Bannon's War Room - Episode 4905： SCOTUS Listens To Oral Arguments On Trump's Tariffs

00:00:00.000 In January of 2023, Congress voted to terminate one of the biggest IEBA emergencies ever, the COVID emergency, and the president went along with that.

00:00:07.440 So what the statute reflects is there's going to be the ability for a sort of political consensus against a declared emergency.

00:00:13.340 What happens if the president simply vetoes legislation to try to take these powers back?

00:00:18.960 Well, he has the authority to veto legislation to terminate a national emergency, for example.

00:00:22.520 I mean, he retains the powers in the background because IEBA is still on the books.

00:00:25.560 But if he declares an emergency and Congress doesn't like it and passes a joint resolution, yes, he can absolutely veto that.

00:00:31.140 So Congress is a practical matter.

00:00:33.020 Can't get this power back once it's handed it over to the president.

00:00:36.380 It's a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people's elected representatives.

00:00:45.660 I disagree with that.

00:00:46.500 And the recent historical counterexample of Congress's termination of the COVID emergency demonstrates that the political oversight is meaningful.

00:00:53.780 With the president's assent.

00:00:55.560 With the president's assent, in fact, you know.

00:00:57.840 Once he lost it by a veto-proof majority in the Senate, I think the position, I think he realized.

00:01:02.620 And that's the political process working.

00:01:04.400 There was a little consensus against it.

00:01:04.880 It takes a supermajority, veto-proof majority to get it back.

00:01:08.840 Yeah.

00:01:09.320 Okay.

00:01:09.980 The Supreme Court is considering that, and they might even be drawing a line here.

00:01:14.500 The conservative majority has already done quite a bit to expand the authorities of the executive branch under President Trump.

00:01:20.580 You know this.

00:01:21.700 Applying near-blanket immunity for what they call official acts.

00:01:25.260 Allowing mass layoffs of federal workers.

00:01:28.020 Allowing the firing of heads of independent agencies.

00:01:31.660 Limiting injunctions that would block President Trump's agenda, or any president's agenda for that matter.

00:01:37.420 Allowing the president to cancel billions in funding allocated by Congress.

00:01:41.780 But today, the justices seem skeptical over an emergency power that President Trump has made the central feature of his second term in office.

00:01:52.940 The ability for a president to levy massive tariffs unilaterally when Congress has the power of the purse.

00:02:00.320 They were asking for authority, essentially, to levy taxes.

00:02:05.760 As Justice Kavanaugh said today, the Supreme Court needs to figure out what it means to regulate imports.

00:02:11.860 According to the president and his legal team, that would mean including, or that would include, I should say, Katie, the imposition of tariffs.

00:02:19.840 According to the challengers, that authority, essentially to tax, is reserved exclusively to the Congress.

00:02:26.460 So, they did sound skeptical in places, certainly.

00:02:31.000 I wonder what your expectation is for when they might rule on this.

00:02:35.720 Because usually we get these rulings in June.

00:02:39.540 But this is something that Americans are dealing with every single day.

00:02:43.480 So, I'd like to say this is an educated guess.

00:02:45.360 But I'm not all that educated.

00:02:46.860 So, it's just a guess.

00:02:48.440 But the Supreme Court, at the government's request, did fast-track this argument, Katie.

00:02:53.280 And so, it makes sense to me that they would probably try and fast-track an opinion.

00:02:58.400 Normally, when they hear cases in October and November and December, we can expect a decision, you know, next June.

00:03:06.140 I imagine it would be quicker than that.

00:03:08.100 I want to explain to me how you draw the line.

00:03:10.760 Because you say we shouldn't be concerned because this is foreign affairs and the president has inherent authority.

00:03:15.420 And so, delegation off the books, more or less.

00:03:19.400 And if that's true, what would prohibit Congress from just abdicating all responsibility to regulate foreign commerce, for that matter, declare war, to the president?

00:03:31.120 We don't contend that he could do that.

00:03:33.180 Why not?

00:03:34.100 What's the reason to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the power to declare war to the president?

00:03:39.680 Well, we don't contend that.

00:03:40.760 Again, that would be...

00:03:41.260 Well, you do.

00:03:42.140 You say it's unreviewable.

00:03:43.420 There's no manageable standard.

00:03:44.840 Nothing to be done.

00:03:45.600 And now you're...

00:03:46.320 I think you...

00:03:47.580 Tell me if I'm wrong.

00:03:48.840 You backed off that position.

00:03:51.860 Maybe that's fair to say.

00:03:53.000 Okay.

00:03:53.400 All right.

00:03:53.720 That would be, I think, an abdication.

00:03:55.460 That would really be an abdication, not a delegation.

00:03:57.560 I'm delighted to hear that, you know.

00:03:59.940 I've covered the Federalist Society, which is kind of the lawyer's wing of the Republican Party for more than a decade now.

00:04:06.840 And beginning in the Obama administration, they were very concerned about President Obama and later President Biden making aggressive assertions of executive power.

00:04:18.180 And they started to...

00:04:20.020 The Federalist Society started to come up with new theories for how you could rein in presidential power.

00:04:26.640 The one that they eventually settled on is this thing called the Major Questions Doctrine, which is the idea that when a president does something that's too ambitious, it has too much of an impact on our economy or too much political impact, that's not allowed.

00:04:40.440 It doesn't matter if there's an existing statute that allows them to do it.

00:04:42.960 They've got to go back and they've got to get a new law.

00:04:44.840 And one question going into this oral argument was, now that we have a Republican president, would the justices actually follow this Major Questions Doctrine that they came up with to stop presidents like Biden and Obama, or would they give Trump an exemption to it?

00:05:01.280 And Gorsuch, at least, seems to feel that the Major Questions Doctrine does apply to Donald Trump.

00:05:08.600 Roberts, Chief Justice Roberts, also asked some questions, suggesting that he believed that it also applies to Republican presidents.

00:05:15.080 Not all of the Republican justices were there.

00:05:17.640 I think that Thomas and Kavanaugh and Alito are probably going to vote with Trump in this case.

00:05:23.420 But it looks like, at least amongst the Republican justices, they seem to be evenly split on whether or not this doctrine should apply to presidents of both parties.

00:05:33.700 Larry, I came away very optimistic.

00:05:36.700 The solicitor general presented a strong case for the president's use of the IEPA, the emergency tariff powers that President Trump has used to balance trade, to negotiate with the Chinese on fentanyl, to secure rare earth magnets, to get the Indians to stop buying Russian oil.

00:05:59.200 And, you know, the solicitor general made a fantastic case that the purpose of the tariffs is to rebalance global trade.

00:06:10.320 We were in an economic emergency.

00:06:12.480 We were near a tipping point.

00:06:14.760 And, you know, you and I know exactly what that looks like.

00:06:18.060 And President Trump has brought the U.S. back.

00:06:21.380 On the other side, I thought that the plaintiffs almost embarrassed themselves.

00:06:26.620 They clearly didn't understand foundational economics.

00:06:30.380 They didn't understand the trade policy they were talking about.

00:06:33.420 And I'm very optimistic, after listening to the questions at SCOTUS, that the IEPA ruling is going to come President Trump in this administration's way.

00:06:44.820 This is the primal scream of a dying regime.

00:06:52.620 Pray for our enemies, because we're going medieval on these people.

00:06:57.820 You're just not going to get a free shot at all these networks lying about the people.

00:07:02.080 The people have had a belly full of it.

00:07:03.980 I know you don't like hearing that.

00:07:05.440 I know you try to do everything in the world to stop that, but you're not going to stop it.

00:07:08.120 It's going to happen.

00:07:09.380 And where do people like that go to share the big lie?

00:07:12.780 Mega media.

00:07:13.700 I wish in my soul, I wish that any of these people had a conscience.

00:07:19.620 Ask yourself, what is my task and what is my purpose?

00:07:23.320 If that answer is to save my country, this country will be saved.

00:07:29.720 War Room.

00:07:30.540 Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon.

00:07:38.400 It's Wednesday, 5 November in the year of our Lord, 2025.

00:07:41.860 About this time one year ago, we were starting to get the exit polls.

00:07:46.760 The exit polls were coming out that talked about how the evening was going to progress

00:07:51.780 to have got to about, I don't know, 10 o'clock, 1030, when we knew that President Trump was going to win re-election.

00:08:00.260 I'll have more about that later in this hour on this sacred anniversary of the greatest political comeback in American history.

00:08:08.220 But today also, let's get to the work of today.

00:08:12.260 Today was another, it was absolutely historic.

00:08:15.260 Okay.

00:08:15.560 The theory of the case.

00:08:16.440 Remember, in the years in the wilderness, Project 2025, Russ Votes, CRA, Stephen Miller, America First Parties,

00:08:23.260 Priority is also the team over at CPI, which I'll be addressing tonight, later, at one of their conferences.

00:08:31.340 Everybody working on all of these aspects of the second term, right, which we were very confident

00:08:38.540 we were going to have the political ground game and to get the low-propensity voters to turn people out.

00:08:43.720 You had to have policies, unlike the first term, which kind of surprised us when we won, that we needed a depth of public policy,

00:08:55.360 you know, public intellectuals, networks of people, subject matter experts, all of it.

00:09:02.060 We worked for years and years and years, and that's kind of the catchphrase for that is Project 2025.

00:09:06.700 The central beating heart of this was, as we call it, the unitary theory of the executive or Article 2,

00:09:14.820 the vesting clause of Article 2, the maximization.

00:09:18.300 He's chief executive officer.

00:09:19.740 He's commander-in-chief.

00:09:20.840 He's the chief magistrate and chief law enforcement officer.

00:09:23.720 So he can hire and fire anybody.

00:09:25.620 You know, the appropriations bill is a ceiling, not a floor.

00:09:29.420 As commander-in-chief, he has the inherent powers of the Constitution, particularly in emergencies,

00:09:35.320 give him extraordinary powers to keep the nation safe, and then as chief law enforcement officer,

00:09:41.280 extraordinary powers, particularly in emergency powers, to act in defense of the citizenry and the country.

00:09:49.700 This gets down to the centrality of President Trump's make America great, America first,

00:09:55.540 of changing the commercial relationships that have essentially ripped off the country

00:10:00.000 and ripped off working people for decade and decade and decade, both political parties,

00:10:04.040 no political parties, particularly at fault here, all of them neoliberal globalists.

00:10:12.060 Today, for over three hours, historic, and we played about an hour live on the show,

00:10:17.160 and I realized the audience was mesmerized.

00:10:19.160 It went for three hours.

00:10:21.160 We will play this again, if not tonight, then tomorrow, after the show's over,

00:10:26.740 and maybe have some commentary.

00:10:28.220 Absolutely extraordinary hearing today, and I can tell you on Capitol Hill,

00:10:31.340 and this is how much, you know, bringing jobs back and manufacturing jobs back,

00:10:36.620 I have never seen, quite frankly, this was like Dodd's-level protest outside.

00:10:44.240 Working-class people, younger people, some of the credential class,

00:10:48.320 but clearly the messaging on tariffs, the messaging on trying to bring jobs back,

00:10:54.180 has been twisted, right, because people think very, very differently than the folks in the show.

00:11:00.660 I've asked David J. Lynch, author of an extraordinary book,

00:11:04.480 The World's Worst Bet, how the globalization gamble went wrong.

00:11:09.860 He's chief global economics correspondent for The Washington Post.

00:11:14.400 David, you were actually in the gallery on this historic day.

00:11:17.720 We've got a couple of minutes here still left in the segment.

00:11:19.940 I'd like you just to put us in the room first, because I was actually mesmerized by the arguments

00:11:26.140 of both parties, particularly it just went on and on and on.

00:11:29.480 The questioning could not be tougher.

00:11:31.420 What was it like in the room?

00:11:33.900 Well, Steve, if you were sitting alongside me, you would have been in what we call

00:11:39.600 obstructed view seating, so it was more of an auditory experience than much of a great

00:11:47.180 viewing experience. But that said, it was historic. You know, there was a real atmosphere

00:11:53.580 in the room. The questioning was quite serious and probing from all the justices, I think,

00:11:59.820 and for all the attorneys. And it was, you know, it was like watching the legal equivalent of an

00:12:06.520 Ali Frazier fight. Both sides, I think, stumbled in places, and both sides made their cases to the

00:12:15.120 best of their ability. I do think coming out of it, though, you know, the justices did appear,

00:12:22.480 or a majority, I should say, did ask some pretty skeptical questions of the solicitor general,

00:12:28.520 which makes me think the president's emergency tariff plans, anyway, might be in some trouble.

00:12:35.040 Yeah, this is, you know, I pride myself as one of the things I did when I was in the White House.

00:12:40.060 There was a small five-man committee to kind of vet the first and second Supreme Court

00:12:47.440 justice appointment. And Gorsuch was the, was, we screened it down and presented the president

00:12:53.500 with a number of alternatives, but Gorsuch was the one that we thought would be a great first pick.

00:12:57.720 And Mike Davis, the vice lawyer we have on all the time, would clerk for him. So we're very fond of,

00:13:03.260 of Justice Gorsuch. And one of the reasons that he was so highly recommended is his intellectual

00:13:09.820 capacity and capabilities. He might have been the sharpest questioner. That's why we took a couple

00:13:18.100 of clips at the, at the beginning. We've got about a minute. Let's focus on Gorsuch for just that

00:13:22.360 minute. He was, he was pretty skeptical, would you say? Absolutely. And he, uh, he asked a pretty

00:13:31.600 probing question, um, asking, uh, if in the event of a, of a democratic, is, is that music coming on

00:13:42.600 your end, Steve, or is it on mine? Yeah, no, no, no, that's our exit. That's our exit music for the,

00:13:47.580 for the segment. You're, you're, you're, you're good. We, we give it some music in the background

00:13:51.840 when we end the segment to get some drama to it. How's that? I see. But no, I do think, I do think

00:13:57.060 Gorsuch, uh, asked the, a key question, because if you accept the government's argument here,

00:14:03.060 that president Trump has this sweeping authority to levy, uh, all sorts of emergency tariffs,

00:14:08.860 you've got to ask yourself in 2029 or 2033 or whenever, what about a democratic president? What

00:14:16.260 about president Gavin Newsom declaring a national emergency about climate change? And this is what

00:14:21.560 justice Gorsuch asked specifically about. Wouldn't this reading of the emergency economic powers act

00:14:27.800 allow a democratic president to impose a 50% tax on imported cars and imported auto parts. And the

00:14:35.120 solicitor general, uh, reluctantly concluded that it was very likely that would be the case.

00:14:40.460 David J. Lynch, the author of the book, the world's worst bet is with us. We're going to

00:14:48.200 take a short commercial break. We're going to return in the war room. Just a moment.

00:14:57.680 Let me be blunt. Gold is up around 40% this year. That's not speculation. That's reality. And if a

00:15:05.800 portion of your savings isn't diversified in the gold, you're missing the boat. Now here's the facts.

00:15:11.560 Inflation is still too high. The U S dollar is still too weak and the government debt is

00:15:16.180 insurmountable. That is why central banks are flocking to gold. They're the ones driving up the

00:15:21.720 prices now to record highs, but it's not too late to buy gold from Birch gold group and get in the door.

00:15:27.960 Now Birch gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered IRA in gold.

00:15:37.240 You don't pay a dime out of pocket. Just text band in the nine eight nine eight nine eight and claim

00:15:42.360 your free info kit. There's no obligation, just useful information. The best indicator of the future

00:15:48.480 is the past and gold has historically been a safe haven for a millennia. What else can you say?

00:15:54.920 Text Bannon to nine eight nine eight nine eight right now to claim your free info kit on gold. That's

00:16:00.680 Bannon to nine eight nine eight nine eight. Protect your future today with Birch gold.

00:16:06.520 On getter yet. No, what are you waiting for? It's free. It's uncensored. And it's where all the

00:16:29.640 biggest voices in conservative media are speaking out. Download the getter app right now. It's totally

00:16:35.520 free. It's where I put up exclusively all of my content 24 hours a day. You want to know what

00:16:40.240 Steve Bannon's thinking? Go to getter. That's right. You can follow all of your favorites. Steve

00:16:44.880 Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Jack the sober and so many more. Download the getter app now. Sign up for free

00:16:50.480 and be part of the new plan. Could the president impose a 50 percent tariff on gas powered cars and auto

00:16:57.440 parts to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad of climate change? It's very likely

00:17:04.320 that I can be done. Very likely. I think that has to be the logic of your view. Yeah. In other

00:17:09.040 words, this administration would say that's a hoax. It's not a real crisis, but I'm sure you would. Yes.

00:17:14.800 But that'd be a question for Congress under our interpretation, not for the courts. All right.

00:17:20.160 OK, David J. Lynch joins us right now. David, that was another dramatic moment in over a three hour and

00:17:27.200 folks should understand they don't they allocate sometimes an hour and a half for these things. But to go

00:17:31.200 three hours of intense, intense back and forth. And it was a it was incredible. If you want to learn

00:17:38.800 something about American history, global economics, the law, the Constitution, it was absolutely one of

00:17:44.800 those, you know, like an NFL playoff game. It was just extraordinary. Both lawyers and I realize Scott

00:17:50.480 Besson, our former contributor here and close friend colleague, said the about how the other side I,

00:17:57.120 I thought they did pretty good. I did. I thought they did pretty good. I thought that the solicitor,

00:18:02.320 you have to buy kind of the theory of the case, I guess. David J. Lynch, you've done this book,

00:18:08.080 talk about the rise and fall of globalization. And you say in the book, it turned out to be

00:18:14.400 particularly politically, maybe one of the worst bets ever on a global basis.

00:18:18.720 What? Why is it so controversial? What President Trump is trying to do in reverse that and reverse

00:18:26.880 it quickly, sir? Well, I think it's controversial because you get, as you say, competing theories

00:18:33.440 of the case, the president's view is that just about everything that went wrong in U.S. manufacturing

00:18:40.560 communities is the fault of free trade agreements that we started in the 1990s and pursued for for

00:18:48.320 some time thereafter. Mainstream economists, of course, will say, look, much of the manufacturing

00:18:54.160 job loss was due to automation. That would have happened anyway, just like the automation we've seen

00:19:00.160 over the decades in farming. We can produce a lot more food today than we could 100 years ago

00:19:06.560 with a lot fewer people on the farms. Same is true in manufacturing. But of course, trade did have an

00:19:13.120 impact. And where particularly the opening to China or China's integration into the global trading

00:19:19.280 system really had an impact was on specific manufacturing communities and specific cohorts of

00:19:26.000 people, specific groups of people, those with the least education and the fewest skills. They really took

00:19:32.320 it in the chops. Political leaders, starting back with Bill Clinton and subsequently said,

00:19:38.000 don't worry, we're going to take care of those people. And where the gamble went wrong, where I

00:19:43.600 argue in the book that the bargain was not upheld, was that part never happened. The domestic policy

00:19:50.400 response that there should have been to make sure that everybody could benefit from this global

00:19:56.080 integration, which to some degree is unstoppable. It's just the way things are going. But we left people

00:20:01.920 unprotected and they suffered as a consequence. And there was a political blowback from that, which leads

00:20:07.840 you to Donald Trump. And so, and what Trump is saying, it's so controversial, is he's calling

00:20:15.360 upon emergency powers. In fact, they're knitting together, like they're trading with the, I mean,

00:20:19.920 we saw the Solicitor General walk through kind of the process that he got there. You're knitting

00:20:24.240 together, trading with the enemies, with other underlying documents. Why is it so controversial

00:20:30.800 that he called, he's called this an emergency and said, hey, look at how I'm solving this.

00:20:36.720 And I'm solving this by knitting together a number of different laws or regulation that

00:20:41.440 exist out there, but haven't really been knitted together to make this argument that this, this,

00:20:46.560 this is our solution to this emergency, which has stripped America of its industrial might.

00:20:52.800 Yeah, I think the controversy is that he's the first president to use this almost 50 year old law,

00:20:58.800 the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEPA is the acronym. He's the first president to

00:21:06.160 see in that law a power to impose tariffs. It's the standard law that presidents of both parties

00:21:13.280 have used to impose financial sanctions and economic sanctions, like those we've put on Russia,

00:21:20.000 those we've put on some Chinese actors, the Iranians, et cetera, over the years. So that's part

00:21:26.080 of the controversy. The other part of the controversy is the president's identification of the trade deficit

00:21:33.040 as an emergency. We've, as you know, Steve, run an annual trade deficit every year since 1975 when I

00:21:40.400 was in high school. And so there are a lot of people who have pushed back on that and said, that's not

00:21:46.240 really the definition of an emergency. The administration's counter, as Scott Besson said in

00:21:52.560 the clip, was that 50 years of this have brought the U.S. economy to a quote unquote tipping point.

00:21:58.720 I don't think the administration has really elaborated on exactly how imminent that tipping

00:22:04.160 point is or how it would manifest itself. But the advantage of using IEPA is it does convey broad

00:22:13.520 and immediate powers on the president. So he could act without a lot of bureaucracy, without a lot of

00:22:19.600 time wasting, and just come out on a given day and say, bang, tariff of X on goods from country Y,

00:22:26.480 and we're done and dusted. The alternatives, which is what the administration might be forced to fall

00:22:31.720 back on, are other sections of U.S. trade law that are more cumbersome, but can ultimately get you to

00:22:38.780 the same place. But when you say cumbersome, so clearly today, Gorsuch asked a lot of pointed

00:22:45.720 questions, and he seemed a little skeptical, but you can never, you know, oral arguments are oral

00:22:49.520 arguments. They often cut very differently than what people said in the hearing. But the timing of

00:22:56.720 it got to be a big deal, right? The thinking of the timing of it, particularly for the analysts and

00:23:01.620 observers. Also, what happens if they come back and just say, you can't use this? I mean, how do you

00:23:08.400 unwind basically this whole commercial activity that President Trump's had for the last, since

00:23:13.600 Liberation Day, which I think was 2 April of this year? Yes. And also about the timing. I think they

00:23:20.000 made a good point that this is one they normally hold to June. You normally hold these results till

00:23:25.740 June. But on this one and the one on the redistricting, because you've got primaries, you may have to come

00:23:34.780 up with answers to this in January, February? That seems to be the thinking. I mean, the court agreed to take

00:23:41.500 it up on an expedited basis, so the implication is the ruling will come on an expedited basis.

00:23:48.780 What will happen, you know, they, the government, have collected something like $90 billion

00:23:55.180 via these emergency tariffs. If the court were to invalidate all of them and order a refund to all of

00:24:02.700 the importers who've paid them, and that's not certain, the government would then be in a position of

00:24:09.980 having to set up some administrative procedure to make that happen. There's one sort of past example

00:24:17.420 of a case like this. It was something called the Harbor Maintenance Fund years and years ago. I won't

00:24:22.300 bore you with many of the details. But in that case, there was an administrative process set up,

00:24:29.980 and companies got their refunds, but it took a while. In this case, the five businesses that are direct

00:24:37.660 participants in these lawsuits that have been consolidated before the court, they would

00:24:42.860 definitely get a refund right away. Everybody else might have to apply through this bureaucratic 0.69

00:24:49.900 channel. That could take some time and be unpopular. But the other thing that would happen is the

00:24:56.940 administration, they're already working on this, would have a fallback strategy. If the court were to 0.69

00:25:02.460 invalidate all of them, I'm sure the president would very quickly come back and say, okay,

00:25:08.060 in light of that, I'm now going to take the following actions under Section 122 of the 1974

00:25:15.580 Trade Act or Section 338 of the trade law of 1930, and he would, I would assume, cobble together an

00:25:23.900 alternative framework that would get him, if not entirely what he has today in terms of the tariff

00:25:30.220 structure most of the way there. As you see it today, how do you think this thing plays out?

00:25:39.260 Well, you know, my time in the Supreme Court is limited, so I'm reluctant to venture much of a

00:25:45.580 guess. I would say my thinking on this has changed over the months. When the lawsuits were first filed,

00:25:53.660 I felt that the administration's argument was kind of a stretch, and I thought it was frankly sort of

00:26:01.420 a slam dunk for the petitioners. Then I actually read the administration's brief, and as is almost

00:26:10.460 always the case, you know, a good lawyer can make a good argument. And I came away from that thinking,

00:26:14.700 huh, well, you know, the administration does have an argument here. I'm not sure it's

00:26:18.540 ironclad, but it's well presented. And then I talked to some more trade attorneys, and they,

00:26:24.780 you know, these are specialists far more than I am. And they saw the ambiguity in the law and the

00:26:30.700 potential for it to go both ways. So I came in today feeling a little bit 50-50. The skepticism of

00:26:37.100 some of the questioning has left me at the end of the day inclined to think that the court, you know,

00:26:44.460 may be prepared to rule against the president at least to some degree. But as you say, trying to

00:26:50.140 read too much into oral arguments can be a mistake. David, can you just hang on for a second? We're

00:26:55.340 taking another short commercial break. I want to talk to you about the book and, and quite frankly,

00:26:59.580 how globalization underlies so much, you know, you can go from the election last night in, uh, in

00:27:05.980 Manhattan, uh, to much of what's happening around the country. People talk about the economy, jobs,

00:27:10.300 all of it. It still gets down to the basics of the global economy and what's happening. You said

00:27:15.260 just a few minutes ago, hey, the, the power of this idea of what's happening may, may, may be too

00:27:20.620 powerful to kind of stop or reverse. David J. Lynch, the global economic correspondent for the

00:27:26.220 Washington Post is with us. He was in the court today for historic, I think over three hours of oral

00:27:32.780 arguments, quite mesmerizing. Um, and of course, President Trump, it's central to his economic plan.

00:27:39.660 That's why Scott Vesson's been out working the TV, uh, channels. Birchgold.com. Go check out

00:27:47.340 right now. Birchgold.com, promo code BAN at the end of the dollar empire. Hey, I realize you got

00:27:52.540 many choices when it comes to who you choose for your cell phone service, and there are new ones

00:27:56.780 popping up all the time, but here's the truth. There's only one that boldly stands in the gap for

00:28:01.820 every American that believes that freedom is worth fighting for, and that's the team at Patriot

00:28:07.180 Mobile. For more than 12 years, Patriot Mobile has been on the front lines of fighting for our

00:28:11.420 God-given rights and freedoms, while also providing exceptional nationwide cell phone service with

00:28:17.260 access to all three of the main networks. Don't just take my word for it. Ask the hundreds of

00:28:22.780 thousands of Americans who've made the switch and are now supporting causes they believe in,

00:28:27.820 simply by joining Patriot Mobile. Switching is easier than ever. Activate in minutes from the

00:28:33.020 comfort of your own home. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade. Patriot Mobile's all

00:28:38.460 U.S.-based support team is standing by to take care of you. Call 978-PATRIOT today, or go to

00:28:44.540 PatriotMobile.com slash Bannon. That's PatriotMobile.com slash Bannon. Use the promo code Bannon for a free

00:28:52.300 month of service. That's PatriotMobile.com slash Bannon, or call 972-PATRIOT and make the switch today.

00:28:59.660 Here's your host, Stephen K. Bannon.

00:29:05.180 So, so much of like last night and the politics of our time are predicated upon the economic

00:29:10.620 realities of globalization. So, so David, uh, how has the book been received, particularly by the

00:29:15.980 business? I know our audience members that purchased the book the first, when the first time you're here,

00:29:21.660 I got tremendous feedback of people. Like I said, it's a, it's a very accessible way to begin to

00:29:27.100 understand a quite complex topic, right? And a topic that underpins so much of what's going on,

00:29:31.660 not just in the world's economy, in people's personal lives, but also in the politics of

00:29:36.860 the United States and quite frankly, the great powers. So how's the book been received?

00:29:42.220 Well, the reception has been good. There was a, uh, the Financial Times, uh, gave me a nice review of

00:29:47.820 a week or two ago and, uh, the Irish Times, the Irish finance minister, in fact, uh, reviewed the

00:29:53.820 book for the Irish Times and, and, uh, had very, uh, very complimentary things to say, which I

00:29:59.100 appreciated as a Irish American. Uh, and I'll be talking to Bloomberg, uh, next week. So, uh,

00:30:05.580 it's moving forward and selling, uh, selling well, which I'm gratified by, uh, could always have more

00:30:11.660 attention. Of course, you know, any, any authors out there in the marketplace peddling his book,

00:30:17.180 he can never have enough attention. Do you think that, um, particularly we see nice life last night

00:30:23.500 or what happened a year ago. And so much is tied to when people talk about globalization,

00:30:28.140 the jobs and manufacturing jobs moved away. And you saw today, particularly with the commentariat,

00:30:33.900 both, both on the left and the right, talking about these incredibly intense

00:30:39.180 arguments to the Supreme Court. And you see these justices who are obviously nine of the smartest

00:30:44.540 people in the legal profession, uh, in our country, wrestle with it. Do you think we've done a good job

00:30:50.700 of, uh, of actually helping people to understand what this, this great force that's out there called

00:30:57.420 globalization and the internal industrial logic of it and, and why, quite frankly, there have been winners

00:31:03.260 and losers. And if you don't, as you know, we are, we're hardcore populist and economic nationalists.

00:31:09.900 We, we believe in president Trump's tariff program. In fact, we are, you know, we, we even have ideas

00:31:15.580 of maybe even more extreme than that. Um, do you think though, the people have done a good job in

00:31:20.780 explaining this? So, so basic average citizens can have a meaningful conversation about it.

00:31:26.060 The short answer is no. And, and that's one of the reasons I wanted to write the book and I, I did

00:31:31.980 want to make it. I'm glad you described it as accessible because I, I didn't set out to write

00:31:36.620 a book for economists or, or trade specialists. I, I, I tried to write a book for the average, uh,

00:31:44.540 curious and informed person who wants to try and understand what the hell's happened over the last 30

00:31:49.660 years or so. Um, because I, I think we have all these kinds of unresolved conflicts and questions

00:31:56.620 from the period that's, uh, described as the hyper globalization era. And I don't think we can,

00:32:03.100 I don't think we're going to be able to move forward, uh, and, and prosper for the next 30 years

00:32:08.540 if we don't understand what we got wrong about the past 30 years. And like so many debates in

00:32:15.180 Washington, you know, you've got folks in, in sort of two, two camps. There's, there's the people I

00:32:21.180 think of as the traditional, uh, pro trade liberalization folks who, you know, and this is

00:32:27.660 maybe only slightly a caricature, but think everything was done fine. Nothing was done wrong.

00:32:33.340 Anybody who disagrees is just a, uh, a troglodyte, a protectionist who doesn't get it. Uh, and then

00:32:40.380 the folks on the other side think everything about trade and globalization is a conspiracy

00:32:45.580 by the elites to screw the common man. And, you know, I, I personally don't think either one of

00:32:51.340 those views captures some of the nuance that's, that's necessary to figure out where we went wrong.

00:32:58.060 And to my mind, where we went wrong goes all the way back to the stuff Bill Clinton used to say in

00:33:03.820 the nineties, which was that, you know, and he saw it coming. I, and I think I describe him in the book

00:33:08.860 as kind of the godfather of American globalization, um, that there were going to be winners and losers.

00:33:15.580 And that was inevitable. Uh, you're, you're never going to have an economy that makes a hundred

00:33:19.340 percent of the people happy a hundred percent of the time, but recognizing that it's, it's your

00:33:25.260 responsibility as, as governing policymakers to develop, uh, programs and strategies and remedies

00:33:33.900 that will enable as many people as possible to weather the storm and to come out doing okay on

00:33:40.780 the other side. And I think it became too easy for, for folks in Washington. Uh, and I include myself

00:33:48.780 in this. I, I was not at all clairvoyant about these issues, uh, you know, 25 years ago. Uh, but it, it,

00:33:56.060 it's easy when you've never lost your job or never been out of work involuntarily when, when the only time you

00:34:02.380 have, uh, uh, when you're jobless is, you know, a sabbatical from a university job or you're in

00:34:08.780 between assignments at a central bank or a think tank, it's easy to sort of not really come to grips

00:34:16.380 with the human toll of joblessness. And having gone through it briefly myself a few years ago and just

00:34:22.860 tasted it for a brief moment in time, uh, you know, it's, it's something that people need to, uh,

00:34:30.380 need to understand and need to empathize with other folks in the economy about. And so again,

00:34:36.060 you know, we've, we've got, we can't go back in time and undo what's happened, but the so-called

00:34:41.420 China shock that hit us around the turn of the century and into the first decade of this century, 0.54

00:34:46.780 that's not going to be the last time the American worker is challenged by, uh, time of, of tumult and

00:34:53.660 upheaval. And artificial intelligence may well be the next punch that's thrown. We got to figure

00:34:59.260 these issues out.

00:35:00.060 The AI jobs apocalypse, which we talk about here, uh, a lot in the war room. Oh, David,

00:35:05.740 appreciate you for writing the book and taking the time, making it accessible to people coming

00:35:09.980 on the war room. We, we are proudly part of the troglodytes. We're part of the troglodytes

00:35:15.740 here. So we're trying to reverse a process that people say is irreversible, but we'll keep fighting.

00:35:20.940 Thank you. So what's your social media? Where do people go get the book and where they follow you

00:35:23.980 on social media? Uh, I'm everywhere. I'm on, uh, X and blue sky, uh, uh, at David J. Lynch. Um, uh,

00:35:32.780 I'm not much on Instagram. I'm on Tik TOK. I probably spend too much time on Tik TOK. My wife would say,

00:35:41.020 sir. Thank you so much. Appreciate you. Thanks a lot, Steve. Appreciate it. So president Trump,

00:35:48.940 this gets back to look, I'm probably going to run out of time today. And so I have to carry some of

00:35:55.820 this over tomorrow. The, um, I think we've won 20 cases at the Supreme court or 21. I mean,

00:36:03.340 it's been pretty overwhelming. Mike Davis on here, they talked about Pam's kind of winning streak

00:36:07.980 there. It is all of this audience. Remember, let's go back and frame this. All of this is playing into

00:36:13.980 that the, um, power article two powers. And essentially the court has been saying,

00:36:22.700 the Roberts court has been saying, we're not the Warren court. Uh, we're not going to intercede or

00:36:28.620 interject our things into processes we think can be answered or remedied by a thing called politics.

00:36:36.860 We're not gonna get involved in politics. We're not a political institution. We're a legal institution.

00:36:41.660 So to date, president Trump has really had support. And let's go back, even, even for the immunity,

00:36:48.140 nine, nothing immunity. And remember Colorado of which Ludwig wrote, uh, oh, the Colorado,

00:36:53.580 you know, judges thing is magnificent. And it was nine Oh, uh, supporting a president Trump.

00:36:59.740 This may be the most important of all of all the others. There've been some monumentally

00:37:03.820 important ones. This may be because it's so absolutely central to president Trump's economic

00:37:08.380 program. I mean, he is trying to reverse. And I'll say this in David Lynch, David Lynch,

00:37:15.500 obviously, and he says at the beginning of the book, Hey, he was kind of a globalist. People didn't

00:37:19.180 even think about it this way. When they first started covering this topic, it was all going to be,

00:37:23.260 and I can tell you going to Harvard business school, same way. There was never any question

00:37:28.380 that this was going to add to the net value of the company, a country, and everybody's going to prosper.

00:37:32.700 And all this is going to be great is going to be more efficient, uh, you know, more economic, uh,

00:37:38.060 and those benefits would spread to everybody that turned out to be exactly the opposite. In fact,

00:37:43.740 the financial crisis of 2008 and the trade deficits and the trade deals that, that basically sucked out

00:37:51.580 America's manufacturing superpower and dispersed it to the world, particularly to China and other parts

00:37:58.700 of, uh, of Asia because of quite frankly, labor compare, you know, comparative advantage they

00:38:04.140 had in labor and environment and, you know, all sorts of things that, um, it didn't turn out.

00:38:10.940 President Trump is trying to reverse this. I think this is what folks should understand. He is trying

00:38:16.380 to reverse it and he's trying to do it as a shock to the system, as he is a disruptor, because there are

00:38:21.500 other ways to do this. They just take forever. President Trump's making the case, and we've talked

00:38:28.060 about trade deficit forever and Scott Besson's right. If you talk to the Wall Street crowd or

00:38:33.180 like we had these big fights with Gary Cohen in the first term, a trade deficit doesn't mean

00:38:36.540 this accounting function. That's not true. That's not true. The trade deficit, it has to be paid for.

00:38:43.660 That's one of the reasons that we don't produce anything and we have such enormous debt and people

00:38:48.220 have such an incredible personal debt. The trade deficit is an emergency. It has to be dealt with.

00:38:54.940 This is one of the key arguments, President Trump. He's trying to reverse these pro this

00:38:59.500 process of open borders and, you know, free trade, free trade and open borders have gone

00:39:06.540 so far to destroy this country. It sucked out the muscle of this country of our manufacturing

00:39:13.580 superpower. People actually make things in all the ecosystem that comes around it. When you have

00:39:19.020 manufacturing, there's all types of service industries around it. There's, you know,

00:39:23.100 there's all the social, uh, you know, restaurants and coffee shops and, and, and, and tailors and

00:39:29.580 all those things in the town that support the people that actually make these great wages

00:39:34.140 manufacturing. That was America at its peak. And we gave that away and people made money off it.

00:39:40.780 Uh, the corporatist, uh, the shareholders and Wall Street and the American people took it on the chin

00:39:48.140 brutally. And President Trump is trying to reverse this. And he's trying to do it quickly. He said,

00:39:53.740 this is emergency. We can't go on like this because people talk about it. Trump is action,

00:39:57.740 action, action. This is action. And it was dramatic. And quite frankly, it's radical.

00:40:04.860 And you saw today. And that's why the hearing took so long. These things were briefed.

00:40:09.260 Substantial read the briefing papers and I'll, I'll get Grace and Mo that will give you a link to go.

00:40:13.900 If you, if you're so interested, and I know some people are, or if you're in college or high school

00:40:18.780 and this, this, um, you know, strikes your fancy, it's an incredible topic to drill down on because

00:40:25.340 it's about the comparative, the comparative economic nature of nations. President Trump's

00:40:32.620 is a dramatic move and it was complicated. And that was laid out today. And you have guys like Gorsuch.

00:40:37.900 What I loved about this as a teaching moment and exercise is the complexity of the arguments,

00:40:44.220 the great questions that are asked and they bang, bang, bang off the top of the head. And those

00:40:48.140 lawyers, the solicitor general and counsel, uh, I guess for the plaintiffs, um, you know,

00:40:54.300 had to stand up there and you've got to cite the reference right there. You can't,

00:40:57.260 you can't tap dance around and they're, they're calling you out. And you saw a couple of times,

00:41:01.100 particularly Gorsuch kind of Gorsuch, Gorsuch, um, unrelenting logic. A couple of times I think

00:41:09.340 got the solicitor general that, you know, a little off guard, I think they came back fine. I'm not so

00:41:14.860 sure how important the oral arguments are in the first place, because I think so much of this is,

00:41:18.700 is in writing. That's one of the things that president Trump changed about, about selecting

00:41:25.340 Supreme Court justice. No more, no longer did he want to go on biography like Sandra Day O'Connor,

00:41:30.220 because that can always disappoint. No, no longer did he want to go to like state,

00:41:34.220 state judge like Souter, which was a New Hampshire just kind of payoff to the Sununus,

00:41:39.660 which turned out to be another disaster. Uh, he wanted written opinions and written opinions

00:41:45.260 over a period of time and showed the intellectual firepower and Gorsuch is one of the, you know,

00:41:51.260 is one of the, you know, rising stars, obviously on the court, but it brings a tremendous amount of

00:41:58.540 intellectual firepower and was quite engaged in this today and had some incredible questions.

00:42:03.260 Where do we stand? I know seemed a little skeptical in some of the questioning.

00:42:07.020 I do think they will come back since this went on a kind of a expedited, uh, hearing that I will think,

00:42:13.500 I do think that we're going to, we're going to hear back on this sometime shortly in the future,

00:42:17.260 because everything is predicated upon this, all the tariffs, uh, everything and bringing the,

00:42:23.980 the, the commitments to, to either pay the tariffs and or move manufacturing back over here.

00:42:29.260 A lot of it is inextricably tied to this, the ramifications on this and president Trump's

00:42:34.460 economic plan is I can't overstate how important it is. That's why you had the whole Supreme Court

00:42:41.260 area blocked off. You had a huge kind of protest outside to police everywhere,

00:42:47.100 three hours packed historic president Trump and his agenda short commercial break back in the

00:42:54.620 morning in a moment. What if he had the brightest mind in the war room delivering critical financial

00:43:04.060 research every month? Steve Bannon here. War room listeners know Jim Rickards. I love this guy.

00:43:10.300 He's our wise man, a former CIA Pentagon and white house advisor with an unmatched grasp of geopolitics

00:43:16.540 and capital markets. Jim predicted Trump's electoral college victory, exactly three 12 to two 26

00:43:24.140 down to the actual number itself. Now he's issuing a dire warning about April 11th,

00:43:30.620 a moment that could define Trump's presidency and your financial future. His latest book,

00:43:36.060 money GPT exposes how AI is setting the stage for financial chaos. Bank runs at lightning speeds,

00:43:42.620 algorithm driven crashes, and even threats to national security. Right now, war room members get a free

00:43:48.460 copy of money GPT when they sign up for strategic intelligence. This is Jim's flagship financial

00:43:55.340 newsletter, strategic intelligence. I read it. You should read it. Time is running out. Go to

00:44:01.340 Rickards, war room. Dot com. That's all one word. Rickards, war rooms, records with an S go now and

00:44:07.420 claim your free book. That's Rickards, war room. Dot com. Do it today. Here's your host, Stephen K.

00:44:19.580 Okay. So we've, um, we've got a big one today. I think they're thinking over the way is, and I do

00:44:26.140 think you're seeing a, uh, you're going to see a pivot. I'm not so sure a pivot because they've

00:44:30.860 been working on domestic, but he's been spending so much time on international trying to stop the

00:44:34.780 third world war. Obviously last night's going to have an impact and people that are just kind

00:44:40.380 of giving this passive. Well, you know, don't worry. It's blue states. That's the hour is late here,

00:44:45.020 folks. We are burning daylight. We are burning daylight and they're not easy to fix it. Look,

00:44:51.660 those were races that you're probably in all hindsight, not going to win. Although Trump came

00:44:57.420 close in 24 and, uh, the gubernatorial candidate in New Jersey came close, came not, you know,

00:45:06.300 pretty close, caught up on Murphy a couple of years ago. It was the scale of the blowouts. I mean,

00:45:12.540 these are 10 and 15 point losses. You got to get, you got to get realistic here. It's not about blue

00:45:17.020 states. It's about you lost areas where you won in Virginia. And this is why Youngkin's finished

00:45:23.100 that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Republican party is done for a generation.

00:45:27.500 The people stepping now are going to have to go back to basics and rebuild this thing.

00:45:32.140 And man, is it going to have implications? Uh, Virginia is going to go 10 one. And this is

00:45:36.700 why I'm hugely advocating. You got to drop a real lawsuit out in California and start going to court

00:45:42.860 and arguing that this thing was totally illegitimate and illegal. Just like on ma'am Donnie, you need to 1.00

00:45:49.420 do the pick and shovel work. And Hey, guess what? I think there might be some pick and shovel work

00:45:54.860 going on right now to find out if the Ugandan is also for last six years, an American. I highly doubt it.

00:46:04.140 If you absolutely apply the rules here, I highly doubt it. And in the situation like that, the guy

00:46:12.300 gave the speech last night, he threw down. Okay. I hear you. Tough guy. You got it. I hear you.

00:46:17.900 You're barking this and you're barking that. And you're telling Trump, I got four words for you. Turn

00:46:22.940 the volume up. Okay, brother. I hear you. Zoron. Zoron. Zoron. That look. What planet was that from?

00:46:36.380 I would argue the couch at Animal House, but hey, that's just me. The, um, but it's got to be combated.

00:46:44.220 It has to be combated. You can't take this passive approach. And Scott Pressler is a great guy.

00:46:49.820 We're doing a book with him. We think the world of Scott Pressler had done an amazing job of going

00:46:53.420 around. And this guy, you know, with very little help and resources, but that's not the answer.

00:46:59.180 First off, that's just sign them up. You got to get them out in low propensity voters. 0.98

00:47:03.500 You got to get out. And the way they get them out is have a guy named Donald J. Trump at the top of

00:47:07.980 the ticket, full stop. And when somebody shows me that they can solve for that part of the equation,

00:47:15.020 I'm all ears and all eyes, but I've seen it up close and personal now for, I don't know, a decade.

00:47:20.140 And I'm not buying. I'm just not buying it right now. We're in a revolution and we have to win. If we

00:47:26.060 don't win, the country's gone. The stakes could not be higher. It's very simple. This is a binary

00:47:31.260 function. This is black and white. We win and they lose. This is just like going against the evil empire

00:47:39.260 in the Soviet Union. But now it is here in the United States of America. This is not a foreign

00:47:43.900 threat. This is an internal threat. This is a clear and present danger of an enemy, all enemies,

00:47:50.460 foreign and domestic. Well, we got a couple, three foreign, but man, we got more than a couple,

00:47:54.540 three domestic, domestic enemies, full stop. And on stage last night in New York City, that was an enemy.

00:47:59.900 That was an enemy. Trevor Comstock, you're here, part of the leg of our coalition,

00:48:06.940 Make America Healthy Again. I don't think that we emphasized that enough in this election the

00:48:11.180 other night, but you do it every day at your company, this magnificent little company,

00:48:15.980 Sacred Human Health. What do you got for us this afternoon, sir?

00:48:19.740 Yeah, good to see you, Steve. So I just wanted to elaborate a little bit further on our flagship

00:48:23.980 product, which of course is our 100% grass-fed beef liver. And for those who don't know,

00:48:29.740 I just always like to make the simple analogy that beef liver is basically like nature's

00:48:34.300 multivitamin. So with it, you get a ton of vitamins and nutrients in a wide array of them,

00:48:39.740 such as vitamin A, B12, CoQ10, folate, zinc. The list goes on quite a bit. And then also,

00:48:47.180 as I had mentioned, you also get a lot of those vitamins and minerals that most people are deficient

00:48:51.260 in. So common things like choline, K2, selenium, and copper. So right there, it's a pretty powerful

00:48:57.420 product in itself. But of course, you know, a nice value add that people tend to rave about

00:49:03.820 is just the nice natural energy boost that they often get after taking it. So, you know,

00:49:08.620 basically instead of those quick energy highs that you sometimes get, if you take, you know,

00:49:12.780 too much caffeine or other general stimulants, the beef liver just adds a nice steady and natural

00:49:18.380 lift and helps you feel a bit more vibrant. So, and that's mainly just because you're getting the

00:49:24.060 the nutrients that your body actually needs to thrive on. So, like I said, it's a pretty powerful

00:49:29.180 product. And then on top of that, what's great about it is that aside from it being 100% grass-fed

00:49:34.780 and natural, the body can actually absorb these nutrients and retain them as opposed to just

00:49:39.220 flushing them out when, you know, you're oftentimes like maybe taking like a multivitamin that's

00:49:43.460 synthetic or has a lot of synthetic ingredients within it or just any other synthetic vitamin

00:49:49.020 in general for that matter. So again, right off the bat, you're kind of getting a much

00:49:53.800 better bang for your buck because your body can retain these nutrients and absorb them

00:49:58.200 much more efficiently. So it's an amazing product for overall health and vitality. I can't say enough

00:50:03.500 about it. I know the War Room Posse loves it. It's definitely their favorite and still our number

00:50:07.680 one product. So I definitely encourage people to check it out if they haven't already.

00:50:12.960 One last thing I want to, I know you got to bounce. If you have never taken something like this before,

00:50:17.960 because the lads or the younger, you know, folks in the audience, particularly young guys,

00:50:24.240 this got to be a thing a couple of years ago, you know, grass-fed beef liver. But for those that

00:50:29.280 have not, you know, or don't go to those podcasts, don't go to those websites, if you're totally

00:50:33.620 unfamiliar with any of this and you go to the website, what are the two or three most compelling

00:50:38.640 arguments if you're just a middle-aged person of why this can immediately not just give you energy

00:50:44.060 boost but do so much more for you? What is it, sir? Yeah, I mean, there's a lot I could go on for

00:50:49.520 that. Again, I just got to break it down to the fact that your body can actually absorb the nutrients

00:50:54.160 within the beef liver because it is a natural product. Whereas, you know, oftentimes if you're

00:50:58.460 taking these other like synthetic formulas or greens powders, they just have a ton of unnatural

00:51:03.320 ingredients which your body can't recognize. So that's why people retain the nutrients and then

00:51:06.900 they get that energy boost to go with it, which of course people love. But yeah, because it's a

00:51:12.240 natural product, your body recognizes it and utilizes it like it's supposed to.

00:51:18.740 Trevor Comstock, Sacred Human Health, part of the whole Make America Healthy Again movement.

00:51:26.180 Where do they go? One more time. Yeah, you can go to sacredhumanhealth.com and then you can use

00:51:30.880 code WARROOM for 10% off. And yeah, we got you covered on all that. It's the one year anniversary

00:51:38.980 of the greatest comeback in American political history. We're going to commemorate that all week

00:51:46.340 here in the War Room. I'm going to be giving some remarks later this evening for Senator DeMint

00:51:53.100 and Mark Meadows and the folks over at CPI, another one of these great foundational element

00:51:57.580 institutions of the MAGA movement. That would be Make America Great. Once again, short break back in

00:52:06.780 the War Room for the second hour of the afternoon and evening edition.

00:52:12.840 Okay, let's be honest. You never thought it would get this far. Maybe you missed the last

00:52:16.500 IRS deadline or you haven't filed taxes in a while. Let me be clear. The IRS is cracking down harder than

00:52:23.120 ever and this ain't going to go away anytime soon. That's why you need Tax Network USA.

00:52:29.180 They don't just know the IRS. They have a preferred direct line to the IRS. They know which agents to

00:52:35.540 deal with and which to avoid. Their expert negotiators have one goal. Settle your tax problems quickly and in

00:52:43.280 your favor. Their team has helped clear over $1 billion in tax debt. Whether you owe $10,000 or $10 million,

00:52:51.200 even if your books are a mess or you haven't filed in years, Tax Network USA can help. But don't wait.

00:52:58.740 This won't fix itself. Call Tax Network USA right now. It's free. Talk to a strategist and finally put

00:53:06.320 this behind you. Call 1-800-958-1000. That's 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Bannon.

00:53:17.620 Make sure you tell them Bannon. You'll get a free evaluation. That's 1-800-958-1000. Do not let letters from the

00:53:26.720 IRS or your failure to file work on your nerves anymore. Take action, action, action, and do it today.

00:53:34.160 Bye-bye.

Bannon's War Room - November 06, 2025

Episode 4905： SCOTUS Listens To Oral Arguments On Trump's Tariffs

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript