News Commentator (6:46)

Our team has heard that there were cheers inside the Biden headquarters in Wilmington as the verdict was read. Look, President Biden has been very careful in the last weeks not to comment on this trial that I have been told will now change now that we have a verdict. Obviously, these guilty verdicts are a political gift to Democrats, a political gift to the President. He is now running against a convicted felon.

Charlie Kirk (7:09)

They really thought it was going to work. They were all in on, hey, we can now change the title on his driver's license. Convicted felon President Donald Trump. They spent millions to try to get that sound bite. Convicted felon. Remember when James Comey was saying they could accommodate the incarceration of a sitting president? That they kind of figure out there's got to be a way to do this security wise. A year ago, our movement was still in the wilderness, but we had a leader and we had you. As I walked into the Oval Office yesterday, I was so thankful for all of you that stood by this program and were in the trenches the last couple of years. Not just was President Trump on trial a year ago, think about three years ago. Think about the spring of 2022. We didn't have access to most social media X and the Twitter thing was just finally popping up and finally happening. We were censored, we were muzzled. We were in the wilderness. And to march all the way back to the Oval Office is awe inspiring and it takes your breath away. It goes to show, despite all of the machinations of the the unelected administrative state. And look at that contrast. We should tweet that out, guys. How a year ago you're in a courtroom and a year later you're in the Cabinet Room. From the courtroom to the Cabinet Room. And they did everything they possibly could to stop that from happening. They try to humiliate him by making him sit there and read off all the charges and all the testimonies. They were trying to break the will of all of you and yet they underestimated the strength and the durability and the antifragile element of this movement, the more pressure that was applied to all of you, the more pressure that was applied to us, the stronger we got. It is a very unique American phenomenon. You do not find this in most European countries. You do not find this in most places across the world. The goal was to demoralize us and to get us to give up. Instead, we rallied to greater heights than ever before where people are going to say this is outrageous. You're going to try to put a political leader in prison because you're afraid that he'll beat you in an election. And it turns out all of their fears were warranted. It turns out they were right to do this in a sense from politics. It was wrong morally. But if they could try to prevent him from running because they knew that the movement was coming, because they could not win you over, they could not win the debate, they could not win on the facts. They could not win on the merits. They had to use leg irons, handcuffs, shackles, courtrooms and prison sentences. So it's not a straight line for President Trump to fulfill his mandate. There will be setbacks, injunctions, political and cultural brawls, but there is a big difference. Now we have the power. And a year ago he was in a courtroom and Biden was chuckling, eating his ice cream, not really sure what was going on. And now we have President Trump in the Oval Office. Full steam ahead. And now the Democrats are in the wilderness. Did you catch Angel Studios record breaking animated movie, King of Kings? Over Easter, you see Jesus won at the box office thanks to Angel Studios. And now the next major Angel Studios project is here. The Last Rodeo starring Neil McDonough is in theaters May 23rd. It's an inspiring family driven story about a veteran bull rider who returns to the arena to save his grandson. And it features real life professional bull riding. Stars become a premium member of the Angel Guild, help pick next film and TV projects and get two free tickets to this film and every future angel release. You can now stream angel originals like Homestead, the Shift and more exclusively with your membership. More than 1 million people have joined the Angel Guild, the reshape entertainment. We love it at our family. We can vote on the movies that we like. Producer Andrew loves it as well. It is family friendly, Christ driven content. Go to Angel.comCharlie to get your free tickets and start streaming today. That's Angel Studios Stories that matter. Here's James Comey. Remember this? He was fantasizing about how to logistically arrange President Trump in prison. They had almost A quasi. I was gonna use a certain word. They have a quasi fetish that was always close to a word I was gonna use. Almost like a pornographic mind when it comes to Donald Trump in prison. It almost gave them, like a sexual thrill to see a previous president in prison. Listen to this play, cut 351.

News Commentator (12:15)

Do you agree with that, that it.

Charlie Kirk (12:16)

Would be difficult or nearly impossible for the law enforcement institutions to put him in actual jail?

Supporter (12:21)

No, they would just put him in a double wide somewhere out near the fence, out in the grass, and he would eat there, he'd shower there, he'd exercise there. He'd be away, as Donna Perry said, from general population. But it's obviously doable.

Charlie Kirk (12:35)

They really could not help themselves. If they had not indicted Trump, he may not have completed the comeback. Every step of the comeback, the left gave him a boost. You see, you can imagine that there was a meeting. Now, if Jake Tapper actually wants to do some reporting, here's some reporting that is worth doing. But I don't know if we'll find this out for another two, you know, maybe 10 or 20 years. There was obviously a meeting. There was without a doubt, a meeting of all the smart Democrats. The meeting probably happened in November or December of 2022, after the midterms and the red wave. That wasn't there was almost certainly a meeting. The Joe Biden wasn't there. But amongst the kind of lawfare architects, the Elias types, the Valerie Jarrett types, the smart Democrats, the masters of the universe, because you don't get four simultaneous indictments within 10 months just as a coincidence. Now, there was a decision, there was a signal that was definitely made. And I almost guarantee you that somebody that was respected put forward a theory of the case. And their theory of the case was this. Cuz remember, President Trump announced for the presidency In November of 2022, right after the midterms. It was right after he said it. Mar A Lago, I'm running for the presidency. I'm going to go take it back. And I bet one or two smart Democrats, their theory, the case was this, that this guy is going to win unless we stop him. We have to throw everything we possibly can. We gave him the warning shot, remember, the warning shot was in August of 2022 of the raid of Mar A Lago on the documents case. He ignored our warning shot. The only way we stopped this monster is with the full force of every government instrument that we control. We're gonna throw Fanny Willis after him. We're gonna make her into a national icon. We're gonna have Alvin Bragg be the first one. He will cross the Rubicon. He will be the opening shot because he's in New York and there's almost no political consequences. We're gonna create this thug, Jack Smith, to go after all the January 6th stuff, simultaneous document stuff. We are going to make it seem that he is so unpopular that this will prevent him from winning a Republican primary. And that is where their great failure was. You see, if they would have let President Trump be alone, I still think President Trump obviously would have won the primary and I think he would have won it decisively, but he wouldn't have won it as overwhelmingly and non competitively. The indictments almost ended all the momentum imaginable. And then Governor DeSantis, a man who I respect, completely blundered. He's like, you know, he's being indicted on stuff. And the base just said, no, you are trying to go after our leader that they're trying to take out that was wrongfully displaced from power. So the Democrats actually were the glue that kept the Republican primary voters together. And then they went a step further. I mean, to give you an idea, we had Blake wearing a MAGA hat here. I mean, we were really behind this entire thing, largely because it was the indictment of the, of the, of the evil and the sinister nature of what they were doing. The lawfare from the Democrats galvanized the base and we kept together and we stayed together because we saw what they were going to make the country become. And we just on principle and principle alone, we, we said, you cannot indict the leader of the opposition party. Go beat them in election, go and debate them, go run a bunch of negative ads. All that is fine. You don't get to use the instruments of justice against a political leader that you don't like. And it was just bigger than primary politics. The base said that if they can arrest a former president, we must stay together and fight back. And as soon as President Trump leaned in and fought these indictments, he ascended and he won more men, black and Hispanic men and low propensity voters, because it was Donald Trump against the machine. As soon as that photograph flashed and they took the mug shot, it was largely the end of Biden Harris and the Democrats chances of winning in 2024. Gentlemen, let's get real for a second. Are you frustrated with today's woke dating apps? The apps, the games, the endless swiping, It's a waste of time. Finding a woman who shares your values, faith, family and patriotism feels nearly impossible. But it doesn't have to be. Selective Search, America's leading matchmaking firm, is changing the game. They connect strong, successful men like you. Men who love God, love America, and want a family with incredible women who share your values. These are intelligent, faith driven women who put family first and still believe in traditional values. Imagine that if you're a single conservative man in the late 30s to early 50s in Southern California. Listen up. Selective Search has an exclusive network of women ready for the real thing. Here's the best part. Their candidate program is 100% free and confidential. Some of my closest friends have used Selective Search and, and let me tell you, they're meeting incredible women. This is your chance. This is not an app. It's your answer. The perfect conservative woman is out there waiting for you. Visit selectivesearch.com california today. Let the professionals introduce you to women already looking for someone like you in Southern California. Don't wait for the perfect moment. Take action now. Go to selectivesearch.com California and start building the future you deserve. Joining us now is John Carney, finance and economics editor@breitbart.com John, thank you for taking the time. So, John, a lot of people are confused. Explain to us what the court ruling was yesterday which was preventing President Trump's use of the ieepa, which was the Emergency Powers act when it comes to tariffs. Explain to our audience what happened yesterday.

John Carney (18:47)

Right. In the trade courts they like to refer to as ipa. So it is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It was the legal basis on which President Trump had imposed the fentanyl tariffs, fentanyl trafficking tariffs on China and on Mexico and on Canada, and Also the worldwide 10% tariff, the reciprocal tariff on everybody. So traditionally, IPA is actually a statute that's used to impose sanctions. The sort of modal version of it is Jimmy Carter is the first person to ever use it. He uses it to impose sanctions on Iran after they took Americans hostages at the embassy. So it's typically sort of freeze assets, impose sanctions, has never actually been used to have very broad tariffs. This was a novel legal approach that the Trump administration was doing, saying, right, we can declare an emergency. We're allowed to block things altogether under this, so we should be allowed to impose tariffs under it. The Court of International Trade, which is a specialized court in Washington, D.C. that hears trade cases. And I think it's important that it was the Court of International Trade. This isn't some radical left wing district court judge who did this. This is actually a pretty respectable court and respectable panel. They said, no, you can't impose tariffs under this act. That there is nothing in the act that says you have the power to impose tariffs. That's too broad of a reading. And they said if you could impose tariffs under this act, we think that would be unconstitutional because it would be Congress delegating too much authority to the president. The Constitution says Congress sets tariffs, and Congress can't just say to the president, no, we're going to let you do it. So that, so this, this, this same panel, interestingly enough, also tried to prevent some of Trump's tariffs in the first term, and they got that overturned. That was under a different act. It was a different legal basis. They tried to say you couldn't impose the China, the metals tariffs, and they got that overturned. So they don't have a perfect record here. The Trump administration's obviously going to appeal it, but the decision isn't, you know, it's not nuts. I mean, it has some good, you know, I would say conservative legal jurisprudence behind it.

Charlie Kirk (21:29)

So can Trump simply redo the tariffs using the Trade Expansion act of 1962?

John Carney (21:35)

Yeah, he probably can. He probably can just come back. He has to do. The thing is, under those acts, under all the other acts that were they 201, 232, you know, you'll hear all these numbers thrown around. You usually have to have a little more procedure. So you have to have like Commerce Department or the U.S. trade Representative do a study, produce a paper, and then you impose the tariffs based on that. Now, they can do that. They can do it pretty quickly. And they, and it doesn't, you know, the courts are unlikely to say why you don't like the outcome of your procedural decision, but there are hurdles. I think the very first step is, yes, they're going to look into imposing tariffs other ways, but what they're really going to do is appeal this. They have 10 days. The court says they have to get rid of the tariffs within 10 days. They're going to appeal it and ask the Federal Circuit, that's who hears the appeals from the Court of International Trade. They're going to ask the Federal Circuit to, one, stay it and two, overturn this decision. And I don't think we know exactly how that's going to go. I think the Trump administration probably will win that case. I don't think that the courts are going to revive non delegation. Non delegation has kind of been a dead law or a dead judicial interpretation for 100 years. It hasn't been used to overturn any laws, but maybe they do. I mean, it could be ironic, right, that they, that they revive this conservative approach to constitutional law by limiting a conservative president. You know, court, sometimes the courts like to do it cutely like that, I guess.

Charlie Kirk (23:15)

So I have two, I have two questions here, the first of which is that partially, not totally, but partially the reason why the southern border was able to be secured so quickly is that Mexico is able to cooperate. Is that Mexico, it's much easier to secure a border from the interior than from the exterior. It is just definitionally, it's much easier to prevent people from leaving your country than from coming into your country. And one of the reasons why Mexico was very quick to help and cooperate is the threat of tariffs against Mexico. Does this make those tariffs against Mexico or the threat of them null and void? And what implications might that have for border security?

John Carney (23:55)

Well, I think other it would on its face, basically take away the power of the president to use these sort of tariffs. That's actually an argument that the Trump administration is likely to use in court because it will say, hey, courts, stop second guessing us in international affairs. We need this power to conduct our foreign diplomacy. There is an economic emergency. There is an emergency at the border. We need to be able to use this to solve that problem. And I think they might win on that ground. I don't think we're going to see like Mexico decide, oh, you know, now that Trump lost this tariff power, you know, because of a single court decision, we don't have to listen to him anymore. That would be quite foolish because as we were saying, there are other alternatives. And it's very possible that the appeals court will say, no, the president can do this, actually.

Charlie Kirk (24:52)

So second, this, which is, I can imagine there can be immediate action against China, though the China case is far easier to prove. I think those documents have already been done, probably by Biden. And just because there's a new president doesn't mean all the studies. I mean, I think that those can be inherited from one administration to the other. Absolutely. So I think the Chinese tariffs are largely untouched. Is that fair to say?

John Carney (25:16)

Yeah, the Chinese tariffs, the one that may be in doubt here is there was like this additional tariff because of fentanyl trafficking that could be in doubt, but the administration can just say, okay, fine, we're not doing the fentanyl tariff, but we're raising your tariff on the other grounds even higher, and that is on much steadier legal grounds. So there's not a real respite for China here. There's potentially respite for the candidate in Mexico. Because basically the court said, we don't think you can link, you can come up with tariffs as a result of fentanyl or illegal immigration. I think that, that, that the, either the Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit may say that they don't want courts second guessing when.

Charlie Kirk (26:06)

And so, I mean, the argument that should be made is that if the administration makes the argument that tariffs are a tool of national security and of protecting the homeland, that it's an economic tool, it's a softer touch than sanctions. I think that's the strongest of all the arguments because we are being invaded. We do have fentanyl coming into the country. If it's just simply and solely on economic means now, mind you, they could go back and do the studies, I think pretty quickly. I mean, it's not hard to say that Germany is definitely compromising. American auto companies by Volkswagen and Porsche and Mercedes Benz and BMW. So I guess the question is here, and the markets have been somewhat neutral on this. I would have expected a little more of an explosion. We saw that early and then it went down and went back up. I guess this is just more of a delay of the inevitable. President Trump will still be able to use tariffs in one way or another.

John Carney (27:07)

Yes, I think that is the way the market's reading it. They said, okay, this court has said stop. But we imagine that the appeals court will put a stay on this order so that Trump will be able to impose the tariffs. That the outcome of this is pretty unclear. So people don't want to get too excited about it. And because there are all these other statutes that authorize tariffs Trump can come back from. Frankly, I think it would be a good idea and welcome for Trump to actually go to Congress and say, I want clear authorization to impose reciprocal tariffs. Anybody who has an untrade fair trade practice against the United States, the president should be allowed to impose tariffs. Congress give me that direct, you know, call it the reciprocal tariff act. Give me that direction power so that the courts can't doubt it and nobody else can second guess it. I think Congress would probably do it. Yes, there are free traders and there are people who would be uncomfortable with that, but I think you probably have a majority in both houses to be able to bring that about.

Charlie Kirk (28:17)

America's small businesses rely on TikTok to succeed, helping them attract more customers and drive more growth. From small batch sellers to Fast growing brands, 74% of businesses on TikTok say it's helped them scale. We go super viral on TikTok here on this program, reaching billions and billions of views you see by hiring more employees, boosting sales and expanding new locations. Like AZ Taco King who grew up from a mom and pop taco cart to two thriving restaurants in just a year. Or Coco Asante who upgraded to a larger facility and brought on more staff letting their handcrafted chocolates reach more customers. Or Dan O. Seasonings who went from a one man show to team of 45 now supporting dozens of hard working families. With TikTok, small businesses are thriving. Ours certainly is again reaching hundreds of millions of people a week on TikTok. One of the reasons we're able to win the youth vote is thanks to what we can do on TikTok, finding their customers and expanding. Learn more about TikTok's contribution to the US economy at TikTok economicimpact.com so check it out. Tiktokeconomicimpact.com TikTok economic impact.com portions of the Charlie Kirkshaw are brought to you in part by TikTok economic impact.com okay. We are continuing now through this breaking news with John Carney, finance and economics editor@breitbart.com John, what is this breaking news?

John Carney (29:41)

Yeah, so a judge has ruled that the opioid tariffs, the fentanyl tariffs, in other words, on China also are not authorized by the Emergency Economic Powers Act. It's actually not really that big of a deal. This really just repeats what the court said last night. It is again saying that this act doesn't authorize the tariffs. I don't think that will really matter for China because Trump has so many other statutory means to impose tariffs on China. And they did the studies that they needed to do in the first term. They Biden has done them as well. They so they can just raise that. You know, if the judge says no, you can't do the IP tariffs now, Trump can say, yeah, but I'm just going to raise it on another, you know, under another statute and it won't matter. So I don't think that this new decision is that big of a deal. But it does highlight that the courts really do not that at least the Court of International Trade does not think that the imposition of tariffs through this act and the act does not. And I think this is important for people to keep in mind. The act does not say the president can impose tariffs. It says he can restrict do trade, he can block things. It's a logical extension to say he can impose tariffs, but it's not necessarily clear in the statute. I think the courts are probably going to look at both of these things that just came, the one that just came down last night and say, yeah, Congress actually did delegate this much authority to the president. They really did it. And they didn't put a lot of procedural safeguards. And I don't think they're going to use this case to revive the theory of non delegation. They could, but I don't think the Federal Circuit would do that. I think that would have to get up to perhaps the Supreme Court for that to happen.

Charlie Kirk (31:44)

So, John, in closing here, it seems like the president has invented a new way to use tariffs. Typically, they were either used for economic development domestically or national security reasons. He now uses this as a negotiation tool and tactic more broadly. Do you think this will neuter President Trump's ability to, to bring other countries to the table, or will he find creative other ways to still use the tariff power?

John Carney (32:09)

I think he will find creative other ways to still use the tariffs. I don't think that this is going to substantively affect what they're able to do with tariffs. I think it puts a stumbling block. They'll have to pin it on other statutes. And like I said, I'm not very sure that this gets upheld at all. So, you know, it's a minor stumbling block. But Trump's ability to, as you were saying, use tariffs to accomplish diplomacy is going to remain even if this case gets upheld by the appeals court.

Charlie Kirk (32:45)

John, thank you for your time. Please plug your stuff. How can our audience support you and learn more about you?

John Carney (32:50)

Absolutely. The best thing they can do is subscribe to Breitbart Business Digest. You can go to breitbart.com, it's up on the upper right corner. There's a little thing that says newsletters. Click there. It's free. It comes every day in your inbox. I, Alex Marlowe, my editor in chief, runs it with me. We try to explain every day what happened in the economy, why it happened, and probably more importantly, what's going to happen next. We've been right about inflation, we've been right about tariffs. It's really a great product. And of course, just go to breitbart.com that's where you'll find me and all my colleagues.

Charlie Kirk (33:27)

John, thank you so much. Really appreciate your time. Thank you. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us. As always, freedomarliekirk.com thanks so much for listening and God bless.

John Carney (33:37)

For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.