siege. Federal officers are descending on streets and what they say is an effort to find undocumented immigrants with criminal and dangerous backgrounds. They're displaying a show of force they argue is necessary in cities and states where local governments and law enforcement agencies have refused to help them. But many residents, business owners and immigrant workers have denounced the tactics, saying the agents are indiscriminately sweeping up hardworking friends and neighbors based on racial and ethnic profiling and are increasingly organizing to push back. Now, again, the best way to do this, I will say it again and again, the best way to do this is you have local police forces on the ground. They are already tasked with actually policing things like assault and, and burglaries. If they capture people and find out those people are not here legally, should pass that information to the feds. That is the easiest way to ensure that criminal illegal immigrants do not stay in the country. And it makes zero sense, zero sense not to report that stuff to the federal government. Democrats, however, seem to believe that they have a winning hand here. Alexander Ocasio Cortez, of course, is trying to run for president in 2028. And so she is taking the most extreme position. She is suggesting that immigration enforcement is being paid for by cuts to health care, which this kind of argumentation is quite stupid because it turns out that money is fungible and the government is funded to the tune of 4 to 5 trillion dollars in terms of budget every single year. No, we didn't cut health care in order to fund ice. That's silly. I want everybody to understand the cuts to your health care are what's paying for this. All that extra money that everybody's paying right now in their premiums, all that extra money that you're paying, it is paid for with. It is all of that extra money that, that the government and the ACA subsidies that was given to nearly a trillion dollars in health care was taken out and given to ice. So understand how these dots connect. You get screwed. Screwed over to pay a bunch of thugs in the street that are shooting mothers in the face? No. And by the way, thugs that are shooting mothers in the face. A hell of a description of ICE officers, broadly speaking. I've said this before. I will say it again. What happened to Renee Goode is both a tragedy and in all likelihood, a justifiable action on a legal level by the officer in question. Both of those things can be true. And the fact that we can't have that rational conversation is, Is kind of shocking to me, at least in the political sphere. Meanwhile, Ilhan Omar announced that the Congressional Progressive Caucus had adopted a new policy of fully abolishing ice. I Hope Democrats run on this. Let's see how it works for them. And so today I am glad to announce that the Congressional Progressive Caucus has adopted an official position to hold ICE accountable. Our caucus members will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement in any appropriation bills until meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices. So abolishing ice. Go for it. Sounds great. Now, there's a poll out from YouGov showing a plurality of people actually supporting abolishing ICE that is driven primarily by young people who apparently don't know anything, 54% of whom say they would support abolishing ICE. OK. This is like the polls that were taken in 2020 about abolishing the police, the all cops are bastards movement. For a hot second, the left seemed to be in the ascendancy, and then reality set in. That's likely to happen to Democrats as well. Chuck Schumer is in the unenviable position of having to live in reality. As the Senate Minority Leader, he was asked about whether Department of Homeland Security should be defunded by the Senate. He understands that DHS actually does require funding to, you know, police the laws. Do you think that Congress should withhold funding for DHS until there are reforms in place for ice? As I said, that's one of the.

Donald Trump (28:21)

Major issues that the appropriators are confronting.

Ben Shapiro (28:23)

Right now before the bill comes up. And meanwhile, Minnesota and Illinois have been trying to file lawsuits to ban ice. That's, that's really silly. Eli Hoenig over at CNN says no, there's no legal basis for this. I've read both the Minnesota and Illinois lawsuits. They're really political diatribes masquerading as lawsuits. If you look at what both states are asking the courts to do, it's to kick ICE out of those states and cities and to bar ICE from carrying on federal law enforcement in Illinois and Minnesota. That's the top thing. Thing both states asked to do. And they cite zero precedent for that. There is zero precedent for that. There is no way a judge can say, you, federal law enforcement agency, you are not allowed to execute federal law in a certain state or city. Okay. Meanwhile, six federal prosecutors have resigned over a push to investigate the ICE shooting victim's widow. According to the New York Times, I believe Renee Good's wife. Renee Good's wife, Becca. Right. She and Renee Good were apparently involved in several groups that are, quote, unquote, monitoring and protesting the conduct of immigration agents in recent weeks. By this, we mean that very often they're actually violating federal law. By impeding the performance of federal law. The Justice Department launched an investigation into all of this. Apparently, many of these prosecutors are upset with that investigation. They think this is a misallocation of resources. Now, I'm not sure how specific the investigation is into, for example, Becca Good. I. I'm not sure that that particular investigation specifically targets Becca Good. Or whether it's looking into the networks of funding that exists for things like ICE Watch. The latter, I think, would be completely legitimate. The former be, at the very least, bad politics. But the polarization around this issue is kind of insane, considering that Americans should be able to agree that criminal illegal immigrants should be deported and also that local law enforcement should work to ensure that that actually happens. Instead, now ICE agents have to go into hiding. Tom Holman, the border czar, said that the ICE agent who shot Renegade is now having to be put into hiding. He told this to Will. Will Kane.

Donald Trump (30:40)

I've talked to two people, and I.

Ben Shapiro (30:42)

Think you're gonna see it happening.

Donald Trump (30:43)

And for this agent that was involved.

Ben Shapiro (30:44)

In the shooting, I think he's gonna, you know, wait for this investigation to paint itself out and.

Donald Trump (30:50)

And wait for them to come out with actual facts.

Ben Shapiro (30:53)

What happened then?

Donald Trump (30:54)

I think you may see him take action, because I know for a fact.

Ben Shapiro (30:57)

You know, now he had. It has to be in hiding. I seen a post this morning on the way to the studio here with.

Donald Trump (31:04)

His picture Wanted for Murder. It's beyond the pale.

Ben Shapiro (31:11)

Again. You wonder why ICE agents have to wear masks. You're wondering why ICE agents are more visible and they're coming in larger numbers. The answer is when you don't let law enforcement do its job, not only do crime rates go up, but law enforcement is then forced to do more overt things in order to actually enforce the law. Alrighty. Meanwhile, over at the Supreme Court of the United States, a big case yesterday on whether it is legal for a state to ban boys from playing in girls sports. The fact that we reached this point in American life is pretty astonishing. In the first place, the Supreme Court's conservative majority did not appear convinced by opponents of these laws that boys are girls or should compete with girls. Several justices, according to the Washington Post, focused on scientific debate about whether transgender girls and women have an advantage on such teams. Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked why the court should constitutionalize a right for trans women in sports, meaning boys who think they're girls. When the science is still debated, Kavanaugh said, why would we get involved at this point? Now, first of all, we should point out here that, yes, Boys on average are far better than girls are on average in the vast majority of sports. They're on average much stronger. They throw the ball much harder. They are much faster, they jump higher, all of that. However, the real reason there should be boys sports and girls sports is because boys and girls are separate categories. So you may have an outstanding girl who could theoretically compete with the boys. She is still a girl. You could have a really weak boy who might not be as athletically able as some of the girls. He should not compete against the girls. Boys and girls are separate and legitimate categories of human life. This is not like race, where race is arbitrarily dividing people by color. There are differences, physical, hormonal, between boys and girls. And the fact that we can't just say that is really astonishing. I mean, we can say it, obviously, but the fact that that case has to be made at the supreme court is totally crazy. It also totally undercuts all law that is based on sex differences. So how do title 9 women's sports exist if there are no such things as women? Or if woman is just a category of, I assume, lesser performing men, and so a man who takes a bunch of estrogen should be allowed to perform with the women? These are all questions being asked by the conservative justices. Justice Samuel Alito asked a lawyer for the trans side, can you even define what it means to be a boy or a girl? And the. The lawyer did not have any good answer. Is it not necessary for there to be, for equal protection purposes if that is challenged under the equal protection clause, an understanding of what is it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman? Yes, your honor. And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman? Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court. Well, how can you, how can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes? I think here we just know. We basically know that they've identified pursuant to their own statute. Lindsey qualifies as a birth sex male. What now? Samuel Alito asks a very basic question. We have laws written on the basis, like no discrimination on the basis of sex. You can't define sex. How are we supposed to actually enforce that law or define it. No. Good answer there. Justice Kavanaugh says this is a zero sum problem, obviously. And if a boy is playing against girls, then that is a girl slot that is going to a boy. I mean, I hate, hate that a kid who wants to play sports might not be able to play sports. Hate that. But it's kind of a zero sum game for a lot of teams and someone who tries out and makes it, who is a transgender girl will bump from the starting lineup, from playing time, from the team, from the all league. And those things matter to people big time. Will bump someone else. Meanwhile, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who again has somehow stolen the crown of of least coherent justice away from Sonia Sotomayor, which is a hell of an achievement for Tanji Brown Jackson. Good for her. Yesterday she had to do some, some bizarre contortions around sex at birth versus gender identity. Again, the problem is that how can you define discrimination on the basis of sex? When you say that sex at birth doesn't matter anymore, you have the overarching classification, you know, everybody has to be play on the team that is the same as their sex at birth. But then you have a gender identity definition that is operating within that. Meaning a distinction. Meaning that for cisgender girls they can play consistent with their gender identity. For transgender girls, they can't. Okay, correct. Because a transgender girl by your definition is just a boy who thinks he is a girl. So yes, again, the fact that we have to do all these contortions at this point, that people are twisting themselves into pretzels over very basic biological realities, says something about the moral lack and the intelligence of the American people, rotted over the course of decades by the left wing sexual revolution. When you invented up with a distinction that literally makes no sense at all. Meanwhile, President Trump was out on the road stumping for his economic plans, making the quite proper observation that economic growth has been quite robust, particularly in the last couple of quarters under his economic programs. President Trump was speaking in Michigan. He sought to showcase his manufacturing and trade agenda with an address to the Detroit Economic Club as well as a visit to a Ford Motor plant in Dearborn, Michigan. According to the Wall Street Journal. President Trump says we've achieved the exact opposite of stagflation. Almost no inflation and super high growth. That's after the federal government said the economy had expanded at a 4.3 annual rate in the third quarter of 2025. And again, there are early reports that the economic growth in Q4 is going to come in somewhere between 4 and 5%. Again, those are extraordinarily good numbers. Very, very good number. Put up a statement on Truth Social in which he bragged about all that. He said, under my stewardship, the economy is booming. A manufacturing renaissance and soaring household incomes are powering gdp, gains that have not been seen in decades. We are undergoing a disinflationary boom. The private sector is growing by over 5%, thanks to the most business investments we've ever seen, maybe in history. Inflation trends are looking good. All the smart money knows the hottest economy in the world is the usa. Time to invest. Now, again, all of that seems to be true, except for the quote, unquote, manufacturing renaissance. The reality is that we have actually not seen an increase in manufacturing jobs in the United States under President Trump's tariff regime. However, we are seeing extraordinary levels of investment, particularly at the upper end of the market in AI. And that is due to the fact that we are looking at a transformational moment in tech history where productivity gains are going to start to explode. I have to say, I use a wide variety at this point of AI tools pretty much every day to look up everything from basic facts to sort of advice related questions. And the AI is extraordinary. It is. It is truly great. And it is getting better every single day. Can see why people are investing so much money in the AI. It's going to be transformative for our world. The robotics that are going to be built on the back of AI are going to be again, incredible. It may not materialize quite as fast as Elon Musk thinks it will. He's been saying that the practice of medicine, for example, surgery, is going to be revolutionized within the next five years. That seems pretty fast to me. But even if you're talking 10 years, the cost of care is going to go down dramatically as automation, as robotics take over, a lot of the tasks that human beings used to do. A lot of people see that as a problem of job loss. The real answer here is that your time will then be spent elsewhere. Every time there's a major technological shift, people who are in the prior industry lose their jobs. And then those jobs go to a different thing that you didn't even know was going to exist. If you had told people during the Industrial Revolution, in a couple of hundred years, most people would be in service industry, sitting there and typing on a keyboard, working computers. They wouldn't know what any of those words meant. It would be a shock to them. Okay, so that's the good side, what President Trump is doing. The bad side is President Trump seems to to keep putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to lower those interest rates. I do not for the life of me understand why this is of such great importance to the President. If the President wants more affordability, he needs the prices to drop. We've seen wage increases, but inflation is still outpacing 2% by a fairly significant margin. It's still riding at 2.6, 2.7% on an annualized basis. That can be driven down to 2%. If you lower those interest rates and there's more liquidity, presumably prices are going to go up. Nonetheless, President Trump is focused on with extraordinary precision on the Fed Chair Jerome Powell. And he's kind of making the case kind of openly now that the DOJ is going after Jerome Powell about the rebuild of the Federal Reserve building for political reasons. And this kind of stuff is not good. It is bad for the economy. It's bad for the President. I'm not sure why he's doing it. He can believe that Jerome Powell has done a bad job. There's a solid case to be made that Powell, particularly during the Biden administration, did a, a pretty bad job. That's not the same thing as the constant bragging that Powell will soon be gone. Here's President Trump saying that Powell has done a bad job.

Donald Trump (41:19)

Yeah, I think it's fine what I'm doing. And we have a bad Fed person. He was extended by Biden and yeah, I think he's wrong. I think it's wrong. He's, he's done a bad job. We should have lower rates. Jamie Dimon probably wants higher rates. Maybe he makes more money that way.

Ben Shapiro (41:37)

Maybe he makes more money that way. Like how would he make more money from he personally? And then he said that jerk will soon be gone. About Jerome Powell.

Donald Trump (41:45)

The US government is purchasing $200 billion of mortgage bonds to bring down mortgage rates. And it's had a huge impact. It's already started. And just last week the average 30 year mortgage dropped below 6% for the first time in many years. It's coming down very rapidly and that's not with the help of the Fed. If I had the help of the Fed, it would be easier. But that jerk will be gone soon.

Ben Shapiro (42:11)

Again saying that sort of stuff. While there are reports coming out that President Trump was going after federal prosecutors at a White House event and calling them week one day before the Federal Reserve subpoenas dropped. Not a great look. Not a great look. At the very, very least, central bankers from around the world signed a statement of solidarity with Jerome Powell. Again Signing open letters doesn't seem to make a huge difference. But when every central banker comes out and says they stand in solidarity with Jerome Powell and what that does, it underscores the idea that Federal Reserve policy ought to be independent. If it's going to exist at all, it ought to be independent from the presidency, from the control of the executive branch. Meanwhile, when it comes to some of the other policies being pressed by President Trump, for example, capping credit card rates at 10%, which all that does is again puts downward pressure on people with bad credit scores, it means that your limits are going to get lower. It means you're not gonna be able to obtain a credit card. Speaker of the House Johnson said, yeah, you know, there, there's some dyspepsia among Republicans about such proposals, which, by the way, Elizabeth Warren was praising them. I have a basic rule of thumb. If Elizabeth Warren is praising your proposal, it's a bad proposal. One of the things that, that the President probably had not thought through and others, at first glance, it sounds great. We should bring down, you know, interest rates to 10%. It would help everybody, all borrowers. There's a lot of Americans who have a lot of credit card debt. But then, you know what some of the experts have said as well. But the problem is if you do that, then the credit card companies, the negative secondary effect is that, is that they would just stop lending money and maybe they cap what people are able to borrow at a very low amount, and then that would have a negative effect on a lot of people who, who, you know, work on revolving credit. And of course, he is right about all of that, no question. Hey, at the same time, there's still some group of people who are focused on Jeffrey Epstein. I find this bewildering. We've had no information that has transformed our knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein over the course of the last several months, despite more and more and more unveiling of information. Mainly, the people who seem to want to keep alive the Jeffrey Epstein story are people who are trying to misattribute action to President Trump. Thomas Massie. And Congress is doing this all the time, suggesting that Trump is trying to cover up the Epstein story. Well, this resulted yesterday in a federal worker calling President Trump a pedophile protector. This would have been over at his speech at Ford. The President responded in, I think, completely appropriate fashion. Actually, The President flipped him off twice. And if you can read his lips, he is saying something that rhymes with truck you to, to the person, which, again, I think an appropriate response from the President to people who continue to make specious claims that somehow he is involved in covering up for a pedophile without any evidence whatsoever. Meanwhile, the Clintons have decided they are not going to appear in front of Congress to testify about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Representative James Comer came out yesterday and said that the Clintons are in contempt of Congress.

Donald Trump (45:33)

We've communicated with President Clinton's legal team for months now, giving them opportunity after opportunity to, to come in to give us a date. And they continue, continue to delay, delay, delay to the point where we had no idea whether they're going to show up today or not. I think it's very disappointing. As a result of Bill Clinton not showing up for his lawful subpoena, which again was voted on unanimously by the committee in a bipartisan manner, we will move next week in the House Oversight Committee markup to hold former President Clinton in contempt of Congress.

Ben Shapiro (46:11)

Now, again, is this a top priority for Republicans? I think that it is probably not at this point. Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton put out a letter saying, despite everything that needs to be done to help our country, you are on the cusp of bringing Congress to a halt to pursue a rarely used process literally designed to result in our imprisonment. This is not the way out of America's ills. We will forcefully defend ourselves. Indeed, bringing the Republicans cruel agenda to a standstill while you work harder to pass a contempt charge against us than you have done on your investigation this past year would be our contribution to, to fighting the madness. We've tried to give you the little information we have. We've done so because Mr. Epstein's crimes were horrible. If the government didn't do all it could to investigate and prosecute these crimes for whatever reason, that should be the focus of your work, to learn why and to prevent that from happening ever again. So we'll see whether Congress fulfills this sort of, this sort of move. And as, as a general rule, given the fact that I very much opposed the federal government under the auspices of Joe Biden and Barack Obama actually targeting Trump, his campaign, his family, then you need something a little stronger than this to go after the Clintons, at least better evidence to go after the Clintons at this point. Well, Greenland is apparently still on the menu as well. The premier of Greenland said that they want to stay with Denmark. Not a shock. Now, again, I think all of this is probably just leverage in order to get some sort of better deal from Greenland. I'm not sure what that deal looks like, considering we already have a defense agreement in Place where we can basically build what we want in Greenland. The president seems to want to simply integrate Greenland into America. He says for national security purposes. Maybe it's because we need another state. I'm not really sure. Anyway, the President reacted to Greenland's premier. The premier of Greenland said today we prefer to stay with Denmark. Do you see that as the. Who said that? The premiere of Greenland.

Donald Trump (47:58)

Well, that's their problem. That's their problem. I disagree with him. I don't know who he is, don't know anything about him, but that's going to be a big problem for him.

Ben Shapiro (48:12)

Well, I'm. I'm not sure it's going to be a big problem for him. He also said that Greenland is vital because we need to build Golden Dome, which, again, by the way, we can build it. We. We have defense contracts with Greenland. He said the United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. Golden Dome is a. A program designed to shoot down incoming missiles and ordinance from other adversaries. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. If we don't, Russia or China will. And that is not going to happen militarily. Without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term and I'm now bringing to a new and even higher level. NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent. Not even close. They know that. So do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States. Anything less than that is unacceptable. Thank you for your attention to this matter, President Trump. I do not think that the Marines are going to be invading Greenland anytime soon. I assume again, this is a piece of leverage by the President of the United States. Alrighty, folks. The show is continuing for our members. Right now we will discuss a very hot clip from the show Landman. That's the Taylor Sheridan show starring Billy Bob Thornton. Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member. If you're not a member, become a member. Use code Shapiro checkout for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.

Donald Trump (49:22)

What was it like, Merlin, to be alone with God?

Ben Shapiro (49:31)

Is that who you think I was alone with? Maradin? I knew your father. I am yet convinced that he was not of this world.

Donald Trump (49:44)

Poor man. Know of the great Taliesin.

Ben Shapiro (49:47)

You are my father. That the gods should war for my soul. Princess Garrus, savior of our people. I know what the bull God offered you. I was offered the same and there.

Donald Trump (50:04)

Is a new power at work in the world.

Ben Shapiro (50:05)

I've seen it. A God who sacrifices what he loves for us. We are in each given only one life. Singer.

Donald Trump (50:13)

No.

Ben Shapiro (50:14)

We're given another.

Donald Trump (50:18)

I learned of Yesu, the Christ. And I have become his follower. He's waiting on a miracle.

Ben Shapiro (50:23)

And I think you can give him one.

Donald Trump (50:26)

Trust in Yezu.

Ben Shapiro (50:27)

He is the only hope for men like us.

Donald Trump (50:30)

Fate of Britain never rests in the.

Ben Shapiro (50:31)

Hands of the great light.

Donald Trump (50:33)

Great light, Great darkness.

Ben Shapiro (50:35)

Such things mattered to me then.

Donald Trump (50:38)

What matters to you now, Mistress of lies.

Ben Shapiro (50:42)

You, nephew. The sword of a high king.

Donald Trump (50:51)

How many lives must be lost before.

Ben Shapiro (50:53)

You accept the power you were born to wield?

Donald Trump (50:58)

So clinging to the promises of a.

Ben Shapiro (51:00)

God who has abandoned you. I cannot take up that sword again. You know what you must do. Great life. Forgive me.

Donald Trump (51:17)

The time has come to be reborn, Sam.