The Trish Regan Show - 🚨 BOMBSHELL: Trump Officially ENDS CANADA-US Trade Agreement! Is NATO Next?!

Episode Date: July 3, 2026

The President just ended a trade deal he negotiated himself. And there’s more where that came from… NATO: WATCH OUT. Plus, Trump is serious about ending Birth Tourism… and the left wing media is positively livid. But - maybe, as Ron DeSantis points out - this needs to happen? Maybe we need to be more thoughtful about who is coming to America? Socialism is capitavating the minds of too many — but, the Democrats fascination with it may prove costly. Union chiefs are switching sides….workers are switching sides…and the elites may never recover. Join me, Trish Regan, for today’s full edition of the Trish Regan Show. SPONSORS INCLUDE: https://TrishLovesGoldandSilver.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

If you win a $3,000 a month payday for life, what would you feel free to do? Maybe take a long weekend, every weekend, or try a bunch of new hobbies? Would you feel free to upgrade and listen ad-free? Don't worry, we get it. Every $20 ticket could win you $3,000 a month for life and supports life-saving cancer research at the Princess Margaret. Feel free to buy your payday for life ticket today. Raffle number 155-214. Please play responsibly.

Hey, y'all. It's Kelly Clarkson with Wayfair. Ever order furniture online and wonder what if? Like, what if it doesn't hold up? That sofa was four days old. You should have ordered from Wayfair. With Wayfair, there's no what if. Just style you love and quality you can trust.

Visit Wayfair.ca. Wayfair, every style, every home. Donald Trump has blown up decades of American foreign policy, not with tanks, you guys, not with troops, but with leverage. That is what is happening as we speak, because today he put Canada and he put Mexico on notice. Guess what? It's over.

Okay? We're not going to be okay with a system that rewards you and not us. A major, major development and one that should give everyone over in NATO right now a little bit of pause. Of course, he telegraphed it, just like he's been telegraphing a break with NATO if necessary. He telegraphed it. In fact, we can go back a couple of weeks ago. He told him it's going to be over, guys.

Well, I'm not looking to renew it. I don't, you know, I mean, I made the deal, and the primary reason I made the deal is that NAFTA was the worst trade deal I've ever seen. And I made it better, but I had the right to terminate. And, you know, with NAFTA, we didn't have the right to terminate. I had to get these senators to approve that deal. That was a tough thing, Congressman, too. NAFTA had no termination. So, I mean, I've never said this before, but I'll tell you what my thinking was.

NAFTA was a disaster for our country, the worst trade deal ever made. by far. You know they had typos in, okay? And they was supposed to correct him. And they never corrected them when they were signed. They knew there were typos. And there's a process for that. You state your claim and, you know, you get a change. They had typos on percentages. Or maybe somebody wrote, and that was, for years, they never ran. They had horrible, all against us. So it probably wasn't typos. And after was the worst trade deal we have. I don't have a head. USMCA did one thing that I loved.

After six years, it comes up for renewal. I don't know that I'm going to renew it, because to be honest with you, the United States does much better. We don't need anything that Canada has. We don't need anything that Mexico has, but they need everything that we have. And they have to treat us better.

You know, with Mexico and Canada, we have trade deficits. We should have surpluses with them. We don't need their cars. We don't need their lumber. We don't need their energy. We don't need anything that they have. So the primary thing that I got, it was a much better deal than NAFTA.

Much, much better. It was sort of a good deal. But it was a great deal for one reason. It gave the right to terminate. And who would have thought that I was, you know, they just didn't want to have it during the four-year period when I was president. So now it made it so. It made it so that I wouldn't be president.

And because they rigged the election, the second election, as you probably hear and probably know, most of you know that happened, and now it's been proven, and it will be proven as time goes by even more so. We have things that you won't believe. When we release the full files, you're not going to believe how crooked the second the 2020 election was. Bottom line?

Canada, Mexico, you've got to renegotiate all over again. NATO, you better pay up. because here's a deal. If you want America's protection, if you want America's market, then you know what? You're going to have to earn it. You think about it, guys. There's a pattern we're looking at here from NATO to UCMA to UCMCA, tariffs, even negotiations with China, right? They're kind of all variations, if you would, have the same doctrine. Trump is not trying to preserve the post-World War II international order. Rather, he's trying to renegotiate it. I mean, the old system would say, how do we strengthen alliances?

And Donald Trump is saying, what do we get in return? Right? Now, whether you agree with him or not, I happen to agree with him. But I can tell you this, this is one of the biggest shifts in U.S. foreign policy in generations. Security guarantees are negotiable. Trade agreements are negotiable. Preferred access to the American market is totally negotiable for 70 years. Washington has been relying on these alliances, believing in these alliances, thinking they were more

valuable in and of themselves than anything else. And Donald Trump doesn't. He's reviewing each and every one of these because he's looking at them like a business relationship. You've got a CEO, right? As your chief executive right now, you get a businessman in the seat. We don't have a politician like Barack Obama or Joe Biden, if you can even call him that. No, no, no.

This is a businessman. So if America is carrying the costs, while someone else enjoys the benefits, he wants the deal rewritten. And he's not just renegotiating a trade deal. He's renegotiating the entire sort of idea of what it means to be an American ally. And today, that starts with Canada and Mexico. Ladies and gentlemen, the Trump administration has declined to renew that agreement with Canada in Mexico in its current form.

But on, take a look at what we saw the trade office put out here today. They said, and I'm going to make the print a little bit bigger, so I can see it a little bit better with you. This is from Jameson Greer. He's the ambassador on trade, and he said, look, the agreement that was expiring, well, we're not renewing it. We're not renewing the USMCA in its current form. As a result, the USMCA is not renewed.

The U.S. will continue. continue to engage with Mexico and Canada to address the agreement's shortcomings and our trade deficits with these countries. However, the agreement remains in force pending resolution of these issues or until the agreement's termination. As previously announced, the United States will meet with Mexico the week of July 20th, blah, blah, blah, for more negotiations. But in other words, now everything's suddenly on the table. They're going to have to renegotiate. So that means they're basically in another stage of terror. Welcome to the show, everyone. I'm Trish Regan. Make sure you subscribe. Let's go to Jamie.

and Greer right here, our trade rep, who explained it, outlined why we are no longer yielding to Canada and Mexico. Folks on the far left, Rosa Delora from Connecticut, who said, we're glad the president did not renew the trade deal. We think there are issues in Mexico related to labor and all kinds of standards. They don't follow that Americans do, right? And then we have folks on the right, Jason Smith, at Ways and Means, and Adrian Smith, who represents farmers, they're saying, we need to improve it.

We're not giving the dairy access we need in Canada. So when it comes to Congress, you know, I've been meeting. with them and they approve of the need to negotiate to approve the trade agreement. The president's already taken substantial action to reduce offshore into Mexico and increase auto production in America. So we're already seeing big changes in the relationship. Nothing changes, right? When we say we don't renew it, nothing changes today. It's not like it's a cliff. Trade continues. It just continues on better terms for America. In other words, we're going to have a whole new game here. I mean, a whole new game. I can tell you, again, this is one.

of the biggest foreign policy shifts. I think that we have really ever seen. I mean, you think about Hill, it was always sort of the status quo. Now everything's negotiable. Trade agreements are negotiable. Preferred access, right, to the American market is totally negotiable. All of this stuff is looked at within the prism of how is it going to work for us? How is it going to be better for us? So he's not just, you know, looking at a trade deal. He's looking at the entire idea of what it means to be America's friend, right? America's ally. And if you're America's ally, then guess what? You better act like one. And that doesn't mean you can go and charge us tariffs, which was the concern with Canada and Mexico, and think that's okay. Because we're not charging you tariffs.

So it's going to work like a two-way street. I mean, this is heady stuff, right? The elites are like, oh my gosh, what is he doing? Well, he's not signing on to this. It would have like renewed it for another 16 years. And so now it changes. And basically every year, it's coming up for renewal. Every single year, it's $2 trillion in annual trade and investment across North America that we're talking about here, the supply chains, the autos, the agriculture, energy,

manufacturing, labor. I mean, you've got issues like China and all those EVs that they're trying to send into Canada. that's a big issue. You get the fentanyl coming up from, whoa, I was going to say Mexico, but some of it's coming down from Canada. So he's like, okay, we're going to fix that stuff. I want some leverage here. I mean, that's the word of the day, okay? Remember that. Leverage. Trump is using leverage. He is saying to Canada and Mexico, the American market is not an entitlement. It's a privilege. And if you want that privilege, and guess what, you need to actually work with us. Think about the history here. I mean, NAFTA came about, remember Clinton, he thought that this was going to be terrific.

NAFTA was signed basically back in the 1990s went into effect in 94, and guess what happened? A lot of people lost jobs. It wasn't supposed to be that way. You were going to have open borders, and that meant all these goods going back and forth. You were going to have all this efficiency. You were going to have more growth. You were going to have more trade. And sure, you did get more trade, but simultaneously, factories closed.

Manufacturing towns were gutted entire communities in places like, like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. I think about western New York, upstate New York. My husband's from the Buffalo area. And that's a small town outside Buffalo that was totally decimated as a result of NAFTA. And all those jobs went, poof. Well, the political class, you know, Clinton was like, don't worry, don't worry. You know, this is what you call progress.

And the economists, I get it, you know, market people were like, hey, don't worry. This is comparative advantage. It's all going to work out well. And everybody's like, you're going to be able to retrain. Well, I'll tell you, a lot of companies grew their margins. Sure, but what happened to America? Americans lost their jobs. And what were people really retraining for?

Just a part-time job, a warehouse job, replacing a factory job that used to support a family? I mean, that didn't really work. So there's this political wound, an open wound, if you would, that Donald Trump really identified before anyone else in modern Republican politics and Democrat politics as well was willing to say any of this out loud. And so as such, he did something really different, and he called NAFTA a disaster. And he said America had been taken advantage of.

And he said, we needed better leaders. We needed better leaders protecting our people. They're all protecting the institutions, but they're not protecting the people. And I'll tell you, he was right. So here we are looking at a very different world today, and he's going to continue using tariffs and using pressure and threats and negotiation to replace all of these institutions that are no longer working for America. I mean, I'd go so far as to say when you heard him, when you heard him speaking there, he's actually talking about his own deal, right? I mean, he made the deal.

And now he's willing to abandon his deal. Why? because the deal's still not good enough. He's still willing, if he has a chance to negotiate it again, he will. And that is the difference between Donald Trump and the old Washington establishment. The old establishment treats these agreements and deals like there's some kind of monument, right? A statue. And he's like, no, no, it's a contract and the contract's up. Okay, so the contract, it's time to get renegotiated.

I mean, remember, you heard from James and Greer who said, we're not agreeing to renew the USMCA in its current form. They want to go back. They want to renegotiate it again. And they want to resolve. He wants to resolve. The president wants to resolve any extra little deficiencies he finds out there and any concerns he has about trade deficits in there.

And so he's going back to the starting point. I mean, it's a whole new ballgame. That's how he sees it. And so this is a big, big deal. Okay? It's a big deal because he's a big deal. because he's so different, and I'm excited by that, right? Like, he's willing to take these chances because you got a shot at a big, big prize.

It reminds me of what he said to Joe Kernan at CNBC a little bit earlier today. I want to go to this. I mean, even as it relates to the Federal Reserve, because he's sort of annoyed with what everybody's been saying about the Fed and how, you know, they have to raise interest rates. It's really important to bring up interest rates because you can't have the economy growing too fast, And he's like, heck, why not?

Why can't it grow too fast? I mean, why would you ever be satisfied? It's kind of like what he's saying here. Why would you be satisfied with an agreement? Granted, I made the agreement at the time. I thought it was the greatest agreement in the world. But if I see some extra eyes to dot and T's to cross, why not take that opportunity?

Here he is on CNBC earlier today talking about why he wants to see big growth. I mean, really big growth out of the United States of America. We're not allowed to go up. If we go up, they want to kill it. There's no reason we should stop at 4%. We should be at 12% and 13% GDP. And I hate what happens where in the old days we would be, that's how we built the country. Now you announce positive things and they want to bring it down by raising interest rates. So he's never satisfied, right? And I think there's something unique and special about that. He's not, even if it's his own deal, right? He's not going to put it up on a pedestal and say, this is the be-all end-all. He's still saying, you know, they didn't think I was going to be back in office.

Guess what? I'm back. I'm back. And I'm willing to make your life a living H-E-D-W-L until you can actually fix this even better than we did it last time. I mean, this is why it's such a big deal. Okay, this is why it's not just a normal trade story. U.S. policy has historically been built around this idea of economic integration being a good thing. The more that we trade with people, the more stable the world becomes, and that was the theory behind NAFTA.

If you think about it, it was actually the theory about the WTO and China entering the WTO, and it was the theory of NATO, right, in the post-Cold War global order. But Trump is very different. He doesn't really care. Okay, you got these alliances and these institutions and they're going to protect everyone. No, no, no. Trump's view is that trade is not automatically good. Trade is only good if it benefits America.

In other words, if it empties out American factories, then it's not good. If it's enriching foreign producers, but American workers are losing some leverage, then it's not good. And if it allows China to route products through other countries, still reach our market, which is what he's worried about with China, sending stuff to Mexico and sending stuff to Canada, then it's definitely not good. So if it turns into the U.S. being the buyer of last resort, while everyone else is out there protecting their industries, that's not good. So this is what you call a real philosophical break. This is America first applied to North America.

And Canada and Mexico, you know, people will say, oh, you know, he's treating them like there are enemies. No, he's not. He's treating them like business partners, right? You're doing a deal with. He's making it clear that, you know, they're not going to be exempt just because they happen to be in the Northern Hemisphere here with us, North America Hemisphere. He's not exempting them. He's just basically using real-world economics, right, that would govern a business to govern a country. His attitude is, hey, they're allies, but these allies can see. still be taking advantage of you. An ally can still have unfair trade barriers and fail to secure its side of the border. It can still benefit from access to the U.S. market while still refusing to

make these concessions that America wants and needs. And that's why he's doing this. Mexico. Think about Mexico, right? Their role is really important. We need Mexico to focus on the border. I mean, we do a lot of it ourselves, of course, but we want them to focus on. on the border. We want them to focus on fentanyl. We want to stop the migration. We want to stop all the goods coming up and the cheap stuff and the fake stuff from China. I mean, that's got to stop. But whether Mexico is willing to do that or not, you know, I would argue they haven't. They haven't been willing at all. Not at all. I mean, look at the, I mean, they were like sending people to the border with Biden, right? Go to the US of A. Don't be our problem anymore.

Well, if Mexico wants to become a real true partner in North American manufacturing, then then guess what? They're going to have to play by the rules. Our rules, and that means you can't be a backdoor for foreign products that are trying to seep into the American market. You're going to have to be a good ally. That's how it works, okay? There's a new sheriff in town, as they say.

And I would say this. Mexico will do what we need them to do because I think Mexico at this point, even Claudia Seimbaum, she understands the leverage we have. If you want tariff-free access to the United States and Mexico does, then you need to play by our rules because the access is actually enormously valuable, right? Enormously, enormously valuable. It's very important.

So if we give them something, they have to give us something in return. cannot have any loopholes. We cannot let China seep in through the loopholes. We need the cooperation at the border. We cannot be obligated to keep absorbing the costs while they capture the benefits. And the same is true for Canada. Okay? Canada is a little bit different, but the same principle is at work because they've benefited from that close economic integration with the U.S. I mean, they think about energy, autos, agriculture, lumber, dairy, steel. I could go on and on aluminum, it's all deeply connected here. But Donald Trump has been frustrated, understandably, with the Canadian trade policies,

and he has been for years, especially on things like lumber and tariffs and dairy, and now Canada is actually facing the same exact message, that friendship does not mean automatic access on, you know, unchallenged terms. I mean, what kind of world is that? I mean, this is not, this is not George W. Bush Republicanism. This is not Chamber of Commerce Republicanism. This is not the old free trade cachet, you know, that everybody loved where it was considered so virtuous, right? This is, let's go with this. Okay, this is what you call transactional nationalism. Donald Trump would

rather be accused of disrupting the system that praise, then be praised for managing the decline of the system, okay? So he's just turning this on its head. And again, this is why America brought in a businessman. We tried before, right? Like, we tried to get Ross Perrault in there at one time. It was too hard in the two-party system. But then Donald Trump emerged, running as a Republican, and America said, yes, this is what we want. Now, the critics are saying, okay, this creates all kinds of uncertainty, and you don't want uncertainty. Businesses hate uncertainty, and I get it. They do. I mean, everyone hates uncertainty, including investors, including farmers, you know, maybe everybody except for Donald Trump, right, hates uncertainty.

It's never good. But actually, I think it might be a question of who has the most tolerance for the uncertainty. Because at this point, as we think about all of these Canadian companies and all of these Mexican companies getting so challenged on all of this, I think that uncertainty, is actually our leverage, because if you don't have uncertainty, you have no leverage. If Canada and Mexico believe that the U.S. is always going to renew the deal, then, you know, why would they do anything? If we're just going to sit there and preserve the status quo and protect that, you know, whatever framework they worked up, why would they ever give anything up?

I mean, they wouldn't, right? They wouldn't. So Trump is in there injecting this uncertainty into the picture, which puts the entire deal in doubt and says, you know, okay, well, maybe we don't need these deals. In fact, maybe we don't need a deal with Mexico and Canada. Maybe we do a little deal with Mexico. Maybe we do a little deal with Canada. Maybe we still make them contingent, you know, where they get to renew every couple years or every year in this case. Or maybe we walk. Or better yet, impose tariffs. You know, we want to have some tougher rules here because we got something pretty damn great, right? We're the United States of America. We are the world's largest economy, the most important economy. So if you want to get access to us,

then we need good terms. I mean, this is basically the art of the deal applied to foreign policy. And I'll tell you, whether you love it or you hate it, it is darn consistent, darn consistent. He believes America has been too predictable and too generous and too afraid of its own power, and he's saying, forget about it, no more. You know what? This Canada, Mexico story is such a example of that, changing the rules of alliance management, even when they're his rules. Okay, so he's telling allies, you're not getting special treatment. End of story. And this is important for NATO to think about right now, right? Because NATO has been on very, very thin ice. Donald Trump sending this out today on NATO guys, the United States spends more

money on NATO, he writes, on true social. By far, more money. More money. on NATO than any other country to protect them without getting any benefit from doing so. And then he goes off to list all the numbers, $990 billion, the U.S. is spending versus the U.K. at 90 billion. France at 66 billion. Italy, 48.8 billion. Poland, 44 billion. Others, including Germany, are much lower. And he's using numbers from 2014 through 25, and he said, this is ridiculous. Well, this is key timing because guess what's coming up? Turkey. And in Turkey, they're going to be talking about whether or not they are going to meet our requirements for 5% of GDP. So what he did to Canada and Mexico economically, he's doing to NATO militarily. You know, NATO, if you want

to leverage access to the U.S. security umbrella, you're going to have to do what we're we've asked of you, and we're getting pretty tired of the fact that for decades, NATO has been such a centerpiece of American foreign policy, and yet you guys haven't been contributing, just to walk you back, and you know this, 1949, NATO gets created, you're coming out of World War II, right? And it was effectively a way to combat the rise of communism. It started as a defense alliance with far a few countries than it has now, right? It was a whole lot smaller. And the The idea is, because of Article 5, if one country is attacked, then that becomes an attack on all countries. And that commitment is what really helped deter the Soviet Union.

It helped keep Western Europe together. It was part of the whole definition of you, if you would, of the Cold War. But when the Cold War ended, NATO didn't. NATO stuck around. And not only did NATO stick around, it got bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger. So you're looking at a really large NATO today compared to what? Where it was, it expanded, it took on new missions, it moved east, and the United States remained what? Oh, the indispensable power behind all of it with our American troops, our American intelligence,

our American nuclear deterrence, our American airlift, American money, right? And for years, what did every president say? Europe's not spending enough. This is not just Trump, okay, just to be really clear, Barack Obama was out there complaining about free riders. George W. Bush pushed allies to spend more. had defend secretaries from both parties, warning that Europe had to do something, had to pay more because America could not carry that burden forever. But who was the first president to say the quiet part out loud in a way that actually scared them?

Donald Trump, okay? And even, even Democrats have admitted this. The senator from Michigan, I've played you the sound before, Alyssa, you know, the one that was involved with the whole CIA thing, and then she tried to, you know, after, you could tell everybody in the military that they should basically pivot on Trump, you know. I mean, it was, and they're saying it's sedition, et cetera. Well, anyway, she is quoted as saying, I can't believe this. Like, it's amazing. Back when I was at the Pentagon or wherever she was, she said, I would beg them, please, please, please, can you pay more?

and they'd always say, yeah, no. And now, Donald Trump got it done. So he's effectively saying here, you know, guys, if you want this protection, then you need to fork over the cash. After all, if you're not paying, why should we protect you? And Europeans can't handle this, right? Because every other president, they'd complain, right? but they never actually threatened to break up NATO.

Trump complains and he threatens and he's willing to walk. And that is the difference. So once again, you're back to leverage. Okay, this guy knows how to use leverage. I mean, it's amazing. They were supposed to pay 2% of GDP. Did they know? No.

Now they're supposed to pay 5%. Are they going to? Well, if they're not going to, you heard what Pete said the other day. We ran the sound. Pete said, you know what? we're going to just reduce everything that we are giving you. If you're not paying your 5%, then we're going to look at our numbers,

and we're going to reduce what we're paying. So there's some serious math going on at this upcoming meeting, and they're going to have to keep moving that defense spending commitment up higher and higher, that 5% framework. It's a big deal. And they don't know how they're going to do it. And they're complaining, and for some reason Spain gets an excuse. Spain, I'm sorry.

Spain, the Pentagon's looking at throwing you out. I think the latest and greatest move is we're just going to reduce all the money who could possibly be giving to Spain since they're not even paying their 2%. So you understand, like, the idea here is that you don't sit there and ask nicely forever. You make the other side understand that that free ride that they've been getting, it could end. And of course, you've got to be willing to end it. And I'm pretty darn certain he is.

Considering everything that's going on right now in this moment in time, ahead of the Turkey meeting, the U.S., we know, is pressing those allies to spend more. They got to do it. Pete Hagsett, Total Mall in Brussels. We've heard Marco Rubio do it. We've heard the president do it repeatedly. We've heard the ambassador to NATO do it. I mean, everybody's telling them.

the model has changed. The old model, everybody was wrapped up in the same moral language of unity and alliance and solidarity and shared values. And in Trump's model, he's like, yeah, we may have all that. But if you're not paying, it's over, right? In other words, you've got to pay your fair share. Just because you're an ally really doesn't mean anything. I mean, what are we getting out of the deal?

You're getting everything. We're getting nothing. And so that has got to change. I think that France is really worried about this. France is like, oh my gosh, France is saying, I think he's serious. And I think he might actually cut us off. I mean, why else are they taking their gold? We've been talking about this. I find this so fascinating. Financial Times out with a really interesting report about how central banks are repatriating their gold. And specifically, one of the countries that they mention is France. And France is taking out everything. They had a lot

at the New York Fed. They had a lot in London, and they've liquidated everything, and they've bought up that amount back home. They've effectively repatriated everything, right? And now they have it at home. Well, why would they do that? I guess they're fearful that we might put a little tax on them, so to speak, right? You guys aren't paying a fair share in NATO? Well, we got your gold. And look, we've done it before, right? Like, what do you think happened with the sanctions in Russia? And Donald Trump loves, loves these financial tools. So that may be what they're worried about. Of course, you know, France, I was thinking about what they did in the 70s

and how we effectively had to go off of the gold standard, right, in the 70s with Richard Nixon because France threatened to take all of its gold back then. I mean, it was very interesting. And then we no longer pegged the dollar to gold as a result of that. And I was talking with Dr. Kirk Elliott. The thank you to KEPM, they're wonderful, wonderful sponsors of the show. and they have been so great to us. And I sat down with him recently, and we did an interview,

but this little part was not on the show, and this was something we were talking about after, and the camera happened to be rolling. So I said, hey, this is really interesting what you're saying about France. In light of them now, taking all their gold back, explained to me what went down in the 70s. So here's just a quick soundbite from Dr. Kirk,

and he's explaining what went down and what that means for today. Here we go. What happened in the 70s with Nixon? So Nixon closed the gold window because we have to take a quick little step back, right? Okay, okay. I'm here. In the 30s, gold was confiscated.

And people say, well, it was confiscated. Why? But why was it confiscated? So after World War I, America was bankrupt. It was a very expensive war of us, right? So back then, the dollar was backed by gold. You could have one ounce of gold or a $20 bill. They were the same.

So the president at the time said, hey, we're issuing these war bonds. America, you need to bail out America, please. And nobody wanted the stinking war bonds because America was basically bankrupt. They said, we're keeping our money that's backed by gold. We're not going to. So he said, all right, I'm going to force you to buy these war bonds. We're going to confiscate your gold, right? Again, weaponization of people's assets against them.

Right. So it was illegal basically for people to own gold, but it wasn't illegal for governments to trade back and forth with each other with it. They could still do it for international settlement until the 70s. When France basically wanted it, wanted it back, again, France. France. What is it with France? And Nixon said, uh-uh, we're not going to pay back you in gold like you want. want, we're just going to give you our dollars. And France said, what? And so what did Nixon do? He just closed the gold window. So was, was he doing it to destroy a market? No, he was doing it to

actually keep gold, right? And not have to use it as international settlement. He just wanted to use paper dollars. Well, that caused the inflation since the 70s, the dollars eroded like over 90% since then. It's bonkers what happened. But again, using tangible assets or any country's assets as a weapon against them is a very strong political tool. Amazing. I'm still here. Yeah. Amazing. Indeed, amazing. So, by the way, if you're interested in purchasing gold, you know, it's one of those diversification tools, I love it. You can help support the show and help Dr. Girk. Well, I mean, who's going to help you over there at Trish loves, gold and silver.com. So go check that out.

when you can. There's something really weird going on. Have you guys noticed? I mean, we've got like a very big, big, big, big birthday, right? Coming up. I'm going to be going to some fireworks and just a little bit tonight. So I'm looking to get my party started a little bit early. But it's a big moment in time.

And I've been complaining that I'm not seeing enough flags. I'm not seeing enough patriotism. In fact, this latest and greatest stunt out of places like Buffalo, Boston, and Columbus, Ohio really has me troubled because apparently they're more interested in celebrating the Somali Independence Day than they are in America's Independence Day. Look at this.

Well, we've been tracking a number of Democrat-led cities that have appeared to put America's 250th birthday on the back burner. Buffalo held a celebration for Somali Independence Day flying the country's flag at City Hall. That country's flat. And just a day, after canceling its Fourth of July fireworks show.

The city said it ran into logistical issues. In Boston, Democrat Mayor Michelle Wu also celebrated Somalia weeks after she proposed cutting nearly $1 million from veteran services. That is so unpatriotic. Yeah. So what's that about? Why is it right now that we are seeing

such a devotion suddenly to Somalia? I guess it has a little something to do with Donald Trump and just a little something to do, perhaps with, oh, Ilhan Omar, and perhaps a little something to do with TDS. Yeah, you know, that TDS can be quite debilitating, if you would. TDS is really, really troubling. Because the TDS is apparently capturing so many Americans that they now want to focus on Somalia and their independence day, as opposed to our 250th birthday. I mean, that's just a little bit weird.

Let me go to Minneapolis where the mayor, Jacob Frye, you remember him, down on his knees, begging for forgiveness because he was born white. Anyway, well, you got a little bit more of that on display. Carrying the Somalian flag, the whole bit, take a peek. Through the most difficult of times and through Operation Metro Surge, we all saw that they tried to come before someone. of us and when that happens we say that you're coming for all of us in minneapolis we love our neighbors in minneapolis we do not see you as immigrants we see you as our family

what a la yaw brothers you are our sisters you have done so much for this incredible city and for that okay and he goes on and on and you know it's it's mayor fry okay so And he's got Minneapolis, and he's not going to get elected without them. You know, I don't know if he's coming through like Ilhan did, allegedly, with feeding our future. But he's got a political crowd that he is beholden to there. And that's obviously what was going on. We saw Michelle Wu, who, out in Boston doing a similar type thing. And, you know, I just got to say, I don't think that they care as much about our country as they do.

all of the migrants pouring in from everywhere else. I mean, that was evident to me, even with Tim Walts, when he changed the darn flag. Remember this one? Memory Lane here? Whoa, wait a minute. Yeah, he went to get out. I mean, that was a nice flag. Perfectly fine flag.

Don't forget Somalia's flag. And now they're going to have a little star just like Somalia did. And he says it's so much better now. Wow. More inclusive. There, that's better. Okay, buddy, boy. So, you know, there's a theme here.

you would. And some people are saying, you know, maybe some stuff needs to change. Maybe we need to have fewer people coming here that don't have our interest at heart. Maybe if we get rid of things like birth tourism and we seal our border shut, we can have more control over who's coming in because we want people that believe in America, right? We want people that love this country. we want people. I see Buddy Sanders is willing to trade Minnesota for Alberta, Canada. That's funny. I think that would be just fine. I love Alberta Canada too, and they've got all that very resource-rich oil up there. A lot of good reasons to make that trade. But they're coming here, and they don't have the interests of our country at heart. And so Ron DeSantis has been quite outspoken about this. Peter Schweitzer,

Well, obviously the president, but let me go to Peter because he's making the point that this is actually a security threat. There are lots of women that come here from China give birth and then go back to China with their baby. And now their kid has two passports. And the Chinese government is a-okay with it all. Oh, I wonder why. Let's go to Peter. According to the Chinese government itself, they believe that every year on average since 2013, 100,000 Chinese babies have been born in the United States.

That is a government estimate from China. Yes, research firms in China put that number sometimes even higher. The problem is our federal government doesn't know. We don't track this. They don't put on a birth certificate the nationality of the parents. So that's the inherent problem. We don't know the scope of it, but China says it's massive. And that means since 2013, Laura, we're looking at potentially more than 1 million

quote-unquote U.S. citizens that are being raised in China. They're citizens only because their mothers came here to give birth. Yikes. So, again, you know, this may come back for the Supreme Court. I know we didn't get the ruling we wanted on that one. And I think there's a fair shot that it will come back at some point. But in the interim, what can you do? Right.

And this is an administration that, you know, they're realists as much as I am. And they're figuring out what they can do. one of the first things they can do, and they intend to do, is ban that birth tourism. Because that can't be going on. You lock your borders down and you ban the birth tourism. Are we banning foreign pregnant women? Well, what I'm saying, Jesse, is that you have to now think very carefully about who you let into your country, even on a temporary basis, because the possibility, as you said, for birth tourism, right?

that people come here just to have babies on American soil and that baby gets to be a citizen for life. So you have mothers that come in, fully pregnant, have a baby, go home. And again, that baby gets Medicaid and that baby gets welfare and that baby gets cash assistance. And can send, you know, leave the baby with, you know, a cousin, a relative, whatever. And then to send welfare checks back home, you can support a whole family in the third world. So yes, you can't have the kinds of immigration programs other countries have when you can just have a baby. here and now that child is an American citizen. So there's a lot of things we're going to have to take a hard look at, Jesse. Yeah, they can even get Trump accounts.

We don't want to let them have those. Well, CNN is like really mad, really, really, really mad at all this talk about ending birth tourism. And what are we going to do? We're going to check pregnant women. Maybe, maybe there's a test when you get to the, I mean, you might want to stay thin because if there's anything going on and you give the border agent a chance to, uh, you know, give you a little test. That could get awkward. I get it. I get it. But come on. Like, you cannot allow for this. You've got to be from no other country in the world does this. And you got to think about why are people coming here? And why do we want them here? Why do you have immigration policy? Why did we ever have it? You know why we had it? Because we

wanted people. We wanted bodies. We wanted workers. We needed them. Do we need workers now? Well, maybe. So then go figure out what industries you need them in and then go get them. Right? You got a shortage of nurses. They get a lot of them in the Philippines. Bingo. Okay, we're going to recruit nurses from the Philippines. I mean, if you can't fill them here, then you can start expanding. But you've also got to think about how are these people contributing to society? Are they going to be actual contributors? Or are they going to be a drain? I mean, these are fair questions. And by the way, they used to ask them in the old days. I don't know what happened. Well, wokeism happened. Foreign interference happened. The Democrats became

communists. That is what happened. CNN, they're melting down last night, having a full-on meltdown. Oh, my gosh, they can't believe this. How could we end birth tourism? Pregnant women and women who could be pregnant. I also just find it interesting that Andy Ogles, who is a member of Congress, doesn't know that it is already not legal to come here with the express purpose of giving birth to a child so that they can gain citizenship. That's a violation of our existing immigration laws. But this idea that now women are the targets of immigration because they wanted to change birthright citizenship via executive order, that seems like, I don't know, bad politics, bad optics, maybe boat. I mean, we already know that foreign adversaries are

exploiting this. There's been 1.5 Chinese CCP, who've been born on U.S. 1.5 million people who've come who've come to birth tourism to have children in the U.S. over the last few decades. I've never seen the number be that high. I don't know if you're referring to. The New York Post has reported on it. You know, I'm looking at cat crazy Sam. We absolutely cannot have this cat crazy Sam rights.

This is sanctioned by the Supreme Court foreign government's take over the U.S. of A. I mean, it really is pretty wild, right? because we haven't done a ton on this, and I don't like to, yes, I can't believe that they didn't take into consideration the time and place of the 14th Amendment and who this actually applied to. I think it'll come back. I think Don Baca, we're on a little too late for Don today, because he's six hours ahead of us, I believe, overseas. And Don has made the point over and over again in this chat, actually, that it will come back. And because it was such a

close decision, Amy Coney Barrett, all right, you know, she's not dependable, shall we say. He never wanted her. Don't forget, he never really wanted Amy. Somehow he wound up with her. Anyway, she's not so dependable, but I think it may, in fact, in time come back. So we'll see. But I find it fascinating because CNN's having a total meltdown about this now. But if we go back a few, years, go back to 2011, okay guys, I want to show you just a glimpse of a report from 2011. CNN was one of the first to report on the danger of these birth tourists, as they're known. It's sold as the ultimate U.S. tour package for wealthy pregnant women around the globe. It's called maternity tourism and its big business.

Right now, the advertised rate from $15,000 U.S. dollar to $50,000. That's Air Hotel Medical Care and the guarantee of an American-born baby. In Manhattan, a luxury hotel caters to wealthy Turkish women. In Tucson, rich Mexican women fly in on private jets. And in Los Angeles, affluent Chinese mothers are boarded in stately townhomes. They give birth, then recover, till they're able to return home. In these townhouses, inspectors had been called out to investigate on three separate occasions. They found the townhouses had been converted into a multi-unit facility,

and the kitchen was turned into a nursery for newborns. While it was shut down for multiple city code violations, there's nothing illegal about coming to the U.S. to have a baby. This is a hot topic for the show. Kat Chow is the host of a Chinese radio show. She says L.A. is a hub. It's like insurance, isn't it? For your future.

There you go, insurance. Well, I think parents, they really want to do everything for the kids. Attorney Daniel Deng says while maternity tourism is controversial, it's a fast-track to citizenship for the privileged. L.A. could enjoy the retirement benefit and also the best medical care that America, the government can offer. I went to meet one of the customers. When is your baby due? She declined to appear on camera, but told me she's from Shanghai and here on a tourist visa. Part of the immigration debate is that you should do it the right way and you need to wait in line.

these people who have money aren't waiting in line, are they? No, they are not waiting in line. However, they did not violate any law. And again, if you really want to stop it, if U.S. government really want to stop this, you're going to make the law. You're going to change the law. Chow says, until that happens...

Okay, but the law hasn't changed, and the law is not yet changing. So I think the next course of action is to just say firmly, you know what? In the last trimester, you're not coming here. I mean, I hate to be so indelicate about it, but you just, it can't be allowed. And if you do come here and you have the kid, you really shouldn't be able to get, you really just shouldn't be able to get citizenship.

I mean, it actually is a real security concern. As far as I am concerned, I think most of us feel that way, especially in a day and age when we're worried about all the espion. we have to worry about. But I'll tell you this, Homan is cracking down. The DOJ is cracking down. Mark Wood and Mullen alongside Homan. They're all cracking down. Let's listen to this. Exactly right. I mean, the first thing I saw the decision, which I don't agree with, it's okay, now we step up enforcement. We step up more enforcement. Even though we're doing record amounts of enforcement now, we need to do more. And not only that, we need to, you know, really buckle down on birth

tourism. We have many investigations on birth tourism, but we need to triple. Qual of group was done on that. And look, I agree with Judge Alito. You know, first of all, I've been doing this since 1984. That's when I started in Border Patrol. This birthright citizenship has always been a major driver for illegal migration. During the Biden administration, the Yuma Hospital, the El Paso Hospital, 100% maternity bedroom illegal aliens. That's not a coincidence. That's not by accident. But it's always been a drive for illegal immigration, but more importantly, it's a national security issue. Because the birth tours investigation, I'm aware, we've got nationals from China and Russia coming

here by the thousands having a baby and leaving. Now, so we have U.S. citizens by the thousands and discontinued by the millions living in countries that I think are adversaries to us that can come here and have an impact on how this country's run. So it's a national security issue, a huge proportion that we need to address. And I hope Congress does it. at the broadest and most shallow level, you know, I bring up the World Cup, Tom, but the point really is, do you have a citizen? So Congress balls back in your court. Maybe that's where it goes from here. In the interim, watch out for the DOJ. They mean business. From a Department of Justice standpoint, it's obviously focusing our prosecutors and our law enforcement partners on birthing tourism. And it's a booming industry. And it will continue, it will continue given the Supreme Court's decision yesterday. There's other things that that, that D.A. can do and the federal government can do in the in the visa process and the application process to try to

minimize or limit the opportunity of folks coming here to not to visit and not to do what they're saying they're doing on their tourist visa but just to have a have a baby that can then be a U.S. citizen. So it's from our standpoint, it's focusing on what is a problem. So everybody should agree that it's a violation of our laws. if you're intent in coming here, if you're pregnant, is to have a child to become a United States citizen because of our now laws. And so what we have to do is the Department of Justice is to make sure our agents or HSI agents that we work with in the FBI.

That they apprehend them. So actually, here's something kind of interesting. If we figure out that you did that deliberately, maybe you just go to jail. Maybe that's the threat. I mean, kind of like you saw how people stopped, flooding the borders because they realized as soon as they got here, they were going to be met by a special kind of hell with the Trump administration. So maybe that is indicative of the need

of some kind of deterrent. I'm thinking out loud here. Welcome to suggestions as I look at your comments here in real time. But I'll tell you one thing, it could be good to, you got to get rid of the bad people. I mean, maybe if you stop the birth tourism, you could possibly start getting rid of some of the bad people that are coming here from all over the place. Uganda, for example, Mammami, right? And I kind of wonder who's in his back pocket, who's bankrolling him? China, China, China, that's my suspicion. Anyway, if we could get rid of the bad people, then that might be a win-win for us.

Here's Governor Ron DeSantis out of Florida who's all for getting rid of the bad people. It's really important. You know, the thing about I look around the country and, you know, we've had people, and you see it in some of these election results. Some of the people that have been brought in over the last 20, 30 years, they don't like the country. They want to import where they came from, which some of these countries are really messed up and ultimately expect us to change to go in that direction. And I just think that, first of all, that's not the way I would want to live. But second of all, how ridiculous.

I mean, imagine, like, if some of us, like, showed up in France and we just showed it. Oh, yeah, you got to start, dude. Like, they would laugh at you, right? I mean, like, that's just not the way it is. So this birthright is an issue in terms of people can come. You kind of have, if you have kids, then it's hard for them to remove you at that point. And that's definitely been game. There's no question.

But it's a larger issue about not just illegal immigration, but who is legally being led into the country? And are these folks, people that are rejecting, you know, kind of the American way of life? And I think, unfortunately, we've seen that in larger numbers over the years. In any event, we will look at that. Indeed, right? He made the point that I've made repeatedly. Can you imagine? I'm going to go on a limb and say, forget France.

Let's go to, like, someplace like Mexico even. I mean, forget, no, you can't go anywhere. You can't go to the U.K., you can't go to Switzerland. You can't go to France or Italy or Spain. Or probably, I'm trying to come up with, you probably can't even go to Afghanistan. stand, okay? Like, you can't go anywhere. Like, you can't go to the worst place on earth and expect that you are going to get citizenship just because you were born there. And, you know, we just live in a different day and age and we got to get the courts to catch up with that understanding. But CNN,

they're livid about this. They don't want to end this. This is the media, typical media, you know, elites. In the meantime, you get the socialists that are taken over and going on and on about how we got to get rid of ice and get rid of the police and, you know, they want lawlessness. Abolishing ice is just one step, right? Democrats have been in power multiple times over the last few decades and did nothing to address the immigration reform that we actually need. Expanditures, increased spending on. Exactly. Yeah. And so if we're, I think there has to be an immediate pathway for every single

undocumented immigrant that's here. Everybody gets to come. Everybody gets citizenship. This is their panacea. This is their delusional world that they live in. That woman just won. So she's going to be going to Congress. as a Democrat, she's a total commie, she's, you know, proud of her communist roots and is going to perpetuate that. I mean, so this is the danger we now have because you've got a number of these people, the three in New York that Mamdami supported. And I really question their motives. The administration, I played, I'm going to play a little bit of this. I played it for you guys yesterday. I absolutely love it, okay, because I joke about McCarthyism all the time and you

I mean, hey, where's McCarthy when you need them? I'm kidding, I'm kidding. But anyway, they got the joke too, I guess, because they put this one out. How to spot a communist prepared by this isn't the White House. Forgive me, it's the RNC, 2026. Communist, physical appearance counts for nothing. If he openly declares himself to be a communist, we take his word for it. I'm a democratic socialist.

You call yourself a democratic socialist. I'm a democratic socialist. Bondania is a self-described socialist. I am a Democratic Socialist. Claire Valdez, this is a candidate again, aligned with the Democratic Socialists of America. I'm a proud Democratic Socialist. I identify as a Democratic Socialist, but I'm running as a Democrat. We will replace the fragility of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.

We will prove. The warmth of collectivism. We will replace the fragility. What was it? With the warmth. Anyway, the warmth of collectivism. That's what really stuck out at me, okay? That's what stuck out at me, especially because it's so hot, right?

In the New York area. And what did the warmth of collectivism deliver for you? A mandatory requirement? Oh, not quite mandatory. Just a suggestion at this point because he hasn't gone full commie yet. To set your AC to 78 degrees. Whoo. Turn off lights.

electronics that you're not using and unplug what you can. Zoran Memdami writes, because New York gets hot out there and the power grid is working overtime to keep us cool. Our city is doing its part two, maintaining its 78 degree rule in our buildings. Poor city employees, you know, as if things weren't bad enough. Dimming, turning off our lights during peak electricity demand, asking private partners to do the same

and powering down non-essential equipment. So that warmth of collectivism, it's kind of getting to people. Just like it's getting to them in France. I mean, you've got thousands of people dying in France, and they still don't want air conditioning. They don't want air conditioning. Why? Because they are fearful that the widespread adoption of energy-hungry technology

would undermine their ambition to lead the world against climate change. Yep, yep, yep. So, you know, Mamdami's singing the same old tune, and it's coming out in real time. What do we tell you? I mean, really and truly. It's like these guys in New York, they want to be France. Good luck with that. You know, I actually don't think that as many people as you think, Mam Dami, I mean, granted they did elect you, some kind of miracle happened to get that to actually transpire. But I think a lot of normal people don't necessarily vote in those elections. Instead,

you got Brooklyn hipsters. But I'll tell you, if the union comes out, Mam Dami's not going back in. The New York Union Chief, one of the Union heads, is just furious at the direction the Democrat Party has taken and I don't blame him one my aota. One iota, let's go to this appearance on Fox today with one of my former colleagues, Sandra Smith, lovely woman. In fact, she and I actually moderated, we're the first two women. How do you like that? PBS tried to get a bunch of credit for it, but we were the first two women to ever co-moderate a big national presidential debate. So Sandra and I did that. back in, I guess that would have been for the 2016 election.

Anyway, let me go to the union head who she's interviewing here. This is a very good and important clip, and it speaks to what I think a lot of people nationwide are thinking and feeling about the Democrat Party right now. Here now is Bobby Bartels, New York Steamfitters, local 638 business manager. And Bobby, I've had a chance to chat with you during the commercial. And, you know, I hear your frustration, and I hear it loud and clear. So share that with our audience. What are you seeing happening with the Democrat Party and the unions?

Well, the Democrat Party is going so far left, and they're supposed to be the working people's party. Right now, they're the immigrants, criminals, and everybody that doesn't want a work party. So we do not align with them. When we work hard for our jobs, we want our taxes to go for us or for American citizens, not for illegal immigrants.

We don't align with no borders. We don't align with no police. We don't align with giving everybody, you know, whatever they're looking for. And, you know, recently I just heard Kristen Gillibrand and Akeem Jeffries saying they have a large tent. They want to invite everybody into their tent. Well, why wouldn't they want to invite everybody into their tent? They opened up the borders to let everybody in for four years. My personal opinion and my members' personal opinions are they should fold that tent up, pack it back,

up and get rid of them because we've just let some Democrats know that we've backed for years, we're not backing them anymore. Whoa. You guys just lost the unions. I mean, we saw it coming, right, with Kamala Harris and her candidacy. By the way, she's been calling up all the socialists. That's the latest and greatest calling AOC, calling M. Dami, pleading with them to, I guess, support her for another round.

I don't think she's going to have much luck with AOC. because AOC wants to be president, of course, herself. Anyway, she's trying to court these extremists. But what did we see in the last election? All the unions, they were like, man, like this lady, she's bad news. Bad, bad, bad, bad news. They didn't like her. And now they're coming right out and they're saying,

we're telling everybody, don't support the Democrats. You see this. It's like all turning on its head. It's like parties, typical systems and parties don't matter anymore because Donald Trump has just taken everything from all of the Democrats. He's taking all the good stuff from the Democrats in that, you know, they're trying to protect jobs and help strengthen American industry. He's taking all the good stuff from the Republicans, you know, that we want lots of economic prosperity and low taxes and less regulation. He meshes all this stuff together into a mashup that's actually pretty fantastic, right?

This is the America First Policy. So I don't know what the Democrats have left. This is why they're creeping over to the socialist tent, all right? They've got to go full on comedy just to distinguish. themselves is different these days. It's kind of funny to watch. Hey, just a shout out from my company, 76 research. Go take a look at those portfolios. If you haven't, please invest, invest for yourself, invest for your future, invest for your family. We don't handle any of your money. We just provide the research to help you select the companies you want to be investing in. So in case of these

modern portfolios, we've got 10 to 15 stocks in each one of them, and we tell you every step of the way what we're doing, we tend to buy. We don't like to sell a lot. I mean, I'm a big, sort of believer in the long-term value opportunity, as is my colleague, who's an outstanding stock picker. That's Rob Horton. Anyway, go check that out when you can. We've got a big weekend coming up, guys. I got some fireworks to go to tonight. I got to go put on my red, white, and blue. I'll be back here with all of you tomorrow. Thank you for tuning in, as always. Such a great crowd here. And I know it's tough. It's a holiday week, and everybody's heading out of town, but you were still here. And if you didn't catch it live, you can see the replay at the top of the channel, as well as on

Spotify. I'll see you back here live tomorrow.