The President's Daily Brief - PDB Situation Report | March 22nd, 2025: Trump’s Venezuelan Gang Deportations & U.S. Hits Back At Houthis

Episode Date: March 22, 2025

In this episode of The PDB Situation Report: The Trump administration is deporting hundreds of alleged gang members to El Salvador using a rarely invoked law from 1798. Art Arthur from the Center for Immigration Studies joins us to explain the legal and political implications. The U.S. intensifies its strikes on Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, as President Trump vows to annihilate the group for targeting U.S. ships. Bill Roggio, editor of FDD's Long War Journal, breaks down what’s really happening on the ground. To listen to the show ad-free, become a premium member of The President’s Daily Brief by visiting PDBPremium.com. Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief. YouTube: youtube.com/@presidentsdailybrief Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Wireless can feel like a world of traps, but not with Visible. It's one-line wireless with unlimited data and hotspot, powered by Verizon for $25 a month, taxes and fees included. Plus, for a limited time, new members pay just $20 a month for one year on the Visible plan, using the code Fresh Start. Refresh your wireless with Visible. Tap the banner to switch today. Terms apply, limited time offer subject to change. See Visible.com for plan features and network management details. Welcome to the PDB Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right,

let's get briefed. We'll start off today with the controversy behind the administration's deportation of hundreds of alleged gang members to El Salvador, using a law that dates back all the way to 1798. Art Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies will join us to provide insight. Later in the show, the U.S. continues to pound the Iran-backed hooting rebels as President Trump vows that the Yemen-based group will be annihilated for attacking U.S. ships. Editor of the Foundation for Defense of Democracy's Long War Journal, Bill Roggio, will help us sort out what's happening there, and there's a lot to unpack. But first, our situation reports spotly. The Trump administration has deported over 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, citing national security concerns,

and invoking the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798. I believe the last time it was used was some 80 years ago during World War II. Officials say these individuals are linked to the Trendaaragua gang, a TDA gang, and have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Seacot facility. That's the high-security mega-prison known for housing violent gang members. A federal judge attempted to halt the move while the planes were reportedly still in the air heading to El Salvador, but the administration pushed forward, sparking outrage from advocates who argue many of the deportees have no criminal ties.

Venezuela President Nicholas Maduro called it a, quote, kidnapping. Well, he's certainly on moral high ground to judge anyone, while the White House insists it's a tough but necessary measure to ensure national security. Joining me now is the Resident Fellow in Law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, Art Arthur. Thanks very much for joining us here on the PDB Situation Report. Thanks so much for having me, Mike. Absolutely.

Well, let's, I guess let's start at 30,000 feet. Talk to me about the recent deportation, the Venezuelans, the TDA gang members. Give us sort of an overview of how that took place, and then we can kind of dive into the degree to which those sort of actions are going to be stopped by the judges. So generally, when aliens are deported from the United States, they're deported under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the INA or Title VIII as the Biden administration would refer to it. And, you know, that's the baseline of loss that we use to determine who can come in, you know, who should be set away, and, you know, who should be allowed to stay. But with respect to

the Trenda Erdogan members who were sent by the Trump administration to El Salvador, those individuals were actually expelled under a different authority. The Alien Enemies Act of Sessions, 1798, a law that was passed during a period of time when France was in the throes of a revolution and the United States was afraid that it was going to get dragged into that war. And it allows the president to detain and deport individuals who are nationals of countries with which were at war, or alternatively, individuals who have invaded the United States. And the president's contention is that Trendy Arabi is such a well-organized. criminal cartel, transnational criminal organization, that they function sort of as a state,

and also that they have ties to the regime of Venezuelan strongman, Nicholas Maduro. And thus, the president concludes that the authorities and the Alien Enemies Act are sufficient to allow him to take those Trans-Daragua members and send them outside the United States. What do you think? Is that a correct interpretation? I think it's definitely an authority that the president has. I think that it's appropriate for him to make a determination. He knows a whole lot more about how Trend de Arrawah operates and what relationship they have with the socialist government in Venezuela than most of the American people do. And like most of that information is, you know, highly sensitive information, law enforcement sensitive stuff, national security related information. In fact, national security has been one of those things that's come up in the court case against this.

So, you know, it's, I'm not going to say it's a stretch, but it's definitely a novel interpretation of the Alien Enemy's Act, which I think was last used during World War II when certain German, Italian, and primarily Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps. Now, again, none of these people are being detained in the United States. they're being sent out of the United States. And that then leads all sorts of questions. Like in the aftermath of this, even while the planes were reportedly still in the air, there was obviously a ruling from a, I believe, a trial judge who said, nope, can't do it, turn those flights around, bring them back to the states. Now, does that, I mean, I guess we're dipping into all sorts of legal issues here,

but the White House, it was interesting. they came back and said, well, you know, I'm sorry, but a trial judge doesn't have authority over foreign policy decisions, which is how they couch to this when they started seeing the legal pushback. To what degree do you think it's appropriate for the justice system to step in? I mean, we are talking about something that hasn't been invoked for what you pointed out 80 years or so. Yeah, the judging question is Judge Jim Bosberg, who's the chief judge of the district court for the District of Columbia. And he is considering a lawsuit, a challenge to the President's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport individuals from the United States. And generally, when the judiciary

gets involved in any situation like this, the first thing that they do is tell everybody to just stop, hold on, so that the court has the opportunity to determine what's going on. He issued a temporary restraining order, which is, you know, that sort of just... stop for a moment so I can figure it out. As it relates to the foreign policy of the United States and Judge Boseberg's order, gets into a question that the Trump administration had to deal with the first time around, and that is nationwide or universal injunctions. Generally, when you go into a court of law, you're arguing your case on behalf of yourself. Apparently, none of the people who were actually parties to that suit were removed from the United States. The individuals who were

removed from the United States were a larger class of individuals who weren't actually named parties. So, you know, the pushback from the Trump administration in part has to do with those universal jurisdictions, particularly given the fact that apparently these planes were outside of U.S. airspace and therefore outside of the United States. But, you know, whenever the president attempts to, you know, use any of these novel authorities, he's going to get pushback. The question is how quickly the courts could move. The first time around, courts didn't move very quickly. And so a lot of Trump administration policies were simply sidelined indefinitely. This time around, the administration's interested in having everything move a lot more quickly, having the court's issue decisions

were alternatively not at all, and just let things proceed while the dust settles. So we're to see how that ends up. All of this is going to the Supreme Court. Okay. Yeah, that seems where it's headed. Okay, if you could, I suppose, argue, now I'm not an attorney, but I have watched a lot of attorney shows on TV. And you could argue, I suppose, that once those deportees, say you've got two plane loads of TDA gang members, once they leave U.S. airspace, they're not, you know, U.S. citizens by any stretch of the imagination. So they're out of jurisdiction of U.S. courts. And so therefore, once they're sitting in a prison in El Salvador, the U.S. justice system, you could argue, doesn't have any sway over what happens to them. Yeah, that's certainly

the position that the Trump administration is making, you know, that courts don't get to decide foreign policy, courts don't get to decide defense policy. So when it comes to certain, critical, you know, plenary powers that the president has, the power of the judiciary is extremely limited. In fact, even the Supreme Court has found that in the past in some very, you know, high-profile cases. So, yeah, I mean, you know, the idea that a federal judge has the ability to order the United States government to return a person who's not a United States citizen from a prison that's not run by the United States definitely, you know, wades into some novel legal issues. Again,

That's why I said the Supreme Court's ultimately going to have to decide this because, you know, short term, no solution is going to make everybody happy. And, you know, the Supreme Court not because they're the best, but because they're the last. Yeah, yeah. Well, you've, you know what? You've won our statement of the obvious award that no decision is going to make everybody happy. And you're absolutely correct. Look, is it interesting to you? that this maneuver using the 1798 Act and sending off these TDA gang members, I believe

they were also a little over a dozen MS-13 members, it puts the Democrats in a position of having to try to fight for their rights in a way? Yeah, and you know, that's an interesting thing, Mike. One of the things that Donald Trump has done during his second go-round is that he's identified a lot of what we call in politics 80-20 issues where about 80% of the American people feel one way and a minority of people feel the other. As it relates to the rights that, you know, gang members or cartel members or, you know, it's important to note that TDA isn't just a gang. There are a well-organized group that started in a prison in Venezuela and since has become a criminal enterprise of the highest order. You know, there aren't many Americans who are going to be concerned about the rights

those individuals have and even fewer Americans who want those individuals to remain in the United States. So I think that politically the president is on great grounds. You know, picking a fight with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may not win him many friends, but I think that the American people want somebody who's going to do something to respond to the crime, and especially the ailing crime that we've seen over the last four years. And that's definitely the marching orders the president got from the election. And he's followed. Okay. Yeah. All right, if you could Stay with us. Just don't go anywhere. We've got to take a quick break right now. But we'll be back with Art Arthur. We're going to dive into this topic. There's a lot to uncover here. And we'll be right back with the situation report. How many discounts does USAA auto insurance offer? Too many to say here.

Multi-vehicle discount. Safe driver discount. New vehicle discount. Storage discount. How many discounts will you stack up? Tap the banner or visit usaa.com slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. Art, Arthur, Art, thanks very much for sticking around. I've got a couple more questions about this TDA, Venezuelan, El Salvador deportation issue, because I do find, and I think a lot of people find it fascinating. And then I want to kind of veer off towards the Middle East.

But with this, is this incident where we had a couple of plane loads reported, of TDA gang members, some MS-13 members, sent off to El Salvador, where Buckelé, the president, then put them into a high-security prison. Is that the first and only incident so far where the White House has used the alien enemies at? It's the only one that I'm aware of. I anticipate that there are probably more TDA members and perhaps some other cartel members. It's important to note that the president has Secretary of State Marco Rubio, DHS Secretary, Christy Noem, and Pan Bondi, the Attorney General, with identifying groups that should be designated as foreign terrorist organizations, and that includes cartels. You know, the Mexican cartels, we think about CJNG,

the Alisco New Generation Cartel, Sinaloa, Gulf, some other smaller cartels, those have now been designated and the president could potentially use that same authority because his conclusion is those cartels have also invaded the United States. So stay tuned. There might be more plights taken off soon. Is that an important link? I mean, so you, in a sense, one has to follow, or one follows the other so you can designate as a foreign terrorist organization and then you can use that as your foundation for justifying the deportation under the alien enemies there? That's one of the books. The other book is this whole idea of invasion, these groups have, you know, that they are, you know, de facto political organizations that

they have invaded the United States. So that's the hook that the president's using. Again, it's a novel hook. I can't say that it's completely fallacious hook or that it has no, you know, legal standing. You know, this is definitely a power that, you know, at the time that the Alien Enemies Act was passed, we were concerned about pirates. We were concerned about smuggling. There were cases you know, from Alexandria, Virginia, involving smoglish. So, you know, this is, you know, definitely one of those things that your textualist judiciary is going to be very interested in exploring and determining whether this is an appropriate use of the power.

Okay. Well, now you've got me and a number of PDB listeners making notes and to look up the meaning of the word fallacious at some point. So thank you very much for that. Now, is the problem, again, and this will be the last question then. And like I said, we've got a very other, very interesting other topic here to pursue. But is the primary concern or are they forming as their primary concern from the Democrat side? Again, not to get, you know, turn this into a political conversation, but I am fascinated by the pushback. The optic is unusual, right? He's, the Trump administration has kind of now set up a situation where the Democrats are apparently already. appears at first glance fighting for the rights of TDA or MS-13 gang members. And is it that, what they're saying is, look, there's very serious potential for overreach if you start using this alien enemies act or if you start, you know, pursuing groups that it's not just this group.

Suddenly you can go out and deport toddlers or puppies. Yeah. And, you know, that goes to one of their key talking points or one of their, you know, core beliefs. And that is that Donald Trump, Trump has authoritarian instincts, that he is, you know, a totalitarian and that if we don't fight for the rights of the, you know, least deserving individuals in this country, that eventually the rights of ordinary citizens could be, you know, impinged or impuged. But, you know, plainly, these are individuals who are foreign nationals. They have very, you know, limited rights in the United States, especially once they're outside the United States. And I think that that's overblown. But, you know, this whole concept that, you know, Trump has these authoritarian

instincts that he's different from any president in history. I served under six different presidents. And, you know, I could assure you that when it came to immigration, Joe Biden was the outlier, not Donald Trump. So, yeah, I mean, and, you know, Trump also inherited a very significant situation because of the Biden administration's immigration policies where he does have to deal with a lot of immigrant criminals in this country. The, you know, immigration court system is slow. The Alien Enemies Act is a lot quicker if courts allow them to use it. You worked for six different presidents? I think so. I'd have to get out the law. That's remarkable. That's right. Okay, now let's, it's just between you and me, but who was your favorite? They were all great, tough to choose.

It was like my children. Oh, come on. Everybody knows. We all have a favorite child. Come on. But actually we don't. I'm kidding. If my kids are listening and they typically do, I'm just joking. And so is art. Okay. Let's switch. We're talking about, you just mentioned, the rights of individuals who are in the states under various classifications, whether they're citizens, green card holders, permanent residence, whatever may be. That takes us to the saga of one Mr. Khalil. Talk to me if you could, art. set the stage for what happened with this individual who suddenly found himself in the news as a result of leading pro-Palestinian or pro-Hamas or anti-Israel, however we want to refer to them, protests on college campuses here in the U.S. So, Batmood Khalil is a graduate student or, you know, a person who's about to graduate from Columbia University. He was born in Syria, a Palestinian parent, and he is married to a United States citizen who's pregnant with his child. He has a green card. I believe he got his green card back in

November. And he was arrested a few weeks back by ICE officers because the State Department is determined that his presence in the United States has potentially serious adverse foreign policy implications for the United States. There's a specific ground of removability section 237A4C that permits the Secretary of State to make such a determination and that renders an individual against him such a determination has been made removable from the United States, even if you have a green card. And the basic idea is that, you know, if this person simply being in the United States has some very serious foreign policy impact, and for that reason the person has to go, probably The best scenario that you and I could think about for this would be the Shah of Iran.

You remember, after he was deposed, the Shah came to the United States for medical treatment, and his presence in this country eventually led to the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. So, and that's really why Congress wrote that law, and now it's being used against Mr. Khalil. He's sitting in custody in Louisiana right now. What do you think? The really critical part of this, Mike, and this is the part that nobody's talking about, is what that foreign policy interest is. You know, Secretary of State Rubio has talked a lot about this guy and about how, you know, aliens in the United States don't have a right to live here

permanently. And, you know, he's more or less correct about that. But, you know, a lot of people are missing that crucial point. There are a couple of things. One could be our foreign policy relationship with Israel. Mr. Khalil has apparently, you know, been implausible. in some way in process that happened at Columbia University called by a group called Columbia University apartheid divest. And CUAD is they're called, has been accused of, you know, some criminal activity that they've, you know, threatened Jewish students and other students go into class in Columbia. So it's possible that the foreign policy implication could be the treatment that foreign students at Columbia University are receiving. If you're a Jewish student from Canada or

Germany or the UK and you feel threatened in going to class, you know, that's going to have foreign policy implications because the way we treat foreign nationals in the United States is more or less the way we expect other people to treat us. I think that Marco Rubio's ultimate letter, which hasn't been disclosed, it's going to be very enlightening on these issues. I think that the issue from the left, right, is, I mean, with this, there's a number of issues there, but I'm always fascinated to see how they frame their narrative, right, from the outset. And obviously, the first thing they said was, you know, freedom of speech. Look, Khalil's here, he's got a green card. Interestingly, it seemed as if when they first went to

pick him up, they were under the impression he was just here on a student visa. Have you seen anything related to that? And so I've actually taken a look of what purports to be the notice to appear in his case. And it both says that he was a student and that they he is a lawful permanent resident. So he probably adjusted his status. That's perfectly legal. You can go from being a tourist to being a green card holder or a student. That part is legal. But to your point, and I have a feeling I know where you're going with this, the law is clear that the Secretary of State cannot make this determination based upon statements, beliefs, or associations, or activities in associations in the United States that are lawful,

in the United States, which means that Marco Rubio seems to think that Mr. Khalil has done something that would be unlawful in this country. Now, and this is an important caveat that I have to add, even if Khalil's activities were lawful and even if Rubio has made the determination that they were, if his presence implicates a compelling or compromises a compelling foreign policy issue, then he could still go ahead, Rubio could still go ahead and move to deport Khalil. So that letter is going to be absolutely crucial. Do you know when that is coming out? I mean, is there a time frame for that or is there a requirement to issue that letter within a certain period of time? So that letter

has to be presented to the immigration judge at the time that Mr. Khalil is presented in immigration court so that the judge can make a determination that it was properly issued. And really, the only part of this that the judge can, you know, rule on is whether or not it was properly issued. The judge can't second guess the foreign policy, you know, interest that was asserted. But I think both sides in this case, Mike, and I think this is really the interesting part. Both sides are looking forward to that hearing. And, you know, wait to see whether Kaleel allows that hearing to be public or whether, you know, we asked for the courtroom to be closed. Is that up to Khalil and his attorneys to make that decision?

He can make that requests, and the judge, you know, generally will grant those requests. But I think that Mr. Khalil probably wants to use that hearing as a platform by which to, you know, say, I'm just a good guy, I'm simply here in the United States. I'm going to be the father of a child, you know, and, you know, to, you know, sort of, you know, present his political views. I think that the administration is interested in, you know, using that hearing as a platform at which you can discuss everything that happened in Columbia University. If you do all the reading on this case and what happened in Columbia, I'm sure you have, I know I have, you know, it's all over the map. On the one hand, you know,

they're simply peacefully protesting. On the other hand, there are students that are afraid to go to class and custodians that were, you know, threatened with assault and locked in rooms. So it'll be interesting to hear what comes out. Much like the TDA issue and the Alien Enemies Act, the deportation now to El Salvador, do you imagine that this Khalil issue is heading to the Supreme Court? I think that the constitutionality of this ground of removal is headed to the Supreme Court. It was only used once in the past in a case that was very tangentially involved in called Madison. of Ruizmissue, it involved the former deputy attorney general of Mexico. Now, he died before that case could make its way through the federal courts. I think the constitutionality of this one

is definitely headed with the Supreme Court. But, Mike, when it comes to foreign policy issues, the Supreme Court is very deferential to the executive branch. Very interesting. And when, a final question, when is the hearing? We don't know. It's to be said. It hasn't been publicly stated when that's going to be scheduled. But Given the fact that he's in detention, ICE has an interest in having that case as quickly as possible because they have to pay about 150 bucks per day for every day that he sits in detention. And he doesn't want to sit in detention any longer than he has to. Mr. Khalil probably also wants this thing to happen as quickly as possible. Okay. Well, and that was not actually my last question.

My last question is when we find out when the hearing is, we get those, you know, that starts to develop where we get the results. I hope you'll come back. I look forward to it. I mean, it's going to be absolutely fascinating. And I hope that, you know, not just you and I, but many in the press, you know, seriously and objectively look at these issues because I think objectivity has been one of those things that's been lost in both of these cases. Yeah, I think objectivity and maybe civil discourse. Those two things seem to have been lost over a number of years. All right. Listen, thank you very much for joining us, Art Arthur, here on the BDB Situation Report. forward to the next time we'll get a chance to talk. Coming up next, the U.S. continues its campaign against the Houthis in Yemen.

Remember them? Bill Roggio of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Well, he joins us for more on that. Stay with us. Fox News is now streaming live on Fox One. When it matters most, turn to the voices you trust. We go beyond the headlines, bringing you the stories you won't hear anywhere else. Live coverage, sharp analysis, real perspective. At home or on the go, stay connected when it counts.

Stream Fox News on Fox One. Download today. Welcome back to the Situation Report. The U.S. campaign against Houthi rebels continued this week with President Trump vowing that American military strikes would, quote, completely annihilate the Iran-backed militants. Now, here's a spoiler alert and a little bit of a pro tip. When it comes to terrorist organizations, it's extremely hard to completely annihilate any of them. In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump warned Tehran to cut off military aid, quote, immediately and leave the Khutis to, quote, face the fight alone. His comments came as U.S. forces carried out fresh strikes on Houthi positions in Yemen, part of what officials describe as a sustained effort to stop the group's attacks on

Red Sea shipping. Joining me now is Bill Roggio, is the editor of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy's Long Ward Journal. Bill, welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Thanks very much for joining us again. Always a pleasure. Thanks for having me. Absolutely, man. Listen, we got a lot to talk about, but let's start with the Houthis, right? What's up with the Houtis? And you don't, listen, you don't hear that sort of, you know, insightful question all the time. But let's start from sort of the top level in case people aren't familiar with this group. Let's talk about them a little bit if you could. And then let's dig down into why they've become such a focus and a target of the Trump administration. The Houthis are a militia terrorist organization

that's taken control of, I would say, about half of Yemen. I did this in mid-2010s, about 2015. It's backed by Iran, so it's one of Iran's what they call the access of resistance. These are the Shia militias that span the Middle East in Iraq and Syria, in Gaza and the West Bank, Lebanon, of course, being Hezbollah, being what used to be the premier militia, probably still is. The Houthis have become a very influential militia, particularly since the Israelis' responded to Hamas' devastating attack on Israel in October 17,0223. One month after the attack, Houthis said that it would attack Israel, as well as Western and international shipping moving through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

So they've been firing missiles and drones and other military hardware that it's accumulated first from taking over the many government and also being supplied by the Iranians. So international shipping, a significant portion, I think it's like 15% of the international shipping leaves through the Red Sea, through the Gulf, through the Suez Canal. And it's driven on shipping costs, shipping times. But also, they've directly attacked US warships. So the Biden administration delisted the Houthis as a foreign terrorist organization immediately after taking office.

Bill, if I can interrupt you, why? Why was there some significant change in the Khutis objectives or focus that caused the Biden administration to drop them as a foreign terrorist organization? The Biden administration believed that the designation prevented aid from flowing into Yemen. And so the Trump administration designated as a terrorist organization on its way out the door in January 2021. And the Biden administration came in. It's one of the first things it did was de-listing. 80s, which made absolutely made no sense. Part of it, I think, was a finger in the eye to the Trump administration as well. It did like that the Trump administration listed them, you know, on its way

out the door. One of the Trump administration's first things it did when it took office two months ago was, I actually did it last month, was to relist the Othese as an foreign terrorist organization, as it should have been its attacks on shipping and its attacks that's also attacked Israel directly after the Hamas's attack on Israel. It should never have been renewed. Now, the Duhutis do not control all of Yemen. They've been in a civil war, right? With, you know, the established government, even though that established government, for the most part, controls very little of the country. But when you would talk about it. the Houthis and their capabilities, are they more like an established military at this point? Do we have a headcount for how many fighters they have? To what degree are they an actual, you know, national military as opposed to a paramilitary group or what we would consistently think of as a terrorist organization?

Yeah, they've bounded the term or the status of terrorist organization. It controls the apparatuses of the state. It has a military. It's military has to have it. over 100,000 fighters, we could call them soldiers in the organization. I much view it like, you know, like the Taliban. We don't want to recognize the Taliban as being the government of Afghanistan, but they're the de facto government of Afghanistan. It possesses a military, military hardware. It's running ministries. It's provided limited, but services. It's providing the services of state. It's really the Houthis are a terrorist state, just as the Taliban is a terrorist state. And it's a terrorist state sponsored, as you pointed out, and funded, trained, resourced by the Iranian regime, while, correct me if I'm wrong, the Saudis, primarily

the Saudis, have been on the other side of that equation supporting what still is or was the established or recognized government of Yemen in this proxy war between the two. That's absolutely correct. And I do believe that that was another reason the Biden administration delisted the Houthis because of animosity with the Saudis over the Saudis, how it was fighting the Houthis. That was a major mistake by the U.S. It caused serious rifts. And look, I have my issues with Saudi government. But, you know, if, you know, You have few allies in the region and they were fighting an Iranian client, you know, an Iranian proxy. And that was a fight that we should have been supporting.

But the Biden administration, because of the Saudi government's murder of the reporter, the Saudi reporter, the Saudi reporter, Khashoggi, there was, you know, that was a big issue for the Democratic Party. Yeah, it's sort of that hope and change concept. You actually have to deal with the people that, you know, live in the world that you have rather than the world that you'd love to have. And I think sometimes, you know, moving from one administration to another, you know, you can see the differences, right? You have to be a little bit more pragmatic about the way that the world operates, I think. And sometimes your allies or your friends may not, you know, have all your best interests at heart. But you've got to deal with, you know, the real world as it exists rather than you love for it to exist. You know, I hate Bill, I'm climbing down off my soapbox now.

Talk to me about what the U.S. government is doing, what the military is doing at this stage to try to get this under control. Yeah, so over the last week, the U.S. military has launched airstrikes against the Uthis. They're targeting. So the Biden administration did this, but in a limited capacity. It was primarily fighting a defense of war against the Houthis, used up a lot of air defense. But what they were doing was targeting things and not, which you have to target things. Military hardware. They were targeting missiles on launch ads, weapons storage sites.

But it was infrequent and it wasn't done with an intensity that could actually set back. They refused to go after military leaders and political leaders of the Houthis. The Trump administration, you know, I'm seeing they're not as concerned with going after the people aspect. And if you want to go after the Houthis, look, hardware can be replaced. And the Iranians are very willing to replace that hardware. They've done this over time, and they've been effective at replacing that hardware. But so now the Trump administration does seem to be going after military commanders. I haven't seen an indication that they've targeted military or political leadership at this time.

That, to me, will be the determining fact that the U.S. military, the U.S. government has to decide that it, you know, it needs to launch a full-scale camcule. against the Houthis in order to get them to stop. And I think these strikes aren't just aimed at the Houthis themselves. The reality is the Houthis haven't launched attacks against U.S. warships for several months. But I also think this is a message directly to the Iranians that this administration isn't going to tolerate the actions by their proxies, particularly as egregious, you know, as the Houthis, a bit. And to get to your point about policy between administrations, this is something that really needs to change.

This, if this haphazard, you know, lack of, you know, a coherent policy that spans administrations, that's something over the last 20 years that is really, you know, lack of continuity of foreign policy and how we deal with threats like the Iranians, like the Uthis, it really. really weakens us. It emboldens the Iranians to get the Houthis. They do this because they perceive us as weak. Yeah, and it does seem to if we're operating at least currently, the Trump administration is kind of doing a two-track effort here. As you pointed out, the military strikes on the Houthi sites to degrade their abilities, but also at the same time putting this pressure on the Iranian regime, saying, look, you have to stop your support otherwise. Now, you know, we can

talk about where that may go to what degree can we be successful. Can the U.S. be successful in influencing Iran to step away from one of their, what have been one of their key proxies. But before we do that, Bill, we have to take a quick break. If you could stay with us, we will be right back with more. Bill Rojo and the Situation Report. This is Euphoria Calvin Klein, the new Elixir Collection, featuring three perfume intense scents, inspired by a unique Orchid Accord. Peered with vanilla, each with its own distinct attitude, each with its own universe. Bold elixir.

Sensual. Woody. Addictive. Magnetic elixir. Sweet and romantic like a lingering touch. Solar elixir. A radiant expression of joy. Ultra concentrated for amplified impact and lasting power.

Find your euphoria. Discover the euphoria elixir collection by Calvin Klein. Choice hotels get you more of what you value. Comfort in. It's calling your name. Save our own. the stain. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim. Book direct at storeshiltails.com. Starting a business can seem like a daunting task, unless you have a partner like Shopify.

They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing, to selling, and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and all birds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into, sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer. Welcome back to the Situation Report. Joining me again is Bill Rozier. He's the editor of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy's Long War Journal. Bill, thanks very much for sticking around. We've been talking chutis, all thing, when we look at the actions of that group, I mean, we've been dealing with this with

Hezbollah with Hamas, trying to impact their actions, their objectives, while all the time kind of sitting above them as the puppet master of the Iranian regime, are we dealing with the same? Is it the same as Hamas and Hezbollah with the Houthis, or do the Houthis have more autonomy in the way that they conduct themselves? All of Iran's proxies have a degree of autonomy. The Iranians are never going to ask the Houthis to do something that would threaten the Houthis these interests that would threaten the viability of the Houthis. The same goes with Hezbollah that goes with Hamas or any of these terrorist organizations, the Iraqi militias, the Syrian militias. However, they all share common goals, common interests, a common ideology.

So when the Iranians go to the Houthis and say to them, or the Houthis go to the Iranians and say, we want to hit international shipping, they work that out between them. If the Iranians The Iranians think that the Houthis actions are going to prepare the group, they'll try and dial them back. There's some reporting out there now that the Iranians are trying to advise the Houthis to, you know, to dial it back. Do you believe they're doing that? Or is that just window dressing for plausible deniability? Within that, there is a deniability. The Iranians are insisting they don't tell the Houthis what to do, that Houthis are their own entity.

the Iranians will claim that they're not directing their activities. That's, of course, all is a lie. I do believe that there is some truth that the Houthis may have overreached here, not because of, well, only because the change of administrations. And this is where the change of administrations works against the Iranians, right? If there was a Biden or a Harris administration and you had continuing policies, I'd be very much willing to bet that the Ulius would be resuming strikes. So they do act rationally to ensure their survival.

Okay. But they, I mean, it's written on their flag, right? I mean, their objective is aligned with the Iranian regime's objective, which is essentially the destruction of Israel. Their motto is that Israel, death to America, long-lived Islam. I'm paraphrasing it. But that's really it. Yeah, at the end of the day, they want those things, but they need to be, they need to survive.

And this is stunning, if you would ask me about nine months ago, you know, the Iranians had, and their proxies had all the advantages, but they definitely overreach. They didn't calculate that the Israelis were willing to launch strikes deep into Israel, which is really, I think, shocked the Israelis at the, I'm sorry, the Iranians, at the Israeli the abilities to launch targeted strikes against their infrastructure. Okay, so where does this, I know this is a tough question to answer, but, you know, top line, where do you think this goes with this current conflict related to the Houthis? I believe that they are going to back down. They're not going to admit it, but I don't think

we're going to see it continuing attacks against US shipping, particularly if the Trump administration directly targets Houthi leadership. Their leaders, they want to survive. They want to follow through on their death to America and death to Israel pledge. But a Trump administration, you know, I've always felt that the Houthis are like one of the strengths of the access and resistance,

but also one of the weaknesses, too. They're exposed. They don't fully control the state. It's not a very populous country. And they're, you know, along the ocean where the U.S. Navy, if properly pointed at military and political leadership, it could seriously arm the Houthi, you know, one of the things that the Houthis are weakened, they don't just have external enemies, the U.S. and Israel, as you noted before, they don't control the whole country.

You have other entities within Yemen that want to see the downfall of the Houthis, and if they're perceived as weak, their enemies will go at them. Okay. So, and really, the alternative government or however we want to refer to it is really based down south in the country, right? The Houthis control the northern portion for the most part and Sana'a, that area. And then the alternative of what had been the established government under Saleh, that's down south and Aidan. And then there's also a separatist movement, southern Yemenis separatist movement as well that isn't very friendly. It's like Game of Thrones in. in Yemen. You have all of these actors and in the case of Yemen, at least one of them we could consider to be, you know, someone we could work with, and that is the Trump government that is operating. But it sounds as if what we're really looking to do is just simply degrade the Houthis sufficiently to stop the threats to the U.S. and international shipping in the Red Sea, Gulf of Aid and Suez Canal area, rather than push for some sort of regime change.

because that sounds like a complete hornets nest. I mean, you're almost talking about a Libya-type situation where it's just, you know, there's nothing to fill in the void. That's it. Libya is an excellent analogy. I mean, sadly, the, you know, the wrong government in Aden isn't strong enough to retake Yemen. So I do believe our objectives, not just to degrade the Uthis,

but to split that relationship with Iran, if that can be done or at least get the, try to, you know, If it was me, I would be targeting the Iranian efforts to resupply the Houthis as well. And weaken that lake, weaken their ability to rearm and re-equipped to, you know, this isn't the first time, by the way, that the Houthis had attacked international shipping. You go all the way back to 2015, and 2018, 19, they were doing this. So this is a terrorist government that has, you know, is it isn't. just because of Israel. It's doing it because of its hatred of the West and to further the Iranian

regime's goals. Yeah. And that's a whole conversation for another day, Bill, in terms of, you know, do we ever get to mid or long-term stability and peace in the region as long as the Iranian regime and the IRC are in place? But I want to shift gears. We'll talk about that some other time. Then people all get all squirmy and angst-ridden because I think they're talking about regime change. But let's talk about Gaza, if we could, in the time that we have left. Give us an update. Where are we with the Israel-Khamas situation? Really quick on the Israel regime change.

I mean, unless you're watching what happened in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, I do not recommend we try that. It hasn't worked well over the last 20 years. But what we can do is weaken our enemies. And that should be our goal. And with the Iranians, we should be working with the older. is a legitimate Iranian resistance, we should work with them, that would solve issues like Gaza, like Yemen, like Iraq. But as far as Gaza goes, the Israelis are back on the offensive, that

ceasefire has appeared to have fallen apart, which everyone expected, for anyone who I know, who is understanding of this situation. For instance, John Shanzer, our executive director at FDD, he told me the day it was signed, I was expressing concern about the ceasefire. He said, never going to make it the phase two. And it hasn't. The Hamas has just been refusal to live up to its commitments to exchange prisoners. See, the Israelis have gone back to launching air strikes against Hamas and Palestinian Islamic jihad leaders and military targets. They've entered that order that divided Gaza and they're splitting it back in half again. The question is, is the Israeli, will the Israelis seek for an ultimate defeat of Hamas, or is this a stopgap measure in order to get Hamas back

to the negotiating table to get those prisoners? Those prisoners, those hostages being held out by Hamas, the Israelis still don't even know who's dead and who's alive. How you can work, the Israelis, their country is held hostage. It's not just hostages or Israeli hostages being held. It's the nation of Israel because once those hostages released. So the Israelis are in a tough bind and if it was me, it's a difficult decision and a tough political decision to make for the Israeli leadership. But the number one goal should be the defeat of Hamas. We're a year and a half into this war the Israelis are.

And Hamas is still at a negotiating table. That should just not be happening, but it goes to show how resolute. a group like Hamas is. Next up question, though, Bill. How realistic is it to even talk about the complete defeat of Hamas? I mean, what does that look like? It would require the reoccupation of Gaza by the Israelis and continuing military operations. It's something the Israelis don't want to do.

It's possible, but it's difficult. And that's the real problem with any of these wars. Could we have defeated the Taliban? Yes. but what did we need to do to commit to that with something we weren't willing to do? Wars are ultimately battles of wills at some point. And Hamas has will, the Israelis had will, but the Israelis have enough will to stay in the hornets' nests of Gaza. And also to deal with the international community.

I suspect, I mean, it seems like over that certainly since October of 2023, it seems like that Israelis have basically said, look, we know we've lost. you know, goodwill from the international community. We've lost that narrative every time we go into Gaza to try to deal with Hamas. But it looks like they've kind of got to that point where they don't care about that aspect of it. Yeah, I think we saw that develop. That's what developed over the summer of last year, right? The Israelis need more than that. You know, these, here's the issue, right? And we talked about this. Or, you know, you could deal with the symptoms of Iran's axis of resistance, but they're not actually getting to the core of the problem, and that's the Iranian government. That's

the Iranian regime, the mole-led regime that seeks the destruction of Israel. And until that's dismantled, and I, look, I'm not going to tell you that certainly the Israelis can't do that on your own. I don't advise the U.S. to do it, but I believe there's ways that could be done, that could be, or means paths that we could be explored to weaken the Iranian regime further. Like, how about crippling their energy production, destroying the Iranian Navy? There are things that the Iranians do not want to look weak at home. That really, that is something that concerns them. And yet there's been very little effort to put that kind of pressure on the Iranians.

Well, I think, Billy, what you've done is you've outlined the topic for our next conversation. And hopefully that will be soon, because I know we'll be picking up the phone and calling you and asking you to come back. but we are at this stage out of time. Bill Roggio Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Listen, it's always a pleasure. It's always fascinating. And I look forward to the next conversation, man. Thank you, sir.

Always appreciate the intelligent conversation. That's all the time we have for this week's PDB situation report. Look, if you have any questions or comments, or even a humorous anecdote or a limerick, I don't know if people still do limericks, please reach out to me at PDB. at thefirstTV.com. I've talked about this before, and I meet it every week, right? The mailman drops off another bag full of your comments and your questions, and then we sift through them, we compile them. We've got another episode of Ask Me Anything coming up soon, but it's a delightful time. Even the interns get involved in selecting those questions. And we'll put them into another Ask Me Anything episode, which, as I mentioned, is coming up very soon. So, finally, to listen to

the podcast of this show ad-free. Well, that is simple, too. You just become a premium member of the President's Daily Brief by visiting pdbpremium.com. I told you it was simple. Listen, always. Thank you for tuning in. Very much appreciated. I'm Mike Baker. Until next time, you know the drill. Stay informed. Stay safe. Stay cool. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money, Whether it's the funds fueling AI or crypto's trillion dollar swings, there's a money side to every story. Get the money side of the story. Subscribe now at Bloomberg.com.