The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 1712 - Let Him Cook! Stop Pretending You Understand Tariffs

Episode Date: April 10, 2025

Stocks skyrocket after President Trump pauses the China tariffs, CNN is still using "they/them" pronouns, and The New York Times jumps into the IVF debate.   Click here to join the member-exclusive portion of my show: https://bit.ly/4biDlri   Ep.1712   - - -   DailyWire+:   We’re leading the charge again and launching a full-scale push for justice. Go to https://PardonDerek.com right now and sign the petition.   Now is the time to join the fight. Watch the hit movies, documentaries, and series reshaping our culture. Go to https://dailywire.com/subscribe today.   Live Free & Smell Fancy with The Candle Club: https://thecandleclub.com/michael   - - -   Today's Sponsors:   Vandy Crisps - Start snacking right. Visit https://vandycrisps.com/knowles for 25% off your order.   Balance of Nature - Go to https://balanceofnature.com and use promo code KNOWLES for 35% off your first order PLUS get a free bottle of Fiber and Spice.   - - -   Socials:   Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6   Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA   Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg   Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

USAA knows dynamic duos can save the day, like superheroes and sidekicks or auto and home insurance. With USAA, you can bundle your auto and home and save up to 10%. Tap the banner to learn more and get a quote at usaa.com slash bundle. Restrictions apply. Lots of places can expose you to identity theft. Oh no. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats to your identity, which is way more than anyone can do on their own.

If we find anything suspicious, like new loans or changes to your financial accounts, we alert you right away. All through text, phone, email, or the LifeLock app. Get the alerts that could make all the difference. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash special offer. Terms apply. The best part of waking up? A full cup of Folgers coffee and music on full blast. It's Folgers in your cup.

Shop Fulgers, K-cup pods and more at your nearest retailer. Just when the free traders thought that President Trump really was going to hurl us into a global depression, and just when the protectionists were convinced that Trump was going to hold firm on all the tariffs, just when the pundits and prognosticators and all manner of bloviators were dead certain that they knew exactly what Trump was going to do and why he was going to do it, President Trump confounded all of them by pausing his tariff plan for 90 days on every country but China. And of course, as is always the case with pundits and prognosticators, both sides are claiming victory. The free traders, the panic hands, as Trump dubbed them, insist that they prevailed in convincing Trump to abandon the policy. The protectionists, on the other hand, insists that this was really the plan all along to bluff with all the other countries only to zero in on China, 5D chess.

And both of those theories have big holes in them, which we'll get to in one second. But amid all those voices of total confidence, among all the people who are frequently wrong but never in doubt, there was one man who offered an alternative view. You know how much it pains me to say I told you so. But there was one man who said that both sides of the debate were talking out of their derriers. There was one man who admitted the unspeakable obvious, namely that no one, including senior administration, officials really had any idea what the rationale was behind the tariffs, that Trump's distinct political gift is unpredictability, a man who offered this advice on how to handle the situation. In case you forget, here is a little clip from just a couple of days ago to jog your memory. We'll see how this goes. It is entirely possible that this doesn't work out. It sends us hurtling into a global recession.

Republicans get completely destroyed in the midterms. A Republican never wins election again. It's all possible. Okay. But Trump's gut has been pretty good so far. He won re-election with a mandate to do something different, something much like this. I would just say, channeling my inner spiritual zoomer, let him cook. Okay, let him cook a little bit.

See what he whips up in the kitchen. Trump has a good gut. He's got a good track. record. No one knows what he's thinking, but he won a big election, and we should just let him cook for a little bit. Then yesterday, while everyone was trying to explain why his own definitive theory was always correct, the White House published this three-word statement on the matter. Let him cook, exclamation point. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Nulls show. Welcome back to the show. Also, just when you think all the silly, like, pronoun nonsense is over after the 2024 election, the Dems make a big point to double down on it during the CNN Town Hall. And the White House responds with its own policy on they-them pronouns. We will get to all of that in one moment. First, though, go to vandycrisps.com slash noles get 25% off. Spring is when we throw open the windows and freshen up. That includes refreshing our kitchen.

It's time to ditch seed oils and process snacks. Vandy Crisps are made the old-fashioned way. Real potato chips. They taste better than any chip you have ever tried, so authentic that everything else feels like a cheap imitation. You're not understanding what I'm telling you, I'm afraid, because I wouldn't have unless I had tried Vandy Crisps. It's not just that Vandy Crisps tastes like the greatest potato chip you've ever had. It tastes almost like something totally different. It's almost categorically different. It is rather what a potato chip is supposed to be. It is accessing some atrophied part of your memory from long, long ago when you have this knowledge of what the ideal potato chip is supposed to be. That is Vandy Crisps. Okay. I'm not even joking. I'm kind of saying it in a funny way, but I'm not even joking. It is the greatest chip you will ever have in your entire life. Vandycrisps.com slash Knowles today. Get 25% off your order. Vandycrisps.com slash Knowles today. Get these very

luxurious, delicious potato chips for 25% off. The one thing that you are not allowed to do in political commentary, in politics generally, is to admit uncertainty in anything. But sometimes admitting uncertainty is the most precise take. All of these people, they were so smart. They knew exactly what Trump was going to do. They knew exactly why Trump was going to do it. And they all look foolish today. And look, it takes a big man, it takes a very big handsome man with a great cigar company to admit when he doesn't know exactly what Trump is doing.

But if you admit that fact, then when Trump reverses course and zags when everyone's zigging and confounds everybody else, At least you were honest. You actually give the correct take on things. So what are the alternative views? You're going to have the pundits and prognosticators declaring victory today for their perfect predictions. They're going to say, no, no, no, this was always the plan. This was always the plan. We just threw global markets into turmoil and obliterated a lot of wealth on paper and irritated all of our allies because we were actually always trying to, arrive at this exact position where we take away most of the tariffs on basically everyone except for China. And there is some good evidence for that position. Some good evidence is that the Treasury

Secretary Scott Besson, a very intelligent, very capable man, obviously senior administration official, has said this was the plan all along. This was driven by the president's strategy. He and I had a long talk on Sunday, and this was his strategy all along. And you might even say that he goaded China into a bad position. They responded. They have shown themselves to the world to be the bad actors. And we are willing to cooperate with our allies and with our trading partners who did not retaliate. It wasn't a hard message.

Don't retaliate. Things will turn out well. So you might say Trump has go to China into a bad position. And what is the bad position? The bad position is they've revealed themselves to be bad actors. And so anyway, we were just kind of fooling around with our allies. But China looks really bad. Okay.

The one side can point to them. The side of the argument that says actually Trump just got spooked and this wasn't the plan all along and he was just reacting to markets can point to this somewhat off the cuff statement that Trump. that Trump himself made yesterday. Is it the bond markets that persuaded you to reverse course? No, I was watching the bond market. The bond market is very tricky. I was watching it. But if you look at it now, it's beautiful. The bond market right now is beautiful. But yeah, I saw last night where people were getting a little queasy. I think everything had, well, the big move wasn't what I did today. The big move was what I did on liberation.

And we had Liberation Day in America. We were liberated from all of the horrible deals that were made, all of the horrible trade deals that were made. And I was helped by people just like this, Senator, Congressman, and friends, right? And we had great help in the Senate. Republican senators have been amazing. They stood tall. And likewise in the House. Okay.

So there you got it. Right from Trump. He says, yeah, I was watching the bond market. People were getting a little bit quezies. So anyway, but that's not the big deal. The big deal is what I did when I implemented the tariffs. So both sides of this are going to declare victory and that they were right all along. And the fact is, even today, we don't really know. We don't really know. To this day, I could not tell you exactly what Trump was after on April 2nd with the tariffs.

I can't tell you exactly what he's after right now. And neither can you. And neither can any of these pundits who are pretending like they got a crystal ball. They don't know anything. You think you can predict Trump? Okay, cool, man, good luck. I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. We still don't know. So there's a 90-day pause on the tariffs. That means that the Dow Jones shot up, what, 3,000 points yesterday?

Trump here was talking about the bond market. The U.S. bond market cratered yesterday. Some people were wondering, well, hold on, did the bond market crater because China started dumping U.S. bonds? Don't forget. China owns a lot of U.S. debt. China owns something like on paper, $800 billion worth of U.S. Treasury securities, and in reality, probably it's closer to a trillion dollars or even more than a trillion dollars. So there was this thought, okay, we're in a trade war with China. China's really playing tough.

They're going to stick it out to the end. Maybe they started dumping U.S. bonds to destroy the U.S. bond market, which obviously did spook a lot of people. President Trump is admitting there. He says, yeah, people are getting a little queasy about that. regardless of what this means for the strategy on the tariffs, which I don't really care about. Trump's got a good gut. He's got a good track record. It's a fool's errand to try to predict what he's going to do. And I think we're just going to let him cook for a little bit. I'm not saying forever. I'm not saying give him a total blank check to do whatever he wants. But the guy won a big election. He's got a good track record. Just whatever, man. Don't sweat it. Don't be panicking. I'm all for that.

But this does reveal, I think, the vindication of the Trump. Trump protection strategy writ large. By which I mean this. I don't think that China was dumping U.S. bonds yesterday. I was talking to an investor friend of mine who said, no, I don't think it was China. I think it was actually some other firm and, you know, it was other market forces beyond the Chinese government trying to really get us. However, what that revealed was a major strategic weakness for the United States. We are really susceptible to fluctuations in the bond market. because we're a country that has an insane amount of debt, and a ton of our debt, what, 2 to 3% of our debt,

is owned by our biggest geopolitical adversary. And that's a problem. That's not Trump's problem. It's not even, oh, it is Trump's problem, but it's not a problem created by Trump. It's not a problem created by Joe Biden. It's a problem that goes back decades at this point, but it's a major problem.

It highlights the absolute urgency of reordering our relationship with China. which went off the rails during the Clinton administration because we stupidly allowed China into the World Trade Organization. And we said that bringing China into global trade in a robust way was going to lead to democracy. And China was going to westernize even more and liberalize. And we were all going to hold hands and sing kumbaya as citizens of the world. And that didn't happen. And now we're extremely vulnerable to China.

It's unclear who would win a trade. war, U.S. or China, and it's clear that we have a lot of weak points that China in particular can exploit. Now, on top of all of that, the market rallied like crazy yesterday. When Trump said we're going to put a pause on most of the tariffs for 90 days, the market went nuts. 3,000 points up on the Dow. The investors loved it. However, we should not draw the wrong political conclusion from that. Because while the markets love freer trade and the markets seem to hate protectionism and certainly seem to hate the volatility, public opinion polls are revealing that the American people are on exactly the opposite side of that issue. We'll get to that in one

second. First, though, go to balance of nature.com. Get 35% off when you use code inoles. You've heard me talk about balance of nature many, many times. That's because balance of nature fruits and veggies is the most convenient way to get whole fruits and vegetables daily, especially if you're focused on creating a healthier, happier lifestyle. Nature is pretty good at giving us the nutrients that we need through our fruits and vegetables. So balance of nature takes fruits and vegetables, freeze dries them, turns them into a powder, and puts them into a capsule. You take your fruit and veggie capsules every day, then your body knows what to do with them. Balance of nature is just one ingredient of a balanced lifestyle, has no intention to replace a healthy diet, exercise, sleep,

or any other healthy habits. It is intended to be used in concert with other healthy habits. I really love balance of nature, especially because you know I'm on the road constantly, not always eating well, certainly not exercising. So it's good to know. You can always get your Balance of Nature and the rest of the team here loves it. Balanceofnature.com.

Use promo code Knowles, KnaWLAS. 35% off your first order is a preferred customer. Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice. Balance of Nature.com, promo code Knowles. Also go get that smells and bells candle, baby. Look at that. It's a beautiful candle.

Make your home smell like a 12th century monastery as we approach. Holy Week and Easter, now is the time to do it. Before the announcement, yesterday that Trump was going to pause the tariffs for 90 days. Before the big market jump, Trump's approval rating was still up. Not on Wall Street. I don't think his approval rating was up on Wall Street. Not with big investors, but with the American people. Forty-five percent,

according to Rasmussen, of likely U.S. voters said the government does not do enough to protect U.S. manufacturers and businesses from foreign competition. In other words, 45% saying, we love the tariffs. Only 17% said that the government protects American business too much. So when you hear all of the pundits and all of the prognosticators and all of the fancy people at the think tanks and on TV with the bow ties saying, actually the real problem is that the government is doing too much to intervene in the economy. And actually, they're picking winners and losers. and actually here's my economic analysis of why that's really bad.

Just know, that is a view held by 17% of American voters. 45% of voters, almost three times that group of people, say that the government needs to do more to protect U.S. manufacturing. 25% think that the current level of protection against foreign competition is about right, 14% are not sure. 25% saying the current level of protection against foreign competition is right is a little confusing. because that poll came out after Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs. Now, it's before the effects of those tariffs were really felt.

But that might mean a quarter of people saying, yeah, liberation day tariffs, that's good. That's the right amount of protection. On top of that, 45% of voters said the country was on the right track, up from 44% before the Liberation Day tariffs were announced. So you've got this amazing scenario where the market is saying one thing, and the American people are saying the polar opposite. The market's saying we hate these tariffs. This is horrible. We've lost confidence in Trump.

Everything's good. The Dow Jones is going to tank. The NASDAQ, the S&P, the bond market. Everything's going to go into the gutter. And yet, after the tariffs, the American people say, oh, we actually approve of Trump even more now. Before the tariffs, before that increase in his approval rating, Trump had a 44% approval. That was 98th percentile over the last 19. years of polling when it comes to presidential approval.

That's pretty good. And it went up with the tariffs. Most people are not panic ants, to use that great phrase, and most people, or the plurality of American voters at least, are not ideological free traders. Virtually everyone in the chattering class and the political class and the elite class and the investor class are ideological free traders. the lion's share of Americans are not. So what does this tell you?

This tells you that there's a showdown between Wall Street and Main Street, which is exactly what the Treasury Secretary, Mr. Besant, pointed out yesterday when he was speaking to the American Bankers Association. For the last four decades, basically since I began my career in Wall Street, Wall Street has grown wealthier than ever before, and it can continue to grow and do well. but for the next four years, the Trump agenda is focused on Main Street. It's Main Street's turn.

It's Main Street's turn to hire workers. It's Main Street's turn to drive investment. And it's main streets turn to restore the American dream. The ideological free traders and the libertarians and the ideologues are not going to like that statement. Because they're going to say, actually, a rising tide lifts all ships. And actually, when Wall Street does well, that is good for Main Street. And actually, it doesn't matter if American manufacturing exists at all because Americans are going to save so much money on cheap Chinese goods that they're going to get an extra $5 or $6,000 a year effectively in their pocket. And so who cares if they have a job?

Who cares if they have skills? Who cares if they're rooted in their community? Who cares? They're going to get a bunch of cheap stuff. And in the abstract, that's really, really good. And, yeah, they might not have families and they might overdose on fentanyl and they might just kill themselves. but we don't need. Let Middle America die.

There were people who wrote and said such things the first time Trump was talking about this in 2016. But Bessent and Trump understand a really important political point, which is that politics is not just about some ideology that you can write in a university textbook. And politics is not just about ticking up GDP a little bit

because there are going to be downstream effects that are really good. And everyone's a consumer as well as a producer. And if we're saving money on our consumption, that's really actually good when you really think about it. Uh-uh. There were decisions that were made at the level of the federal government over the past 30, 40 years that allowed, as Bessent points out, Wall Street to flourish, a lot of the time,

and Main Street to suffer. There were trade deals that were signed. there was an intentional move in policy to do this. And it was because the men at that time, going back at least to the Clinton administration, weighed the costs and benefits and said, okay, at this moment, this is what's going to benefit our society. But politics is applying eternal principles to changing circumstances. And when you've got the average American life expectancy declining because of deaths of despair, driven in particular by middle-aged white guys, when you've got American towns being hollowed. followed out when you've got America strategically really, really vulnerable. Because if there's an epidemic and the supply chains get messed up, we're not going to get our food or our medicine.

Even if there's not an epidemic, if China just decides that it's going to dump American debt, we're going to be up the creek without a paddle. Okay. That means that you need to reorient your policy. It's not, when Besson says we're going to privilege Main Street, and we're going to stop focusing so much on Wall Street. He's not engaging in leftist class warfare. He's not saying we hate the Wall Streeters. Scott Besson is a very, famous and very successful Wall Streeter. What he is saying is, in order to advance the common good, and in order to have a functioning polity, we need to refocus a little bit. We need to rebalance. We have neglected one group for too long. And so we're not going to punish the other route,

but for the good of everyone, we are going to refocus our priorities. This is good stuff. This is a very serious conversation taking place on the right. Meanwhile, on the left, there were no serious conversations taking place. CNN held a town hall last night for some reason with Bernie Sanders. And as they're attempting to find the Democrat answer to the real debates on the right, to the real policies that are being enacted, Democrats don't seem to know what they believe about anything. While they're trying to work through these issues,

some woman asking a question focuses on the real issue and corrects Anderson Cooper, because he referred to her as she. We're back for Senator Bernie Sanders. I want to introduce Grace Thomas. She's a local civil rights attorney. She's a Democrat, great? They say them pronouns, actually. Thank you.

Oh. Good evening, Senator Sanders. Polling and turnout data indicate that men of all racial demographics are turning away from the Democratic Party. Okay, I want to translate that exchange. Jake Tapper is sitting there saying, okay, we're doing this show because we really want Democrats to have a chance at even possibly winning elections.

Okay, so we're going to turn to you, lady in the audience. And then the lady takes the mic, she goes, yeah, I actually don't care. I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't care at all. I want to make myself as repulsive as possible to the American people. I want to identify myself in this party with an issue that is so deeply unpopular that we're going to get blown out of elections for the next millennium. And you see Tapper there's, or not Tapper, sorry, Anderson Cooper. Tomato. Anderson Cooper there just saying, Excema is unpredictable, but you can flare less with ebbglis,

a once-monthly treatment for moderate-tissifere eczema. After an initial four-month-month-longer dosing phase, about four and ten people taking ebbglis, achieved itch relief and clear or almost clear skin at 16 weeks, and most of those people maintain skin that's still more clear at one year with monthly dosing. Ebglis, Librikizumab, LBKZ, a 250 milligram per 2-millimeter injection is a prescription medicine used to treat adults in children 12 years of age and older who weigh at least 88 pounds or 40 kilograms, with moderate to severe eczema, also called atopic dermatitis that is not well controlled with prescription therapies used on the skin or topicals or who cannot use topical therapies.

Ebglis can be used with or without topical corticosteroids. Don't use if you're allergic to Epglis. Allergic reactions can occur that can be severe. Eye problems can occur. Tell your doctor if you have new or worsening eye problems. You should not receive a live vaccine when treated with Epglis. Before starting Epglus, tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. Ask your doctor about Ebglis and visit Ebglis.

Or call 1800 LilyRX or 1-800 545-5-9. 979. Okay. We're still doing this. We're still doing they-thems. Okay. Hey, you know what? Let's just wrap it up.

Good night, everybody. We're going to, we'll try this again in two or four years. And maybe then the Democrats will have any interest in even attempting to win votes from people. But good night to you and they and them and those maniacs. So Anderson Cooper talking to Burr. Bernie Sanders here, finally gets Bernie to try to give some sort of vision for America. And Bernie decides he's going to articulate the new Democrat vision by trying and failing to, quote, Ronald Reagan. So the idea that this nation, which all of us want to see as a, what are Ronald Reagan called the city on the mountain?

Chinese sitting on a hill. City on a hill. Close. sorry. I don't quote Reagan all that awful. But, you know, we want to be a model to the world. We want people to look at us and say, we want to be like the United States. Not, oh God, the United States. What are they doing? A nation with this degree of biblical illiteracy cannot long endure. That nation is doomed. I don't. What did Ronald Reagan say? America's like a big, fat, shiny mountain or something like that?

I think he called it a shining city on a hill. Yeah, whatever. I don't really, I don't quote Reagan that much. Where did he put that? Was that in Win 1 for the Gippa? Was that the movie with the monkey? No, actually, it was a, Reagan got it from Governor John Winthrop.

Model of Christian charity. One of the most important speeches ever given in the United States. Oh, yeah, Winthrop. I like him. Yeah, where's that? Where's he from? He was from somewhere in Massachusetts. is a Massachusetts Bay Colony.

Yeah, anyway, he was a smart guy. Actually, he didn't. He got it from the Bible. He got it from our Lord. You don't know where the phrase is shining city on a hill is from? It would be like saying, yeah, what's that phrase? A man had seven daughters?

No, you're thinking of a man had two sons. Yeah, yeah, man had two sons. I don't quote veggie tales very often. No, it's not. There was a time. There was a time in this country, not so long ago where if you uttered the phrase a shining city on a hill, everyone would immediately know not only where that comes from, that that is a statement from the Bible, from our Lord, but also

would have known the rhetorical and intellectual history of that phrase in America. They would have known that it comes from Governor Winthrop. They would have known that Ronald Reagan liked to articulate it. There was a time where if you said there was a man who had two sons, people would immediately know, their mind would immediately go to the parable of the prodigal son. There was a time when we had a common cultural language and common cultural idiom and vision that happened also to be Christian, the religion that has animated not only our country going back to the Mayflower, which is a great cigar company, and also goes back to the religious zealots who founded our country,

but also that animated our whole civilization. And we don't have that anymore. A U.S. senator, who is super old, can't tell you the phrase, a shiny city on a hill. I don't mean to make a mountain out of a mole hill, as it were. But this is pathetic. We are becoming just babbling baboons.

in this country, okay? And our country is going to get uglier and stupider and much less coherent and much less powerful as a result of that. We are truly becoming Philistines. This is completely unacceptable. And I don't mean to just single out Bernie Sanders. I remember, I think it was Leon Cass made this point, the great bioethicist at the University of Chicago, made this point years ago, maybe decades ago at this point. He said he was teaching some of the Crem de la Crem students at the University of Chicago, one of the one of the elite institutions, of higher learning in this country. And he said every year, he would just ask, out of the blue, he would say, hey, who's Noah?

Who's Noah? One of the most important figures in the Bible. He said, every year, fewer and fewer students knew who Noah is. You can't understand Western art. You can't understand the development of Western thought. You can't understand Western society without knowing who Noah. is without knowing what the shining city on a hill is. Without knowing the basics, good grief.

Now, speaking of a religious foundation, really, really important piece in the New York Times. And I'm almost willing to say it's a really good piece. It's a pretty good piece. It's called our embryo's property, human life, neither. Here it is. It's an opinion piece. I say it's almost a really good piece because it's taking the issue of IVF and surrogacy and the baby industry seriously.

So that's why it's quite good. It doesn't go deep enough on an extraordinarily important question, but it's quite good. I really don't mean to counter-signal it. I give a lot of credit here to Anna Louis Sussman and the New York Times for even running this. I'm going to read just a little bit from this piece. Are embryos property human life neither? Before fertility patients, this is right at the top of the piece, before fertility patients begin the long journey through hormone treatments,

egg retrieval fertilization, hopefully if everything goes well, a baby, there's the paperwork. As a first order of business, would be parents are typically presented with a form that requires them to choose the fate of embryos they do not use in the course of building their families. And it goes on to talk about three couples who filled out such contracts. The clinic later said that one family chose to donate any remaining embryos to scientific research. Another decided to destroy any embryos that were frozen after five years. And a third said any embryos deemed not suitable for reproductive purposes, whatever that means,

could be used for research and eventually disposed of. It was not clear, in other words, that these families intended for all of their embryos to be born. So you're saying you create a child. you create multiple children from sperm and egg. These are your little kids. And then you have to fill out of form. You can donate them to unethical scientists who can experiment on your children, eventually kill them. Or you can just kill them straight away or after a period of five years after you've frozen them for five years. Or you can take the ones that you don't think are good enough that maybe they have some defect. Maybe they're not going to be tall enough. They're not suitable for reproductive purposes. And they can be both experimented on, and destroyed. However, this is where the piece gets really interesting. Ultimately, their preferences were moot. In December 2020, a hospital patient wandered into an unsecured room where the couple's

embryos sat in cryogenic storage, picked up the frozen embryos, and stung by the cold, dropped them on the floor. So he just, oopsie-dazy, you know, instead of carrying out your cocktails and dropping them at a restaurant, he's carrying out cryogenically frozen children of yours, drops them on the ground, and kills all of them. Now, you might think that the parents wouldn't care that much, because they've already signed these forms. They say, whatever, we're going to...

You can destroy them. You can experiment on them. You can do whatever you want, but we don't really care. However, in February 2024, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that these lost embryos were extra uterine children, which allowed the three families to proceed with lawsuits against the fertility clinic under the state's 1872 wrongful death of a minor act. So here, don't just try to pin this on those crazy socially conservative

Republicans who are ruling that little embryos are actually children, which they obviously are by any serious definition, it's the three families too. The three families who had signed away their kids to be experimented on and destroyed, they now could sue between the creation of these embryos and their destruction, and as the cases wound their way through years through Alabama courts, their meaning shifted. No longer potentially destined for research or disposal, each embryo had taken on the status in the court's interpretation of a minor child. Then a friend of mine, Leibresco Sargent, wrote, as the New York Times quotes, as the New York Times writes, rather, the case turned embryos into, quote, Schrodinger's persons,

resulting in one parent, bizarrely, needing the embryos to be considered persons in order to prevent them from being born, and the other parent needing to argue that the children were property in order to let them, them be born. Eventually, Judge Richard Gardner reasoned that, quote, as there is no prohibition on the sale of human embryos, they may be valued and sold, and thus may be considered goods or chattels. In other words, the only way to rule on this issue of IVF and surrogacy in the baby market in a way that satisfies the liberal pro-IVF side is to use. You know, is to use. You know, the language and legal reasoning of chattel slavery, antebellum southern chattel slavery.

And in March, another judge rejected Judge Gardner's rationale, calling his reasoning that human embryos could be valued and sold as enslaved people once were in Virginia, a strained construction. How is this a strained construction? This is the only construction that makes sense if we are to tolerate IVF and surrogacy and the baby industry. How else do you do it? In order to defend IVF and surrogacy, you have to argue both that the babies are babies and people, and property rather. You have to argue both of them at the same time.

You have to argue that they're babies in order to protect your babies so that when some clinic worker drops them, you get to sue. You have to argue that they're babies, if you're to have any kind of coherent, conversation about what you're even doing. Why do you go to the baby store in the first place? It's to get a baby. But you have to argue that their property in order to buy them, in order to sell them, or to sell your eggs or rent your womb out. You need to argue that their property in order to order them destroyed. You have to argue that their property in order to donate them for scientific experiments. It has to be both. And so if you support IVF and surrogacy in the baby industry,

you must adopt the precise reasoning that was used to defend slavery in the antebellum South. And that is going to make a lot of libs super uncomfortable. And I want to give props to the New York Times here, because even if they get the issue a little bit wrong, the New York Times is more willing to discuss this issue than even some conservatives than even some pro-lifers. because there are some conservatives and pro-lifers, and I understand it, who will say, well, I got my kid through IVF, and I hadn't really thought through the bioethical implications, and I love my kid, and my kid is obviously good in himself, and anything that would prevent me from having my kid, I oppose. And so I'm just going to turn my reason off for a second, and I'm just going to say I support this thing blindly, without ever dealing with the bioethical implications of it. New York Times is saying, no, we'll deal with it. Good on him. This debate will occur. And one final point on it, I don't want to hear in the debate that, you know, this is really just a scientific question. This is not even a religious question. This is a scientific question. You hear this sometimes from pro-lifers, from social conservatives who are trying their best to appeal to a liberal atheistic culture.

So he says, no, no, no, we're not talking about religion. No, no, no, we'll keep religion out of this. We're just going to talk about science. Well, yeah, science is only going to take you so far. If you're having a debate over policy and ethics, you need to have recourse to religion because you need to come to certain conclusions about morality. Can't talk about ethics without morality. You need to come to certain conclusions about human nature. What a human is? Politics is how human being is lived together. So you got to know what a human being is.

You got to define it. And that's going to partake of religious reasoning. Okay, it is a religious question. All politics ultimately comes down to religious questions. The slavery debate in the 19th century came down to religious questions. Can't avoid that. Which side are you on? Which side are you on, son? The stock market is surging.

As you know, global tariffs are shifting, major headlines with major consequences. But the establishment media won't tell you what's really happening. That's why we exist. At DailyWR Plus, we lead with facts. We deliver the truth. from the most trusted and handsome voices in conservative media. People who say what you're not supposed to say, who fight where you're not supposed to fight,

who never back down. Members get this show ad-free unfiltered with live chat investigative journalism that takes you inside the story premium entertainment that actually reflects your values. Now is the time to become a member. Go to DailyWire.com slash subscribe. My favorite comment yesterday is from Sandy K-067, who says, I'd rather admit that I don't understand how tariffs work

than pretend that I do and look foolish. Yeah, well, that makes you smarter than 99.9% of pundits and economists going on TV right now. No one knows how these tariffs work. Even if you understand in principle how tariffs work, and there are some people who do recognize we haven't had a tariff regime like this or like what could have been before the announcement yesterday, the 90-day pause, since like 1930. Okay, it's been about 95 years since we've seen something like this. and actually the Trump Liberation Day tariffs are more expansive than the Smooth Hally tariffs. Okay.

So that's best case scenario. But then you add on to that Trump's unpredictability. Yeah, no one knows. No one knows. And if you admit you don't know, at least you're being honest. These are the other people. They are not being honest. And their predictions don't come true.

Now, speaking of honesty and truth in the media, the White House press secretary has just made a really, important policy decision when it comes to how the White House is going to communicate. Caroline Leavitt has told the New York Times, quote, as a matter of policy, we do not respond to reporters who have pronouns in bios. There were some reports coming out that journalists were writing to the White House and they were having their emails ignored. They were told they wouldn't get an answer because the journalists listed pronouns in their bios, any kind of pronouns. Even if you're a man, says he him, or a woman, she, her. But even the crazy ones where you're a man but says she her or you're an individual person,

but your pronouns are they, them or something. Regardless, Caroline Levitt says, quote, any reporter who chooses to put their preferred pronouns in their bio clearly does not care about biological reality or truth and therefore cannot be trusted to write an honest story. So true. And this gets back to the point. I think the Trump administration, I think,

Caroline Leavitt, the whole communications team has done such a great job. I said during the transition, I said, this is a great opportunity, not only for Trump to reset the relationship between the citizen and the government, but also the relationship between the citizen and the press and the government. And in order to reset that, in order to boot some hack establishment reporters out of the White House briefing room, in order to give new voices a seat at the table, in order to reset all of this, you have to first ask yourself, what is the press briefing room for? What is the White House press pool for? Why does the government talk to reporters in the first place? There's two reasons. One, so that the White House can communicate with the people,

typically done through a medium. There was a medium of communication. Media is the plural of medium. And the other reason is to have the people's questions asked of the government. That was also done through this medium. or multiple media. Today, in the age of social media, those reporters are much less important,

just off the bat. But assuming we're still going to keep some reporters in the room, if the purpose is to truthfully communicate what the government's doing to the people and truthfully communicate what the people want to know to the government, then if you have reporters who are dishonest whose views and priorities are totally out of sync with those of the American people,

who bear an irrational hatred of the government and will lie about the government to the people, then what's the point of having them there? The first thing you have to look for in a reporter, especially one who is going to be given the privilege of access to the White House, is their trustworthiness. Are they going to tell the truth? Are they capable of telling the truth? Are they willing to tell the truth? Can they be trusted to do their job with integrity? if a reporter feels the need to write his pronouns in his email bio, that tells you right off the bat. That person has a tenuous at best relationship with the truth.

Even if they're the correct pronouns, the fact that he even thinks it's necessary, if a guy named Johnny feels it's necessary to write his pronouns, or if a big husky dude walks up to someone says, oh, my pronouns are he, him, or even if they're the correct pronouns, you say, oh, you don't have a strong relationship with reality. So we're not going to talk to you. That is a good policy. That is not only a justifiable policy. It's not, and it's certainly not punishing the White House's enemies needlessly. That's just doing what the White House communications team was built to do. Excellent stuff from the White House. Now, speaking of the administration, I've been meaning to get to this for a little while now, a couple of days. But there's a couple of days. But there's a lot. The news just keeps coming in so fast.

Are we going to World War III? We have just seen, and this is barely being reported, the largest deployment of stealth bombers in U.S. history. Six B-2 aircraft sent to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, B-2 aircraft that are designed to evade Iranian radar and air defenses, aircraft that are not being held in hangars, they're being put out for all the world to see, all the spies of the world, all the satellites can take pictures of them. Trump, meanwhile, telling Iran that hell will rain down on them, that's a quote, and bombing the likes of which they have not seen could result if Iran proceeds with its nuclear program and doesn't come to the table. Are we headed to World War III? Are we in World War III? What is this about? Very clear what Trump is doing here. Sometimes it's a little dice here to interpret what Trump is doing, as we've discussed today. This one to me seems pretty clear. Trump is speaking in blunt terms to Iran to bully Iran into toning down the nuclear program.

Trump is sending a message to Iran by sending the largest deployment of stealth bombers in history out right in the open for all to see. But he's not posting pictures of those bombers on truth social or Twitter. Why? Because he needs to convince Iran that he will strike them. He needs to convince Iran that he will do it, that he will blow up Tehran if they proceed. sue the nuclear weapon. But simultaneously, he needs to assure Americans that he won't really do it. Because Americans don't want war with Iran. But the United States needs to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon for our long-term strategy. So Trump has this very difficult balancing act. Are we, and are we in World War III? I heard there are Chinese troops fighting in Ukraine right now with Russia. That's what Zelensky said. We were talking about Schrodinger's baby earlier, This is sort of Schrodinger's war.

Got massive tariffs, massive trade hostilities, massive buildup of arms, direct threats of war. Are we? Lots of uncertainty. All right. That's where we've been. Embrace the uncertainty. Don't immunize the eschaton.

You know, don't imagine that we need to, we don't know. We don't know what is going to happen, even tomorrow. But what I do know that's about to happen right now is that Congressman Mark Harris is going to come on the show. to discuss a really, really important legislative priority, which we'll get to in one moment. The rest of the show continues now. You do not want to miss it. Become a member use code NOLS, KNAWLES,

and check out for two months free on all annual plans.