Piers Morgan Uncensored - Elon Musk Crisis & Tulsi Gabbard Confirmed | Feat Clay Travis, Jeffrey Toobin & More

Episode Date: February 12, 2025

Practically no one in America has a problem with cutting wasteful government spending, but how to do it and what to cut? These questions have the potential to split a room, or in the case of this video’s topic, an entire country. Elon Musk’s new department of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has many Americans up in arms over the possibility of a constitutional crisis. Indeed, Musk was not elected by the American people to balance the budget, but strictly speaking, does he need to be? To debate this very question, Piers Morgan brings former Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, Outkick founder Clay Travis, former federal prosecutor and author of 'The Pardon: The Politics of Presidential Mercy' Jeffrey Toobin and host of Roland Martin Unfiltered, Roland Martin onto Uncensored. Protect your wealth with precious metals! Call American Hartford Gold today & get up to $15,000 in free silver on your 1st order! Call 866-692-2474 or Text PIERS to 65532, or Click the link below:  https://offers.americanhartfordgold.com/piers-morgan/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Clay is simmering like a volcano ready to erupt. All these federal employees are sucking on the teeth of the American taxpayer. Fraud is a crime. And the idea that there is widespread crime among federal employees is something that is not supported by any evidence. Doge came in and said, we're going to make people come back to work. Don't, Sid, don't come in. Ronald, you're wrong. Tulsi Gabbard has been confirmed as Director of National Intelligence.

Trump is willing to forgive and forget on a level we have never seen before. Tulsi and RFK Jr. Let's see what happens with public health under RFK Jr. We might have to be returning back to the full body suit we're wearing during COVID. How many COVID shots have you got? I have no problem with vaccines unlike RFK Jr. Pierce, I can't be in the same studio with Roland until he gets his other eight COVID shots. Too dangerous.

Your little cute little moment is cute, but it doesn't work. The US is facing a full-blown constitutional crisis. At least that's how critics are framing battles between the Trump administration and the courts, as well as the sweeping influence of unelected advisor Elon Musk. President Trump has responded with a very public show of faith in his billionaire backer, inviting Musk, along with his son, X, into the Oval Office to face media questions. Well, first of all, you couldn't ask for a stronger mandate from the public. The people voted for major government reform,

and that's what people are going to get. They're going to get what they voted for. Well, must say his work on radical government cost-cutting is fully transparent, and it's true that we know almost everything about it, right down to the online pen name of Teenage State Department Advisor Big Balls. More than the point, 77 million people that's led to the president who was explicitly clear about his plan to let Musk loose on the bloated federal budgets. As Musk says, what gives the bureaucrats a bigger mandate than that?

If the bureaucracy is in charge, And then what meaning does democracy actually have? If the people cannot vote and have their will be decided by their elected representatives in the form of the president and the Senate and the House, then we don't live in a democracy. We live in a bureaucracy. Well, President Trump's flood of executive orders

has been met with a life raft of legal challenges. Judges have paused or blocked many of them, including the dismantling of USAID, the freeze on federal grants, the end of birthright citizenship, and the relocation of trans women to men's prisons. The president and those in his inner circle say judges are not running the country, and these checks and balances may be checked and balanced.

That's at the heart of the crisis, or so we're told. We are three weeks into the second Trump presidency, three weeks, and tonight there are warnings that the U.S. is dangerously close to a constitutional crisis. What's Elon must going to do with Social Security numbers or anything else? Well, I think there are two issues at play. The constitutional crisis here is that Congress has been subverted. That is a constitutional crisis. That is a crisis for our democracy.

We've got our toes right on the edge of a constitutional crisis here. What we are witnessing is a constitutional crisis. To defy court orders brings about a constitutional crisis. If this is a crisis, it's fair to say America should know how to handle it. This was President Biden, who many people rudely accused of putting his unelected wife in charge of the entire country. Supreme Court blocked me from relieving student debt, but they didn't stop me. So far, I've relieved student debt for nearly five million Americans. And this was AOC urging President Biden to defy what she called an illegitimate court.

I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling. I think that we, you know, the courts have the legitimacy and they rely on the legitimacy of their rulings. What they are currently doing is engaged in an unprecedented and dramatic erosion of the legitimacy of the courts. So it's the chilling first phase of fascism under Trump and a democratically mandated moral backbone for everybody else. The truth is that effective governing with a Democrat-Republican means navigating the constitutional obstacle course to do what you promised voters you would do. And the Constitution, now in its 237th year, will live to tell the tale. Do you know me now, our former RNC chairwoman, Rana McDaniel, outkick founder, Clay Travis, the host of Roland Martin Unfiltered, Roland Martin.

And joining us in a few minutes, the former federal prosecutor and author of The Pardon, the politics of presidential mercy, Jeffrey Tubin. Well, welcome to all of you. Let me start with you, Roland Martin, because I've got to say, I watched the press conference from the Oval Office yesterday with Trump and Elon Musk and Musk Jr. And all right, it was very unconventional. We've never seen anything quite like it. in the Oval Office.

But I tried to put aside what I was thinking as a Brit watching from London to if I was an average Joe American, particularly if I'd voted for Trump and had heard him repeatedly say, the moment we win, I'm going to send in Elon Musk to get stuck into federal bloated overspend.

And then you hear them basically outline what they've already discovered and what they're going to keep doing. I'd probably be cheering them on. Were you cheering them on? Hell no. And also, a lot of those people who will be publicly cheering him on, also whining and crying on TikTok because farmers are saying, oh, we can't get our resources.

But you also talked about what they outlined. Here's the problem. If you go to DOGE, go to their website, there's nothing on it. So this idea that they told us what they found, but they presented no evidence of it. So that's just them. And remember, in the same news conference, even Elon said, yeah, Well, he makes stuff up. He gets it wrong or I don't bet a thousand. So can you fully trust somebody saying I'm transparent when they're actually not transparent? Clay Travis, your response?

I mean, I think America's incredibly fortunate to have the most brilliant capitalist mind maybe in the history of the world decide that he wants to try to apply his incredible genius to making American government more efficient. I mean, let's think about what Elon Musk has done. He sends spaceships to space more efficiently and more safely than NASA does, despite NASA having a 70-year, some odd head start on him. He has redefined the way that vehicles move, replacing the combustion engine with electric vehicles. He, I think, has stood up for free speech on a level that has never occurred before. And even though it's not getting very much attention, he has. massively increase the profitability of Twitter, now X, while firing many of the employees.

And this is exactly what I voted for. Look, the federal government is bloated, it is inefficient, it is laced with fraud, and it's funded by our taxpayer dollars. If Elon Musk offered to come to my house, and my wife probably wouldn't like it, because I think she spends a little bit more than me, but he wanted to go through all of our bills and point out all the money that we're wasting on a month-to-month basis. I wouldn't hate it. I'm not going to turn away from the most brilliant mind in maybe world history. When you look at the companies that he's founded and the value that he's unlocked, I'm amazed that he has the time and that he has the willingness. And what is he trying to do, peers? He's trying to balance the budget, something that every family in America has to do, something that ironically enough every state has to do and we're now 36 trillion dollars in debt

we pay more in debt interest than we do for national defense which is one of the signs of a society that is on decline going all the way back to ancient Rome when you look at history and how money is spent so we got to get our financial house in order and anybody that can help I'm in favor of I thought it was very transparent he answered every question he said he's going to get some things wrong and he's going to acknowledge when he gets things wrong. I actually think that's a strength. I get things wrong. You do. Everybody does in their daily life. Acknowledging when you screw up isn't in some way a sign of weakness. I think it's a sign of strength. I thought everything was great about the Oval Office press availability yesterday

evening. Okay. Before I go to Rana, Roland, you were putting all sorts of extraordinary faces there. But what specifically did you disagree with? Because, again, this thing to Clay's analysis of it, what is there to actually find issue with? Peers Morgan Unsensored is now proudly independent. If you like the show, we ask that only one thing. Subscribe on YouTube and follow Pierce Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Now let's get straight to the point. Support for today's show comes from a business focused on a critical issue. Prosperity. US national debt is at crisis levels, inflation has made life more expensive for everybody, and the stock market is precarious. It's enough to make anyone's financial future feel grim. So what is the solution? Well, a simple one is to opt out of the chaos and invest in something solid and reliable,

physical, gold and silver. And there's only one name you need to remember, American Heart for Gold. This company has earned a trust to thousands of customers with an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and glowing reviews you can see for yourself. They offer an incredible range of gold and silver bars. coins that can be delivered directly to your door or they'll help you set them up in a tax advantage gold IRA. First-class customer service makes the whole process simple, secure and straightforward. American Harvard Gold is committed to getting the truth out there and giving you peace of mind

in uncertain times. And if that wasn't enough, you'll get up to $15,000 worth of free silver when you make your first purchase and mention my name, Peers. So, make the smart move. Call 866-692-2474, Text appears, that's P-I-E-R-S-2655-3-2. That's 866-692-2474, or text peers to 655-3-2. All the details are in the description. Now on with the show. No, it sounds great, but first of all, they're things that are factually important. He didn't found Tesla.

He didn't found SpaceX, so Clay's wrong there. Two, when you talk about going through a bloated government, If you're going to talk about a bloated bureaucracy, the department where we spend the most money, Pentagon, you've had previous reports that the Pentagon has upwards of 125 billion in waste. If you want to go after the place where there's the most waste, that's where you start. But they're not starting there. Also, you have to factor in contracts as well. How many Elon Musk companies were under investigation by federal agencies, about practices such as Space X, where are those investigations gone?

So if you want to talk about transparency, shouldn't Elon and those companies be held to the same standard as everyone else? It doesn't appear that's the case. Okay. Ranah, you've been listening to this. Look, those are the two positions. Where do you sit? I agree with Clay. And I think the American people right now are waking up saying, I had no idea that USAID had 10,000 employees.

that the Department of Education had 4,000, that EPA has 14,000. What are they doing? I don't think people are waking up saying, oh, my world has changed now that 10,000 people aren't going to work at USAID. We have a bloated government. We have waste in our government. And it's finally, finally time for people to look at these bureaucracies and audit them. And you know what?

Every household in America, like Clay said, is doing the same thing. It is expensive right now. Eggs are expensive. The cost of gas is going. up, insurance is sky high. Every family is going in and saying, how do I change my budget? How do I afford what's going on? And why shouldn't our government be doing the exact same thing? And it's nice to see accountability and have somebody like Elon Musk from outside the government go in and find efficiencies that we need. Okay, we've been joined by Jeffrey Tubin.

Jeffrey, great to have you back on Unsensit. I want to play you a clip. This is Robert Wright, the former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton. Actually, he wrote this. I'm sorry, I'm going to read this to you first. He said, I want to share with you some thoughts about the third hellish week of Trump too. As of Friday, Trump assigned more than 50 executive orders covering every aspect of American life and much foreign policy. It's not just that this number of executive orders

is unprecedented in modern American politics. Many are unlawful, unconstitutional, or both. In the age of monarchs, kings issued decrees, the Tsars of Imperial Russia proclaimed Ukassiz. The dictators of the 20th century may dictate, Trump issues executive orders. Just taking what he said there, Robert Reich, what is the legality, you know,

in simple terms of all these executive orders? Are they, from what you're seeing, are any of them unlawful, unconstitutional, or both? Well, you know, there are, I believe, over 50 lawsuits challenging the various aspects of it. And just to talk about Elon Musk, I think it's great that Elon Musk wants to help make the government more efficient. But I think as he does it, he has to follow the law.

And that's what the controversy is about. He's a very successful businessman, and it's great that he wants to help. But there are laws about who has access to people's personal data. And he doesn't get to violate it just because he's a successful businessman. The thing that I find most troubling about the executive orders is that we have a system in the United States where the Congress controls the power of the purse. The Congress decides how much money is spent and how it is spent, at least in which department. And whether the president is taking unilateral action to overrule the Congress in

contravention of what the Constitution says, I think is very troubling. And that's one of the issues that's before the courts. I also think, you know, the effort to overturn birthright citizenship is contrary to the very words of the 14th Amendment. So, you know, it is certainly an admirable goal to make the government more efficient, and the president was elected, and he certainly has an agenda that he wants to implement, but he has to do that within the law, and that's what's now before the courts. J.D. Valantz. Jeffrey, did. Sorry. Did the Supreme Court rule on line item veto? Did they rule on that, Jeffrey? And the president has an authority?

They rejected the line item veto. Yes, that was ruled unconstitutional. But that was a very, that was a very specific case that may or may not apply to what Musk is doing. And, you know, I think, you know, for all the talk of transparency, there have been very few details. There have been a lot of anecdotes, many of which have turned out to be false, like the 50, you know, like the condoms in Gaza, that, that, that, you know, it would be a lot better if there were specific examples of what the, what waste that was found, much less fraud. I mean, I thought, Jeffrey, watching yesterday, Elon did begin to rattle off a load of things, which certainly if they were as he said them. And he made the point about the Gaza thing. He just got that wrong.

He said, I'm going to make mistakes. I thought that was refreshingly honest, actually, to hear anyone in the political sphere say that. But actually, he'd also, you know, he made a series of specific things, which just on the face of it sounded to me, if I was an American listening to that, what a waste of money. So, I mean, it could be that all the things you've just said are correct, but it could also be that they challenge the challenges against this, that it turns out to be legal, and they are slashing a lot of overspent, couldn't it? Well, maybe yes and maybe no, but, you know, rattling off facts at a news conference.

And if you listen to President Trump at that news conference, he said, well, it's hundreds of millions of dollars. It's actually billions. It may be a trillion dollars. I mean, you know, when you're talking about those sorts of things and you're talking about people's lives, I mean, it's very easy to trash U.S.AID. You know what USAID does is it keeps people from starving and at the border between the Thai border. You know, maybe the richest country in the world should do its part to keep people from starving. And yes, they have a couple, there are few thousand employees, and maybe that's a good thing. So Congress thought it was a good thing. That's why they created the USAID. So, I mean, I think if you're going to talk about, please.

We can still give aid without having USAID. You can still give aid. We are still going to give aid as a country. You don't need a giant bureaucracy. We did the Marshall Plan without a USAID. So to say that because of this department, now we can't give humanitarian aid, is ridiculous. I mean, we don't need these bloated bureaucracies? And don't you think it's good, Jeffrey, to go in and say, let's make sure we are having efficiencies?

Marco Rubio said it right. He said, we can't say that we can be apolitical in our giving. Why should we give in to countries that don't agree with democracy, that don't love America? Do half of these countries even know that this aid is coming from America? I think these are fair questions to ask, and I think the American people deserve those answers. Well, also, I would say, Jeffrey, I mean, it wasn't, the example you gave, if you're helping starving people, fine. That's something that many people might think, fair enough. America, big, powerful country, of course it can.

It's when you get into the weeds of some of these grants they were making. You know, $7.9 million to teach Sri Lankan journalists how to avoid bind. gendered language. I mean, if I was, again, American listening to that, I'd be going nuts. Say, what? I can't afford my eggs. I can't afford my eggs because we're sending millions of dollars to teach Sri Lankan journalists how to be how to be woke. Put a pin in that and see if that's really what the $7.9 million was. You know, there have been so many distortions, not just the condoms in Gaza. You know, that this is why it helps. to actually write things down and distribute them so people can actually see whether what people are saying is true.

You know, it's good that Elon Musk had a press conference. You mean like on the Doge website? You mean like on the Doge website? There's nothing. Put it on the Doge website. Exactly. It's not there. Let it see it. Okay. Let me bring in Clay. Here's the problem here's. Hang on. Hang on, I'll bring you back in a say. I want to see Clay beginning to. No problem. No problem. like a volcano ready to erupt. So erupts away, Clay. Yeah. First of all, the Supreme Court's going to tell us what is legal and what is not eventually,

whatever five justices of the Supreme Court say, that is the boilerplate. Everything comes down to this. And what I would say is all of the people filing lawsuit should be careful. It wasn't very long ago that a lot of the so-called left-wing legal experts were saying, remember, hey, Colorado can take Donald Trump off the ballot because, he has been involved in an insurrection that was they were trying to apply a Confederate era civil war statute to the modern day. And the Supreme Court said, no, they can't. I was, I'm old enough to remember, guys, when Donald Trump asserted executive privilege related to Jan 6th, most of the so-called legal left-wing experts said this is a crazy idea. What do we get? A Supreme

court ruling that actually expands the bounds of the executive presidential powers. So a lot of these actions, to me, seem to be fairly grounded in presidential powers as they pertain to the executive branch and the authority vested therein. Now, Jeffrey pointed out, and I think it's going to be an interesting case when it eventually gets to the Supreme Court, how they analyze birthright citizenship as a history nerd. I am utterly fascinated by the entire era, that because do you know why birthright citizenship? That is birthright citizenship by soil, not by blood, which is far more common worldwide, actually exists.

Colonialism, because when we were colonies and when much of Latin America were colonies, I haven't heard this talked about much, peers, the reason why you got birthright citizenship on that soil was not to be a citizen of the United States. Remember, we weren't a country yet. We were all colonies all over, North and South America, it was so your kids could go back to Portugal or go back to England

or go back to France and still be considered citizens of those countries because they were far more powerful and they didn't want their people being shipped over and basically having to be leaving behind their own citizenship. Now, as it pertains to money being spent, I think this is really significant. We can't be loaning money to other countries to try to to make them better when we're doing so at five and six percent interest on a $36 trillion debt. What astounds me here is Elon Musk voted for Joe Biden in 2020. He voted against Trump in 2016. This is not some right-wing ideologue going through the federal government slashing like crazy. Whether it's men in women's sports, which thankfully has been struck down, or waste and fraud in government,

which is what Doge is focused on. It seems to me that the Democrat Party, time after time, Pierce, is narrowing their window of who would they actually represent. They're taking the side of the 20 or 25% of the American public and leaving Trump with full field to go after 75 or 80% of common sense Americans. This to me doesn't feel Democrat, Republican, or independent. It feels common sense. and by and large, it feels to me like the agenda of Trump 2.0 is actually just good old-fashioned American common sense, and it's why he is setting all-time records so far in approval

because the majority, even the vast majority of the American public, agrees with most of what he's done so far. Yeah, you make some really interesting points. I mean, Roland, you couldn't laugh, but the Democrats seem to me... No. Well, the Democrats seem to me to be completely... at sea right now. They are rudderless at sea.

They don't know where they want to go or how they want to get there or who's gonna lead them. And by contrast, Trump seems much more confident in being president. He's got one of the smartest brains in America, whatever you think of him, must clearly is that, at his side.

He's got an incredible mandate from the public. He had more people from almost every demographic group you could think of vote for him this time round than ever before. And like I say, the Democrats seem to have no real response to this other than to just say anti-Trump stuff. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm missing something, but that's my take on it. Yeah, first, yeah, you're missing the incredible mandate 1.6%. It's not an incredible mandate.

Well, I don't. They won the White House, the House of Representatives, the Senate. Okay, but that's not incredible. They won the electoral college among the popular votes. Pierce. I'm just saying. I mean, Roman, let's be clear. They won actually everything there is to win.

Pierce, Pierce, Pierce, I'm aware of that. It's also to be clear. Biden had a larger margin over Trump. Was it called incredible mandate? No, here's a fact. It is a fact. It is a fact, Republicans, Crows, House, Senate, White House. That's a fact.

When you talk about what is the impact on policies, to the point that Jeffrey was laying out when you talk about spending those things that happened. Right now, you've got folks in these red states who are, oh my God, what's going on? Rule health centers. When you freeze the funds, what has happened with those federal health centers.

We start talking about farmers who are now, wait a minute, what's going on? What about my soybeans? What about the one billion dollars, the USAID was actually buying products from American farmers? And so all these things are gonna happen. But when we talk about what's also factual, again,

I can't necessarily believe Elon Musk when he says things that are blatantly lies. He posts these things on Twitter as well. So this is very simple. If the things, that they claim money is being spent on. This is very simple. Put it out there.

I don't want to just hear you say it. I want to see the actual evidence. And here's a deal. We'll wait and see. But I also would love, I cannot wait, to see if he has the same interest in the massive spending waste that we see in the Pentagon, where the Pentagon budget is approaching a trillion dollars.

So please, by all means, identify it. But the other thing, But the other thing is, excuse me, excuse me. This is important. Rollins mentioned this twice. Excuse me. The Defense Department has asked for Elon must to come in, and Trump has said that they want to do it.

So you mentioned this twice. They are going to look at the defense budget, which has failed to pass basic accounting for the entire Biden administration and the past seven years. And here's a deal. Clay, you can finish your point after I make my point. And what I'm saying is this here. When you look at spending, when you look at,

what Congress has approved. What I also want to know is, when were Republicans also take responsibility for that? When you talk about, you keep pitching 36 trillion, how much of that $8 trillion was added by Trump the last time? So if you want

to talk about the debt, you have to say who contributes to that based upon their actions. And that is absolutely bipartisan, Democrat, and Republican. Okay, I mean, look, Clay's made the point and he's right, they've all said, Elon, Trump, Pete Hague said

that they're going to go into the Pentagon spending. And they're going to go through that. And I'm sure they will. They're going through every department, it seems to me. Rana, let me ask you this. I mean, I think that Rola made a good point there. It's one thing to say you're being really transparent, and that's certainly what Elon Musk kept saying yesterday.

But if the Doge website doesn't have the specific information which shows that transparency, how does the American public see the transparency? How are they going to get this? Because I think that's an important part of this. I think if they see it in real time as it's unraveling, great. If they don't see it, why should they believe that it's all being transparent? Well, part of that starts with a press conference that we had yesterday from the Oval Office,

with open questions and press being able to ask those questions, things we were not seeing under President Biden. President Biden wouldn't even have a press conference. Yeah, but Elon Musk kept saying I'm being completely transparent, step of the way. But as Roland pointed out, if you go to the Doge website, there's nothing there. I agree with you, Pierce, and I agree with Roland. It's an amazing thing. I do think we have to lay out what the savings are and show what they're finding. I think that is important as they're finding fraud and waste and abuse. It's important that that's brought to the American public. I think that's going to happen. We are three weeks in. I know it feels like longer because President

Trump's getting so much done. But I do think that's important as they go forward, that they they tick-tock, here are the things that are happening. Here are the things that we found. We saw day one, Doge came in and said, we're going to make people come back to work. The waste of people just staying at home, the amount of the workforce that was not going to work seven days a week. That's good for our country.

We're going to see more and more of that as this goes forward. Okay, Jeffrey, JD-V. I'm sorry, do I mean, Doge told people don't come in. Doge said don't come in. Then they offered these fake buy-out that Congress has not appropriated any money for. What are you talking about? And the government workers that are necessary, they are saying you're going to have to show up to work seven days a week like everybody else in real America is doing. I mean, why do you have an entire federal workforce working remote?

It's just not feasible. Hold on, look. I understand that. But don't, but those said don't come to work. Those said don't come to work. Then they offered buyouts that Congress has not authorized. You have, there's nowhere. No, no, no.

You didn't hear why I just said that Congress has not authorized buyouts. How can Doge offer buyouts to federal workers that has not been appropriated by Congress? How? Just like businesses do it. They go to their employees and they say, you know what, we're going to buy you out because we're going to have layoffs.

And here's a buyout option. And they're giving that option because they're trying to help those people have a severance of eight months, which is very generous. And it's going to be seen in the courts. We're going to see this in the courts. You're wrong.

When there were buyouts under President Bill Clinton, Congress passed a law authorizing, the $25,000. You cannot just make, oh, I'm Elon Musk to co-president. In the private sector, in the private sector, this is not the private sector, Rona. And then say, if you don't take this ballot, you have a potential of being laid off.

That's how the private sector works. And people are saying the government should work like the private sector. Rona, the United States Constitution explicitly states that anything as relates to money starts in the House of Representatives. It does not state if the executive branch can actually spend money. You, that's not the, executive breads can't do that.

Okay, okay, okay, that brings me. Okay, hang on, hang on, hang on, Ronald, hang on. That brings me exactly to the point I wanted to bring to Jeffrey. Because J.D. Vance posted this. If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation,

that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general and how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power. Is he right about that? Well, he is right except, you know, everything turns on the use of the words legitimate,

and it is the judges, that it is our judicial system that decides what's legitimate, not the executive branch. So, you know, it is true that if a court was asked, can a general be told how to direct troops in a battle? of course the court would say, no, that is not something that discretion you can take away from the military. But that's not what's going on here. I mean, what's going on here is budget cutting and changes in government programs. And in our system, going back to 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison, it is the judiciary, not that not the executive branch and not Congress, that decides ultimately what the law is. So, I mean, what was troubling about that J.D. Vance argument was that it suggested, and he didn't say it quite outright,

that the executive could tell the courts what was constitutional. In our system, ultimately, it's the courts that decide what's unconstitutional and what's constitutional. And I hope that this administration continues to honor that basic bedrock of our system. Clay, you want to jump in? And Jay, I saw Clay, one of the, jump in there. I mean, I think two points, yeah, two points big picture.

One, what really is being discussed here is where are the lines when it comes to separation of powers? Right. And if you look at the Supreme Court's decision when it came to presidential powers, that came down, might I mention, only because of the Jack Smith charges, it actually emboldened the executive, that is the president, whether it's a Democrat or a Republican, to have more presidential authority than many so-called legal experts would have thought before that ruling. What I would say here is all of these cases that are being brought, to the extent

that they ever reached the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has been saying the authority of the president is expansive. And this is significant because it isn't just a Republican president. This would also apply for Democrat presidents. And I'll point out, Barack Obama was one of the most expansionist with his executive authority of any president out there. He pushed the bounds of presidential power. Every president has done that to some extent. Second part, and I think this is so important, look at what Democrats have been forced into here, peers. They now are arguing basically the federal government and its two million.

employees need to be protected. They are essentially arguing there is not very much fraud, there is not very much waste. This is something. Take it outside of the political chattering heads. What do you think the average guy in Mississippi thinks about this? The average gal in Pennsylvania, the average person in Idaho. Do you think they're sitting around saying, you know what I think of when I think of efficiency and competence and hard work, I think of the two million federal employees out there that my taxpayers are paying for. And let me point this out on Roland's suggestion. Again, the nuance here is important. What they offered was voluntary buyouts, meaning you work and get paid through September and you voluntarily leave. I don't know how many people

out there watching us right now for this clip, Pierce, but let me just address all of them. How many of you right now, if your employer came to you and said, I'm going to pay you through the end of September, but you get to then get all that money, and then you get to leave and go find a new job? Hardly anybody took that offer. Most people in America, I think, would take that offer if they have great ambition, if they have great skill, if they have a desire to go out and find something better. All these federal employees are sucking on the team. of the American taxpayer and they think they got a good gig or they would have bailed on that offer. I happened to think, and I tweeted it early today, I wish Trump would just come out and fire half of all federal workers, take it to the court, see whether or not he could do it. I think the American public would see no decline in the overall quality of our government. In fact, I think the half that stayed probably are doing the work of the other half. I think there's a lot of people not doing much at all, and that's why they want to keep these secure jobs that pay them really well.

Private sector's not like this. Again, I think this is a 25% support issue. Jeffrey's head is about to explode, Jeffrey? Well, I just, I spent a significant chunk of my life as a federal employee. I was a federal prosecutor, and I worked with a lot of federal employees. And these are some of the finest, most upstanding, most hardworking people I have ever. worked with in the public or private sector. And that goes through the federal government, whether it's people who are trying to protect

the safety of toys or the safety of food and meat, whether people who are defending our country in the military. You know, it's very easy to, you know, recite the words fraud and, you know, fraud and waste. And I'm especially, frankly, disturbed by the use of the word fraud. Waste, okay. You know, maybe they spend too much money. on things. But fraud is a crime. And the idea that there is widespread crime among federal employees

is something that is not supported by any evidence that I've ever seen. Well, yeah, but fraud is still intentional wrongdoing. I'm not saying these people should be prosecuted. I'm just saying fire half of them. But can I just say one other thing that's very important that President Trump said yesterday is that he would abide by the courts. He did say that. He said, I will abide by the court. He did say that. I think that's really important to put that forward. I was about to play that clip. And ask the Democrats, yeah, I want to play that. I think that's a very important point. Let's play that click because he did say that. Let's take a look. If a judge does block one of your policies, part of your agenda, will you abide by that ruling? Will you comply to? Well, I always abide by the courts and then

I'll have to appeal it. But then what he's done is he slowed down the momentum. And it gives crooked people more time to cover up the books. You know, if a person's crooked and they get caught, other people see that and all of a sudden it becomes harder later on. So, yeah, the answer is, I always abide by the courts, always abide by him and will appeal. No, see, that's significant, I think, that Trump said that on the record. I thought that was, I thought that was really excellent what the president said. Yeah, yeah, and he should be.

I think I, well, I think it's interesting. Roder, before I get your reaction, by contrast, I want to replay the clip of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she talked about a Texas court ruling of a suspending an abortion drug. Let's take a listen. I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling. I think that we, you know, the courts have the legitimacy

and they rely on the legitimacy. of their rulings. And what they are currently doing is engaged in an unprecedented and dramatic erosion of the legitimacy of the courts. It is the justices themselves through the deeply partisan

and unfounded nature of these rulings that are undermining their own enforcement. Now, it's funny, Rowling, because it seems to me that there might be a constitutional crisis, as people like AOC have been telling us, but it might be because of people like her, because she's the one on the record saying that presidents should not listen to what judges tell them,

whereas the current president of the United States is saying, I will absolutely abide by what the judges say. So maybe there is a crisis, but it's actually because of people like AOC. Well, she's a member of Congress. She sounds just like Darrell Issa and Senator Tom Cotton, who said the exact same thing because they disagree. Also, Elon Musk called on the Rhode Island judge to be impeached because of, of what he did. Plus, he docks the judge's daughter. So I guess these, these things apply differently

when it comes to conservative. Well, I love the fact of the court. Was AOC right to say what she said? Well, hang on. Hang on. No, no, no, no, no. No, no. No, no. Pears. You will not. No, no, Pierce. I'm asking you a question. Roland. I'm very consistent. I'm answering your question. Ronald. I'm very consistent. Was she right? If a federal judge, if a federal judge issues a ruling, then you are to abide by the ruling, then if there is, you are, if there's an injunction, if a higher court, then sets that ruling aside, you abide by the law. What I'm saying is what we have right now, as we speak right now, we have multiple members of the Republican Party who are articulating that these judges should be impeached.

They should not be followed. No one judge can't stop a president. Judges have rulings. And what I'm saying is you are to abide by the law. And what I'm saying is I'm laughing that the so-called party of law in order is just somehow for getting the law part. The law is very clear. So what AOC?

Was she right or wrong? I'm not done. I'm not done. When the law is clear, when it comes to a president firing inspectors general, you are to give Congress 30 days notice and a real explanation. Has he done that?

No, he's fired 19 inspectors general. He has violated the law. You can't defend violating the law. Now, what has happened? They've had to now sue because he's now violating the law. And so this is very simple. Either you operate within the rule of law or you don't.

But let's not sit here and play games. All right, Ronan, I agree. Ronan, I agree. But then just to be clear, AOC was wrong, right? You cannot just ignore judicial order. Thank you. You can't. Okay, great.

Straight answer. I appreciate that. So please tell the Republican senators and congressmen who are seeing the exact same thing. I will. We're seeing the exact same thing she said today. It should apply to all of them. And to be fair to you, you've answered the question. We've just got some breaking news.

I've got some breaking news for all of you. Look, I've got some breaking news for you. Tulsi Gabbard has been confirmed as Director of National Intelligence. Clay, let me get your reaction to that. Oetton is happy. I think this is an example of Trump having put together

the biggest tent when it comes to his cabinet, probably of the modern era, certainly of the 21st century. Just follow me along here. I mentioned earlier, you got Elon Musk as a special master deputy, whatever you want to call him, his official title is. He voted for Joe Biden in 2020. Tulsi Gabbard just got confirmed DNI director.

She was actually running against Donald Trump in 2020 on the Democrat side of the equation. Remember, she memorably delivered a knockout punch. It felt like to Kamala Harris's disaster of a 2020 presidential campaign. You're going to have, in short order, RFK Jr., who was, one of the most famous Democrats in the country for about 73 and a half of his 74 years, Trump has as his vice president a guy who compared him to Hitler. Look, one of the things that I think Trump doesn't get enough credit for is, you guys all know this, politicians tend to have the longest memory when it comes to grudges on the planet. Trump is willing to forgive and forget on a level we have never seen before. Tulsi and RFK Jr. are going to get confirmed

almost entirely by Republican Senate votes, yet it was only a decade ago that the Democrats were saying, hey, maybe Barack Obama should put RFK Jr. in his cabinet so that there's a little bit more star power there. I give credit to Trump. All of his nominees, with the exception of Gates, who never got to a confirmation hearing are going to be confirmed, which is far better than the record for most presidents when it comes to their nominees.

I think it speaks to the discipline inside of this White House and the broad tent of having people who voted against Trump that Trump has now brought into his cabinet and into his administration. I think that speaks well for him representing a broad swath of Americans.

Yeah, I mean, Roland, it's hard to disagree. Most of these people were at one stage with you and you drove them away mainly I think because of the ludicrous work stuff actually actually they weren't on stage with me and what is about ludicrous you also have let's be a click nobody was saying hey president Obama put rfk Jr. in your cabinet little clay seriously wake up okay so what you

now what Trump does the clips of the discussion for the show peers I've watched those Trump loves people Trump love people who also grovel and bend there needing him like the J.D. Bans is in the world. Here's the reality here, and that is this here. When it comes to, especially in R.F.K. Jr., oh, by all means, I love somebody who sits there and lies before Congress, like, no, I wasn't against vaccines. Dude, you were. And so, hey, you got a measle outbreak happening right now in a couple parts of the country. And so, yeah, let's see what happens with public health under RFK Jr. We might have to be returning back to the full body soon. were weighing during COVID.

Roland, how many COVID shots have you gotten? Oh, I've had two. Roland, you're a big guy science. How many COVID shots have you gotten? Guess what? I've had two.

Had no problem. And R. K's children have had had shots as well, vaccine shots as well. Hold on. But Roland, the government has told you that you should have had 10.

Why did you stop it too? And when I traveled to Africa, when I travel to Africa. I just want to know, Roland, the government has told you to get 10 COVID shots. Why did you stop it too? I've traveled to Africa twice in the last five years, and I've had numerous shots as well.

So I have no problem with vaccines unlike RFK Jr. Okay, but I'm specifically asking, you're going after RFK Jr. For not following government advice, you have chosen not to follow government advice and get 10 COVID shots like your government has told you. Why are you not a science denier? Why are you not a shot denier?

First ball, because I'm not a science. I'm not a science denier. I'm not a shot denier. And I also believe in vaccines. Why are you denying science by only getting two COVID shots? I'm not denying science. I think you are. You've lost eight COVID shots off.

Surprise your still. Why? That's cute. Well, why did you get the other eight shots, the boosters? I can show you the 15 shots that I got. Why are you denying science rolling? Why? It's cute.

It's cute. Play. I don't know if we can share the show now with you being such a science denier. Wait, your little cute, your little cute little moment is cute, but it doesn't work. Where are the other eight rolling? But let me go to Jeffrey. Pierce. I think it kind of did work actually.

I can't be in the same studio with Roland until he gets his other eight COVID shots. It's too dangerous. Actually, with probably, with you nobody old, I wouldn't want to be in the same studio. But go ahead, too. All right, let me move to Jeffrey on something else, which is the Gulf of America, as it's now called, that was the Gulf of Mexico. Oh, God. Google. Google has changed the name on Google.

and being criticized for bending the knee. AP, apparently, just before I came in, had been barred entry to the White House press room because they refused to call it the Gulf of America. And he just prompted a debate we had, actually, as a team here before we started tonight, which was, what's the legality of all this? I mean, if the President of the United States declares

it's now the Gulf of America, does that make it the Gulf of America? Who decides who has the legal authority on naming that area? of water. You know, Pierce, I'm going to use the three words you're never allowed to say in one of these programs, which is, I don't know. I mean, I just don't know who was in charge of naming oceans. But here's the thing I do know, that it was terrible to bar the AP reporter from the White House. Let journalists do their job. If he wants to call it the Gulf of America,

If the president wants to call it the Gulf of America, that's certainly fine with me. But I don't think he should prevent journalists from doing their job if they don't want to follow his example. Well, Google does work, Jeffrey. The international hydrographic organization deals in uniformity with oceans and the U.S. border and geographic names. But guess what? You know what? I'm from Houston. And when that hurricane comes bearing down on the Gulf of Mexico, we don't give a shit if you call it the Gulf of Mexico. to get the hell out of town so we don't get a kid. Yet again, we can probably all agree on that.

I learned from my friend Roland Martin. I did not know about that group. Yes. It's actually a group that has uniformity. Yes. I have learned a lot of stuff on this show today. Clay, you're earlier. And you didn't learn from Clay.

Go ahead. Well, Clay's lengthy monologue earlier about the colonies was fascinating, actually. And now we have this information from you, the breaking news about who gets to Nate. This is why, honestly, the birthright citizenship, to me, is so fascinating on the history front. Nobody's actually done the research. I totally agree. Rana, everyone's talking about one thing after the Musk-Trump press conference, which is that I think it was Time Magazine came out with a cover.

I think it was Time magazine of the cover, which had basically Elon Musk running the country. Trump is his little sidekick. You've got it there, the picture of Trump at the Resolute Desk. with office and so, Musk. And then you had the reality yesterday of Trump sitting at the desk and Elon standing next to him very much as his sidekick.

It's all good sport for the media, obviously. But is there a more serious point there? I mean, it is important, I would argue, that for Trump, he's got to maintain to the public that elected him that he is the guy in charge. And it's important, equally, for Elon Musk that he never tries to usurp

in terms of the optics, who's really the boss? Yeah, I think the media is trying to bait Trump, right, and he's calm as a cucumber. I mean, he's super calm about it. He doesn't care. He's like, great. This guy spent $290 million helping me get elected. Now he's helping create efficiencies in our government.

I love having him here, but he's going to work under my guardrails, and he's going to listen to what I say because I'm the president. Trump's very clear about that. I think the media keeps trying to bait him. They want to poke him. They keep trying to make this point. Trump's not taking the bait? Yeah, I agree.

Because we shouldn't, we shouldn't, we shouldn't race past, but you brought up the Associated press. It is shameful and despicable for the Trump White House to bar the Associated Press from covering an event there because they are abiding by their AP standards of calling Gulf of Mexico. I guess by that standard, they should have been barred because they actually said he lost the 2000-in-20 election. But this is a fundamental problem when you talk about. about, it's called the First Amendment for a reason. And so for him to say that you can't cover

an event because of that, that to me is silly, it is childish, and it should be called out. Yeah, I actually agree with you. They shouldn't have barred AP for that reason. But Clay, I think you're about to give us another history lesson possibly. Well, no, I just, on the Trump, Elon and the Time magazine front, I think this is super fascinating. We have a situation where two things are being argued simultaneously by Trump's critics. One, that he is a North Trump is an authoritarian dictator hell bent on destroying democratic norms. That is one. Now, I would point out, Pierce, to my knowledge, here's my history lesson. I can't remember a dictator who shrunk the size of his government ever as a part of his fascist authoritarian rule. Maybe there's a historical example of that.

I don't think that would add up. But this is the other part of the argument. They're simultaneously saying Trump is a fascist dictator, which I don't think his actions clearly would reflect, but two, that he's also the stooge of Elon Musk. So which one is it? Is Elon actually the Nazi hellbit dictator that is taken over the country, or is Trump? They can't even figure out who the big bad wolf in this equation is

because they're simultaneously arguing two different things, which I think is symptomatic and emblematic, Pierce, of the failure in the first month, and really since the election itself of the Democrat party to find an argument against Trump or even find a figure who can make a strong argument against Trump. Pierce, it's embarrassing, honestly. They're relegated to Chuck Schumer holding up an avocado and a Corona beer trying to argue against Super Bowl party. Okay, Clay, I don't disagree. I can't believe this is real. But Clay, just on the specific point about AP, it's not right, is it?

the AP get banned because they won't call it Gulf of America. That shouldn't be happening in a country with the First Amendment. My understanding is that this has been exaggerated, that they didn't let them cover the ceremony where the signing of the Gulf of America order was taking place because the AP wouldn't refer to it as the Gulf of America. But that's still an infringement. I don't think they're being.

But that is still a sense. I think that's a little bit funnier and a little bit less. less significant than, oh, they're banning the AP. Remember, every White House. Come on, Clay. Every White House chooses which media are allowed to be present. Personally, I think the significant factor here is in one month, Trump has answered more questions from media than Joe Biden did in four years.

On any subject, which is the big picture here, as opposed to getting fired up about one particular. And in the last 90 seconds, you can't answer one question from Pierce. Dude, come on. It's just, they shouldn't have got bar. I will answer any questions. What do you want to know, Pierce, fire away. Well, actually, what I want to do, what I want to do, hang on.

Answer the AOC question. Hang on, I do actually want to run a mash-up of whether Elon's the boss. Let's have a look at this. The person who is helping him do that stood over Donald Trump in the White House today, thereby delivering a picture of presidential subservience, the likes of which we have never seen, the most powerless image of a president of the United States ever created by a camera. There it is. In that shot, Elon Musk is doing everything he possibly can to tell the world without saying a word

that Donald Trump is not the boss of me. It's essential for America to remain solvent as a country. We're going to interrupt this problem to fact-check it a little bit. One, irony died while he was talking. The only unelected party in any of this is Elon Musk. Donald Trump will be the one in the Oval Office. Hello, everyone. But Elon Musk plans to be pulling the strings.

You know, Jeffrey, when I watch that, I just think we can't have four more years of this kind of thing, where the liberal skewed mainstream media just lose their minds over stuff like this, can we? I don't think we've got the strength. Well, you know, my concern is not who's making decisions and who's in charge, is whether the decisions are the right ones for the American people. You know, is it right to shut down USAID?

Is it right for what's going on at the Treasury Department with access? Will there be an investigation of the defense department with similar scrutiny that the Department of Education is getting? I personally don't care about the personnel and the behind-the-scenes story. I care about what it means for the American people and how it affects their lives. And that, I think, ultimately, is going to be how Donald Trump is judged. And that's how it should be, not, not who's sitting where in the Oval Office. Can we all agree?

Can we all agree? Hang on, Roddick. Can we all agree just on a very silly, trivial level that when Elon Musk changed his ex-handle to hairy balls, was it or something, and Dana Bash actually read it out with a straight face? Can we all agree that was just bloody funny? It was very funny. Come on, Roland.

Crack a smile, Roland. Actually, it was childish. I am laughing. Come on, Dana-Bach saying hairy balls live on CNN. Come on. A sense of humor. Oh, no, no. I have a sense of humor, but not with that fool.

But here's the whole deal. I am also, I'm laughing. Our Republicans, though, have spent the last decade saying George Soros is the one who's pulling all the strings, but no one, but they're complaining about Elon. So guess what? I've got to leave it there. We run out of time, guys.

I'm really sorry. Thank you all. I want to thank you all. It's been a brilliant, brilliant panel debate. We run out of time, but thank you all very much. I appreciate it. Piers Morgan Unsensored is proudly independent. The only boss around here is me.

If you enjoy our show, we ask only one simple thing. Hit subscribe on YouTube and follow Piers Morgan Unsensored on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. And in return, we will continue our mission to inform, irritate and entertain. And we'll do it all for free. Independent Unsensored media has never been more critical, and we couldn't do it without you.