The Trish Regan Show - 🚨BREAKING: Letitia James PANICS as Trump Launches New York CRACKDOWN After California Court Ruling

Episode Date: June 16, 2025

In today’s LIVE Trish Regan Show: We break down the escalating legal battle over Trump’s authority to federalize the National Guard, as the 9th Circuit Court takes up the case. This is a major moment in the fight between state power and federal control—and the implications are huge for California and beyond.Plus—AOC has a MELTDOWN on Capitol Hill, and Trish draws a surprising comparison between Barack Obama in 2013 and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem today… are their messages more similar than the media wants you to believe?Later, Trish welcomes Rep. Bill Huizenga from the House Financial Services Committee to talk about the future of crypto regulation—what YOU need to know now as the government moves in.And in a wild culture moment: a singer defies the Dodgers and performs the National Anthem in Spanish—Trish shares her reaction and then her own rendition of the National Anthem. Oh...and there's more: Trish Regan sings, 'America The Beautiful.'It's a patriotic day here on the Trish Regan channel! Don't miss it—subscribe now and join the conversation.Become a TEAM MEMBER to get special access and perks:▶️ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBlMo25WDUKJNQ7G8sAk4Zw/join🟢For independent views on the market - sign up for my financial newsletter The 76report at:▶️ https://76research.com with CODE: DOLLAR today. Today’s show is sponsored by: 🟢https://TrishLovesGold.com — American Hartford Gold — go to: ▶️ Https://TrishLovesGold.com or TEXT TRISH to 65532 to receive up to $15,000 in free silver with American Hartford Gold or go to https://TrishLovesGold.com. You can also use Trish's name when calling 1-844-495-1115. 🟢 Go to ▶️ https://balanceofnature.com and use CODE: TRISH for 35% off and FREE SHIPPING OR CALL 1-800-246-8751 WITH Code Trish Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

And we're live. Welcome to the big show, everyone. Great to have you here. Lotko and on. Trump is moving in on New York City. Latisha James is absolutely flipping out as we speak. This is like her worst nightmare. Or maybe it's actually what she wanted all along. She thinks this is going to catapult her into a new stratosphere, shall we say. Anyway, he's moving in on New York City. He's moving in, obviously, on L.A. and he's moving in on Chicago. All those blue places. Speaker Johnson, meanwhile, is planning to censure. Yes, one Senator Padilla, because apparently you're just not. supposed to just rush the stage. Didn't, didn't La Monica learn that the hard the way? Yeah, she did. We're going to talk about that. Plus, I can tell you, there's not a whole lot of difference in how, say, Obama back in 2013 or even 2008 or Clinton in 2008 sounded versus, say, christianome today. Imagine that. I'll tell you, they've really lost their way. The Dems, the national anthem and Espaniel. I kid you not, out there at the Dodgers game, a singer singing in Spanish, even after she had been told not to, because, you know, people thought that that might, under the circumstances, maybe not be the most wise thing to do.

But she did it anyway. We're going to show you, plus the fallout, and then yours truly, we'll sing the national anthem for the heck of it, right? I have it on tape. Also, Bitcoin getting really quite real. We're going to talk a little bit about the Clarity Act, what that means for cryptos. I have my interview with Congressman Bill Hisinga coming up from Michigan. We got a lot going on. Welcome to the show.

Good to have you here. I'm Trish Riggins, Trish Riggins show. Very, very, very important day with much happening, much happening. Importantly, the feds are moving in on one New York City. And Latisha James is not too happy about it. Take a look at how they're characterizing it here. At the Daily Mail, hostile takeover. Trump's new sweeping directive to ICE sends liberal cities quaking.

I'm telling you, they are panicking. everywhere. This is truly their worst nightmare. I mean, Leticia James has been out there saying, no, no, no, we can do this, we can do that. What has she been tweeting? She's effectively been serving as a form of impediment to ICE and to the feds who want to move in and be able to conduct their duties and the federal law. And they should be able to, right? Because constitutionally, they should be able to. And this is what it's coming down to. This is where you get into that state versus federal situation. Now, Interestingly, Caribbean life, for some reason, they're like all over, Latisha James.

They're reporting on her all the time. I mean, they might actually report on Latisha James more than I report on Latitia James. And they love her, by the way, unlike yours truly, they love her over at Caribbean life. So AGs blast Trump for unauthorized use of California National Guard. She is now leading the way with all these AGs from all across the country, suing the president because of his use of the National Guard. And yet he's saying, well, tough luck because you know what? Not only did I use it in L.A., I'm going to use it a little bit more.

I'm going to use it in New York City. I'm going to use it in Chicago. I'm going to go use my ICE agents and make sure that I carry out the single largest mass deportation program in history. So, yeah, that's not sitting well with, say, Kathy Hochel in New York or won Latisha James. Don't forget, Pam Bondi back in February, when the first thing she did was announced that she was going in, And she was actually, you know, basically charging them with this kind of impediment along with the head of the DMV because you can't have a sanctuary city like this. You just actually can't do this stuff. By the way, I want to remind you guys, we are live and I'm looking at all your comments in real time.

So keep them coming. It is great to see so many folks here and so many regulars. We have quite the crowd. I'm a little bit later today, but that's all right, right? We're all motivated to see through everything that's happening. And don't worry, we're going to get to G7, and we're going to get to some of the international news and some of those things that are going on too. Also, as you well know, we learned that they have caught that guy in Minnesota. So that is some good news.

Anyway, Donald Trump coming out late last night saying, our nation's ICE officers have shown incredible strength, determination, and courage as they facilitate a very important mission. The largest mass deportation operation of illegal aliens in history every day. the brave men and women of ICE are subjected to violence, harassment, etc. He's going on about all the threats that they have been subjected to. And you look, for example, at what happened over the weekend. And look, you know, you can characterize that however you want. I think that in different places, it meant different things. And we saw some uproars in L.A. that I don't know how you characterize any way other than being pretty bad. And to the point where, you know, the mayor, Karen Bass, even though she didn't want to admit that she had to do anything out there in Los Angeles.

She actually had to put in place a curfew. So these ICE agents, right, are just trying to do their job, and they're met with all of this resistance. And he's like, forget about it. You know what? If you're going to resist us, we are going to insist that even in some cases, we're going to take over the National Guard, because we need the National Guard assisting our ICE agents.

We can't have the ICE agents being put in danger. And so he goes on to say specifically that he's running into this situation in Los Angeles, in Chicago and in New York where millions upon millions of illegal aliens reside, these and other such cities are the core of the Democrat power base, right? So that's a very interesting thing. And, you know, his big concern is that they've been loading up on people in an attempt to really stack this system and sort of rig it, right, so that you have more of a population center there and therefore need more members of Congress,

etc. And then perhaps one day, even get all of these people to be voting, which is what they were trying to do in the state of New York, 800,000 non-citizens that they wanted to be able to vote. And so he's saying, hang on, you know what, we're going to get this all, we're going to get this all figured out. You know what's fascinating about this is as much as the left wants to say this is terrible, this is awful, this is big bad Trump, they were talking about the same thing. Not too long ago. I mean, two years before you saw Donald Trump coming down the escalator, we heard the same kind of rhetoric out of Barack Obama's mouth. We're going to get to that. But I mention it only because we get a severe case right now of TDS. And when he goes in with his National Guard,

and when he goes in, forgive me, when he goes in with ICE and may need the help in the National Guard, when he goes in with ICE, he's being met with this constant resistance, as opposed to saying, okay, well, we'll work with you because you know what? There is such thing as federal law. And the feds have full jurisdiction when it comes to things like naturalization, when it comes to who is here in this country. And so he goes on to talk about this is all in a very late night, well, not that late, 8.43 p.m. I think when I saw it, it was rather late. 8.43 p.m. just last night, putting out on truth social, that he wants our brave ice officers to know that real Americans are indeed cheering them on and very much behind them. And we want a safe community and that they are

indeed supported. So even if you don't see that support in, say, L.A. or Chicago or New York or some of these very blue metropolitan areas, the reality is that the majority of Americans are with ice on this. And frankly, you know, again, I'll go back to some of the polling, including some of the polling that CNN was shocked by because if you look at even, for example, people who have immigrated to this country legally and are now American citizens, he's got that group. They're up like 40 points. It's actually kind of amazing. So it's a big constitutional battle.

That's the reality. and so this is what Letitia James is gearing up for. It's like, you know, this is her calling. I mean, at least this one has some teeth to it, unlike, you know, the other go-around that we had to deal with, where she's just going after him because, you know, he thinks Mar-a-Lago is worth one thing and she, for whatever reason, thinks it's worth another.

At least this actually has some intellectual might, if you would. I mean, she's, that one, I will never, get over how crazy all of that was. The idea of an attorney general of a state like New York getting in the middle, right, in between Deutsche Bank and won Donald Trump and saying, okay, I'm going to come into the middle of this private transaction. Even though there's no victim, I'm there to get him for $500 million. Half a billion dollars, you guys. And we're still sitting here waiting on the appellate court to turn that thing around. They've already indicated and they've showed their hand that they don't think that there's much of a case there,

but I guess they want to be really, really, really certain, and we're still waiting. But she's now going to make this her moment in the sun quite literally. So she's banning together, if you would, with some 17 other attorney generals in condemning President Trump for unlawfully, they say, quote, unlawfully deploying the California National Guard against protesters in California without coordinating with state leadership. So they said in this joint statement, the president's decision to federalize and deploy California's National Guard without the consent of California state leaders is unlawful, unconstitutional and un-democratic. Well, I got news for you guys. Guess what? The Ninth Circuit,

which is like about as lib as they get, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday, actually decided, you know what, that would stay. And that Donald Trump would have control over the National Guard until they got a chance this week, later this week, to really review it in greater detail. So in other words, they made sure that the National Guard was, there over the weekend for all the No Kings protests because maybe they were worried about that. In all seriousness, you get all these states, you see Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, gosh, it's all the blue ones.

New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, and Vermont, all banning together led by Ms. Lethisha James out of New York to try and take them down. Look, I mean, again, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. Like, you don't get any more liberal than that. I realize they're still looking at this issue, and they've got a lot to look at, and we'll get into the nitty-gritty because I actually know this pretty well. And I would say, look, there is precedent for what's going on right now, and you have to go back to pretty unfortunate times, like 1963, Alabama, and George Wallace.

But what did you have then? You had the feds come in and say, we're going to take over the National Guard because you guys are now in violation of federal law. I mean, and you can take your pick. In that case, you might go right to the conference. commerce clause, right, with the integration there of schools in Alabama. In this case, you can talk about the Commerce Clause. You can talk about the supremacy clause of the executive powers and the federal government. You can talk about the naturalization clause. I mean, there's a lot of

clauses, actually. Because as I said before, if there's like one single power that the federal government has, it actually is over our borders and immigration. And so it's about time that Leticia James learned that. Democrats totally livid. They're furious. You know what? This is a this is just, you know, Donald Trump taking on too much power, but I got to ask you, when you get a senator, like this guy, Padilla, who, you know what, I'm in the news business? And I had never seen him before, just saying. And he goes into a press conference at FBI headquarters, and he's like theoretically rushing the stage. I mean, I don't know what he's doing there. He's yelling. He's dressed in plain clothes and he's rushing up. I mean, what are they supposed to do?

What is Secret Service supposed to do? Fuckiness sakes, Christy Noem just had her purse stolen, right, in D.C. recently. They had to take him down. They had to stop him. And they, of course, used that as a moment. I'm Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary because the fact of the matter is a half a dozen selling criminals that you're rotating on your...

On your... How many of our ice agents have been dots for doing their duty and how they have been targeted. Wow. I mean, you guys saw that, right? In the very beginning, he sort of identifies himself, right? We see him kind of say, I'm Alex Padilla. How do you know he's not a state center? You don't know what's going on.

I'm Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary because the fact of the matter is a half a dozen violent criminals that you're rotating on your hands off. Hands off. Okay, so they take them back there. And this is where they're upset, right? Because they're saying, oh, well, this is violent. because they wrestled him to the ground and they handcuffed him. And now you got the likes of,

you know, Spartacus, Mr. Corey Booker out there in New Jersey going not so on at all and plenty of other people going a little bit not so on it. But under the circumstances, you guys, in dealing with what we're dealing with, I mean, unfortunately, right? Like, that's just what we're dealing with right now. And I hate it and it saddens me and you look at what happened in Minnesota. I'm sorry, but everybody is on high alert. And they should be on high alert. So you don't go barging into something like that and expect that there's going to be no ramifications. No, that's not how it works. Christine Noam reacting to the situation. I would say as we were conducting a press conference to update everyone on the enforcement actions that are ongoing to bring peace to the city of

Los Angeles. And this man burst into the room, started lunging towards the podium, interrupting me and elevating his voice and was stopped, did not identify himself and was removed from the room. So as soon as he identified himself, you know, appropriate actions were taken. But I would say that, you know, I had a conversation with the senator after this. We sat down for 10 to 15 minutes and talked about the fact that nobody knew who he was. He didn't say who he was, that until he was already had been lunging forward and people were trying to detain him for quite a period of time. And that this, you know, we're leaders, we're public servants. And if he had requested a meeting, I would have loved to have sat down and had a conversation with him.

That coming into a press conference like this is political theater, it's wrong and it does a disturbance to this country and the people who live. live here. So we sat down, had a conversation. We probably disagree on 90% of the topics, but we agreed to exchange phone numbers. We'll continue to talk and share information. And I think that's the way it should be in this country. I wish he would have acted. Let's be civil. Like, why couldn't you've got an appointment, appointment? Even CNN, guys, even CNN knew that this was the wrong approach, right? There's no doubt about it. I mean, and she was holding a press conference to do a press statement. He's not a member of the press. It wasn't like a hearing where it was a

open forum for senators asked question. He clearly showed up to a public event to create a moment and do what you're saying, sort of show his constituents, not just Democrats, but that he's fighting from his perspective. Hmm. Right. So it's called acting, like PR. Let's get my moment in the sun. Nobody knows who I am. Well, now we're going to make sure they do. And it's not appropriate, right? It's just not appropriate. And this is why he's now facing censure. Mike Johnson bringing this up on Friday. They are looking at censuring him. They are looking at taking him off committees. It's just not how a public servant should be conducting themselves. Now, is it La Monica? La Monica Maguire learned this one the hard way. What is she facing 17 years in prison for her little escapade?

I mean, at least, at least this guy wasn't, you know, pushing up physically trying to aggressively move the ICE officers away. I mean, at least he did. didn't do that, just saying. Here's Mike. But the Senate does its disciplinary actions over there, and we do ours over here. We have a certain set of measures, as you all know, and it ranges from censure to removal from committees to ultimately expulsion from the body. And do you support that for the senator? It's not my decision to make. I'm not in that chamber, but I do think that it merits immediate

attention by their colleagues over there, and that they need. I think that that behavior at a minimum is, it rises to the level of a level of a sense. censure. I think there needs to be a message sent by the body as a whole that that is not what we're going to do. That's not how we're going to act. We're not going to have branches fighting physically and having senators charging cabinet secretaries. We got to. No, right? That's not, that's not right. Anyway, like, we're now in a situation where things have escalated, and Donald Trump is saying, okay, I'm going to send in possibly the National Guard to the likes of New York, Illinois, not just California anymore because I have law makers there. I have attorney generals there. I have governors

there in each of these states that don't actually want to enforce the law. And when they're not willing to enforce the law, then we got a problem, right? Because the law is the law. And until you actually change the law, you do have to actually enforce it. I mean, otherwise, why the heck do you have it? Christy-know making this really, really crystal clear. And what I want to point out by showing you this sound is, you know, she's not out in left field. Okay, this is like normal talk. Christy sounds like a normal person as head of DHS. You know what? If you don't like the law, you can change it. It's the left that somehow thinks in New York and California and Illinois, they can be completely their own countries with their own set of rules and their own set of laws.

And that's not the way it works. My only question to you, I'd say a question back to you is, which laws in the United States should be enforced and which ones shouldn't. I mean, now my job, here's the deal, guys. My job is not to pick and choose which laws we enforce and which ones we don't. We have laws in this country, and they matter. If you want the law changed, go to Congress. When's the last time you went to Capitol Hill and told your senator or representative to change it? That's what they need to do.

This is the perfect time for Congress to make a decision on how they want people in this country to be able to have an opportunity to come here legally and to fix this. We, as law enforcement officers, and as a national security department and agency, my job is to uphold the law. And that's what I will continue to do. Right. Okay. Now, this is not something that should be in any way, shape, or form controversial. Okay?

It didn't used to be controversial. The law is the law. In fact, President Obama was asked about this law back in, was it 2013 on Telemundo? And gosh, I got to tell you, he sounds a lot like Christy Knoem. Head of Donald Trump's DHS. Let's listen. Last time we spoke, you said that you weren't king, you were president. There were only certain things you could do unilaterally. As time goes on, a thousand deportations on average a day, people are wondering, and our Twitter feeds and Facebook feeds, that's the question everybody asks.

Won't you at least consider unilaterally freezing deportations for the parents of Deferred Action Kids? Yeah. Here's the problem that I have, Jose, and I've said this consistently. My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said, here's the law when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they allocate a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources we have, we can't do everything that Congress has asked us to do.

What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. We're not going to have them operate under a cloud, under a shadow. But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring. the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that's not an option. And I do get a little worried that advocates of immigration reform start losing heart and immediately thinking, well, somehow there's an out here. If Congress doesn't act, we'll just have the president sign something and that'll take care of it.

We won't have to worry about it. But he's saying legally he can't. You can debate the Dream Act, but I think moral of the story is the Dream Act was like kind of a band-aid. And he was saying, I can't legally do this. Similar to what Christy Noam is saying, hey, you want to change the law, you want to fix the law, then go for it. You do that. This is what Tom Homan was trying to explain to the little bartender, one AOC, who has presidential aspirations, believe it or not, scary, I know. But anyway, she doesn't get it. He's trying to explain to her a couple years ago in this fantastic, sometimes, you guys may have seen me

place before because it's just this unbelievable moment where he's so crystal clear on it he gets it and she just doesn't she doesn't I mean he sounds like Obama right here trying to talk some sense into little miss AOC this memo you're not the author but you sign the memo yes a zero a zero tolerance memo so you provided the official recommendation to secretary Nielsen on family for the united states to pursue family separation I gave secretary Nielsen numerous recommendations on how to secure the border and save lives. But it says here that you gave her numerous options, but the recommendation was option three, family separation.

What I'm saying, this is not the only paper where we given the Secretary numerous options to secure the border and save lives. And so the recommendation, of the many that you recommended, you recommended family separation. I recommend a zero tolerance. Which includes family separation. The same as is, the every U.S. citizen parent gets a rest of window where the child,

Zero tolerance was interpreted as the policy that separated children from their parents. If I get arrested for DUI and I have a young child in a car, I'm going to be separated. When I was a police officer in New York and arrested a father for domestic violence, I separated that father from his family. Mr. Homo, with all to respect, legal assailies are not charged with any crime. When you're under the country illegally is violation eight United States Code 1325. Seeking asylum is legal. If you want to seek asylum and go to go through crime. decided to go through the port of entry do it the legal way the attorney general the united states

has made that clear okay you see again you want to change the law go change the law in the meantime you actually need to enforce the laws that you do have on the books and if states are going to get in the way of the federal government enforcing the law then at one point is the federal government had to say okay you know what we're taking over we're in charge and that's the point at which we have reached in states like New York and California with Donald Trump. Now, again, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is going to be looking at this again this week. They put the order in on Friday that indeed the National Guard could be federalized and the question becomes are, is that going to stand?

Like, where does the law come out on that? I'm going to get into the nitty gritty. But first, I just want to again remind you because this is sort of bizarre. I mean, I'm like, guys, whatever happened to the world? we're suddenly now, like, you're a bad person if you, if you think that the law should be enforced. I mean, remember, remember when Clinton and Obama were saying this. This administration, the Bush administration, has done nothing to control the problem that we have. We've had five million undocumented workers come over the borders since George Bush took office.

It has become an extraordinary problem. And the reason the American people are concerned is because they are seeing their own economic position slip away. And oftentimes employers are exploiting these undocumented workers. They're not paying the minimum wage. They're not observing worker safety laws. As president, I will make sure that we finally have the kind of border security that we need. That's step number one. Step number two is to take on employers.

right now, an employer has more of a chance of getting hit by lightning. Yeah, he said he was going to take that on. I guess that didn't really work out for him. But again, everybody kind of felt very strongly one way. Like it didn't used to be controversial to say, you know what, we have borders, and we need to enforce the borders. Open borders? That's a Koch brothers proposal.

The idea, of course. I mean, that's a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States. But it would make a lot of global poor richer, wouldn't it? And it'd make everybody in America poor. Then you're doing away with the concept of a nation state. And I don't think there's any country on the world which believes in that. If you believe in a nation state. Well, you know, hey, a decade later, suddenly we do.

What the heck happened? Donald Trump happened. I get it, right? So anything that Donald Trump stands for, they do not stand for. Weird. And then there's the, you know, the gerrymandering, redistricting thing that I think has become quite real. And, you know, before you dismiss it as some kind of conspiracy theory, don't forget, if it wasn't for the appellate court in New York striking this down, you'd have 800,000 non-citizens voting in the next election there in state elections in New York. And this has come up out in Berkeley, California, where you have now people that are non-citizens that are voting for school board members.

it's getting to the point where now we understand a method to the madness. Maybe back then they didn't see it now. Today they do. And so suddenly now you got AEOC totally freaking freaking out losing it on Friday. Oh my gosh, she's having a meltdown there on Capitol Hill and claiming that the Republican Party is anti-immigration, not even like anti-legal immigration, not even like pro-legal immigration, but like just anti-immigration altogether. And she's feeding out this kind of garbage. and I say this, wanting you to remember that her party actually once stood for something. It actually stood for borders.

It actually stood for having a better immigration system in which people could come here without all the red tape. And we'd know who the heck was here because we can't, in the words of Diane Feinstein, the late Senator Dianne Feinstein from California, we cannot become the welfare state for Mexico. Okay? And yet here's AOC with her little tantrum. about how this is about illegal versus legal immigration.

They are attacking legal status and removing legal status. The Republican majority is anti-legal immigration in the United States. I want to make that very clear, and I yield back. Hmm. The Republican Party is anti-legal immigration? Seriously. But you see, this is what works for her, you know, in the Puerto Rican parade there out in her bright red dress. This is what sells, right? You're playing on these fears. And when

you play on those fears, you have a shot in her eyes or ears of actually getting more of these people to vote for you. Her constituents now are all the people that are not here legally sassy. Thank you for the generosity. Here she is writing, it is 100% carrying water for the opposition to participate in this collective delusion. The Democrats, for some reason, need to answer for every who throws a rock rather than hold the Trump administration accountable for intentionally creating chaos and breaking the law to stoke violence. They are in charge. Now we're like saying it's okay. Like is this some twisted way of saying, oh yeah, we're good with violence? I mean, this is getting really, really weird, okay?

We are never going to be okay. Never ever going to be okay with violence. Let me make that very clear. And you know, you're going to lose people really fast. I think you guys would all agree with that, right, that you're going to lose people really fast if you're suddenly condoning any kind of violence in the streets. And by the way, that just gives more ammunition guys to Donald Trump to say, I'm going to go in with the feds, I'm going to go in with the National Guard. I'm going to take over the National Guard in a state like New York because they are the opposition. They are in the way. I mean, you've got a senator who's feared is a security threat and they're mad because Secret Service does what they need to do. The FBI does what it is.

needs to do. AOC is mad because Alina Haba is threatening 17 years for one La Monica McGiver after she was out and about at that event in New Jersey. She's the lady in red. That was her mistake, I guess, for wearing that bright red blazer. You can see her. Loud and clear. All right. Coming through. Coming through. I think one of you guys are joking. The red coats are coming. Redcoats are coming. She's coming all right. She's coming right through. And so this is now supposed to be in some way, shape, or form tolerated. By the way, let me just make clear. AOC's talking about teenagers there. That's no teenager that I'm looking at with La Monica, who's now facing, as I said, 17 years in federal prison. AOC said, don't you dare touch my people. These are my people.

I don't think she's giving them very good advice, do you? If anyone's breaking the law in this situation, it's not members of Congress. It's the Department of Homeland Security. It's people like Tom Homan and Secretary Christy Kno. You lay a finger on them, we are going to have a problem. A real problem, right? Does anybody threatened? I don't think so. I don't think so.

I think that Donald Trump knows very well, knows very, very, very well that you can't have this kind of lawlessness where you have states that are actually standing in opposition to basic things like controlling the border. You cannot have them saying, you know, we're not going to cooperate. It just isn't going to fly. I'm just looking at Charlotte's comment. I think she gets a kick out of La Monica every time she sees her, right?

Charlotte, thank you. Thank you so much for the generosity. La Monica, right? Yes, well, I'm sorry. I just kind of like saying the name. I do. I do. You know what?

I studied opera. You're actually going to hear me sing a little bit later in the show. I studied opera. I speak Italian. And so La Monica, right? Like, I mean, it's a great name, really. I mean, she just unfortunately doesn't quite live up to it. Her behavior alone. Again, La Monica. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. Okay, so, you know, whether you get the Padilla guy out there, the senator in California, or you have this woman in New Jersey, I'm sorry, there's just

no excuse for any of it, right? Like, that is not how we are to conduct. ourselves. That is not how we're supposed to get stuff done. Let's have some law in order. Thank you very much. And this is Wailina Haba charged one La Monica McGuiver with violating Title 18 U.S. Code Section 111 for assaulting, impeding, interfering with law enforcement. And so now the grand jury handed back that indictment. She's looking at 17 years in federal prison. She could have avoided it all. you know, the Newark, Newark, New Jersey mayor, he actually played ball and he got out of this. He got out of his charges. There's no indictment for him. In fact, he actually flipped the script, and he's actually suing Alina and the feds right now saying, how dare you go after me.

But, you know, he played ball. I don't know what this woman was thinking. It was pretty clear, you know, there's some kind of impeachment going on, shall we say. But she told Jen Saki, you know Jen Saki, who gets to do the Tuesday through Friday show and is sinking. an MSNBC like a rock, a little peppermipati that used to work for one, Joe Biden. And she took over for Rachel Maddow. And, well, she's doing worse than Rachel Maddow. Good luck for that network. Anyway, figures when you have guests on like this.

Well, Habas said you had declined every opportunity to come to a resolution. You said they wanted you to admit to something you didn't do. What did they want you to admit to? I mean, there was a lot. We've had a week of back and forth with them. And I will say that I did not waver. You know, I showed up there to do my job. job and she wanted me to admit to doing things, all of these different list of things that

she said that I did. Like what? I mean, from things of impeding, you know, I, there was some other things in there that she put in there, but I can't remember exactly what it was, but she wanted me to admit to these things, sign an agreement to them, and I'm not doing that. I mean, again, again, you know the tape, right? Oops, wrong one. Well, you know, that one's doing her own form of impeding, shall we say. But you know, this is the real impeding. When you're out there pushing ice officers out of the way physically, I think that's a little bit of a problem. And by the way, so does one President Trump. That woman was out of control. She was shoving federal agents. She was out of control. The days of that crap are over in this country. We're going to have law and order.

We are. You know that? Imagine that. We're going to get it one way or another, right? One way or another. This rhetoric, however, I would say it's pretty threatening to the Democrat Party, to the survival of the Democrat Party, because if you look at what's going on, I don't see her out there defending LaMonica. AOC was saying, don't you touch my people. Remember when the Newark, the Newark, New Jersey mayor was arrested. She was all out in defense of him. And poor LaMonica, she's kind of hanging out to dry. If you ask me, I don't think that she is very beneficial to her party. She's a big problem for the party. But you know, what's really going to come to a head this week.

Letitia James and won Donald Trump because the Ninth Circuit is going to be deciding on whether or not the feds can actually federalize the National Guard just like they did in California last week. Don't forget, Gavin Newsom was like, please have some decency. Please don't do this. How dare you?

Just, I mean, where's your decency, Mr. President? Stop. rescind this order. It's illegal and unconstitutional. said it. I'll say it again, it's immoral. You're creating the conditions that you claim you're solving and you're not, and you're putting real people's lives at risk. Well, the judge felt differently. Originally, Gavin said, Governor in California, we need to stop this. He went in with an emergency request on Wednesday, perhaps, of last week, and it went all the way in the Ninth Circuit

to the, well, I mean, the first time around, the first judge said, okay, I agree with you. I agree with you. You know what, Trump can't come in and do this. And then like literally, two hours later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals comes through and says, yep, you know what, that thing can stand. And the federal government can have that jurisdiction. So Gavin had to eat his words because on Friday evening, he was out there caught saying this. Location for training exercises. But there's a bottom line. The police, do police. Do police? Amazing. Military, it's for the battlefield. The idea that these unbelievably brave young men and women that I work with, that we have had the benefit of their extraordinary contribution all across this state.

I gave you three examples. What more evidence do we need of the work they did for the wildfires in Los Angeles and all the work they did to secure locations and keep property and personal lives safe over the course? of the last few months. These folks are now being commandeered to do ice raids. You've seen the photographs. That ends tomorrow at noon. And the notion that the United States active-duty Marines, these heroes, would be used to militarize the streets of an American city,

is an abomination. Whoa! I mean, first of all, that didn't end at noon. I did it. He had to eat his words because you see, the Ninth Circuit said, nope, you know what? It's going to stay. And perhaps they did that because they were worried about these No Kings protests that were going to be going on through the weekend and they wanted to make sure that things didn't get too out of control. Or perhaps they did it because when they look at Title 10, U.S. Code 12406, which allows for the president to call into federal service members and units of the National Guard in such numbers as he can that it's necessary to execute the laws of the United States of America. Maybe they said, gee, that Title 10, U.S. Code 12406 makes some sense here because it doesn't look like California is actually going to be able to uphold the law. And so the question becomes, is this what will be used in the case of New York, in the case of Illinois? Interesting, he left Texas off.

Houston actually does have its own issues. But he left that off because I strongly believe that he feels Texas will cooperate. So he doesn't need to worry about going into Texas and taking over the National Guard because he doesn't have that kind of opposition. Texas is like, please help us. And he's like, I will. So, you know, they're all like on the same page. Again, this 12406 Title X does allow for the president to federalize the National Guard.

Now, where it gets tricky, okay, and this is what Gavin's argument is, is where it gets tricky is that it's supposed to be done in the cooperation with the governors. So in theory, it would work like Texas is going to work, where Governor Abbott is saying, hey, I need your help. Donald Trump's like, I'm there for you, you know, and everybody's like hunky-dory, and you go in and you work together to get something done. But in California and in New York and in Illinois and all these very lefty liberal places, you're not going to have the cooperation of the local governors and the local AGs,

and that's where you get stuck. Now, of course, we believe in state rights, right? Like, this is partly what we were founded on. But at what point do state rights then jeopardize the overall country's well-being? That's why you have a constitution with things like the Supremacy Clause, with things like the Commerce Clause, because while state rights are indeed important, they don't trump at all, pun intended, whoopee. Now, you know, is it warranted or does this sort of escalate the situation?

I mean, whatever happened to the state's rights, I thought that was what you do. Because you tell the state, this is what we're thinking of doing. You know, you don't just send people in. You don't just send troops in. But what do I know? I never run a state. But I don't really, you know, when you come in and everyone is, when you go into the donut shop to look for people and you're dressed in tactical gear, you're creating an issue.

You're creating a problem. You want people to come. You've scared them. Even when people are supposed to be there, when they come to talk to the judge, you're arresting them right after. What is going on here? I think what really matters from sort of a long view here is the fact that he is militarizing and deploying the guard for the purpose of policing Americans' protests activity, right? Our freedom of speech, our freedom of assembly. And there's a very big, stark demarcation between military troops and law enforcement, public law enforcement, civilian law enforcement. And you are, an army turned inside to police that citizens can cause chaos, fascism and fascism.

Okay, there we go, you know, because it's all ending in fascism. Again, in fairness to Gavin, okay, he's saying, I want to do this in coordination with the federal government. You're supposed to be doing it in coordination with the federal government, but you've got a problem here because you've got states like California where you heard them, you just heard them saying,

how dare, how dare they turn these great members of the National Guard who are out there trying to help our firefighters, et cetera, and now they're turning them on ourselves. Well, if you have a law in the books, that says you can't be here, especially as a criminal illegally, you're here illegally and you're a criminal and ICE is trying to arrest you and you've got basically local law enforcement or the

National Guard not willing to allow for that, then you're kind of descending into some craziness, right? That's when you need to actually look at 12406. So again, whenever the United States or any of the territories Commonwealth or possessions is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States or the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States the president may call into federal service members and units of the National Guard of any state in such numbers as he considers necessary to repel the invasion, suppress the rebellion, or execute the laws. And you know what? This has happened. This has happened. Granted, you want to

go through the governors. And if you can go to go. through the governors you do, but what do you do when the governors, like in New York and in California are in the way? That is when you find yourself having to take over. And that is what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will have to make a decision on this week. Now, if they come back and they say the executive branch does not have this power to federalize the National Guard, think of what that would suggest, it would suggest Bedlam, right? Because then states can do this, that and the other, all they want. It means like they are their own little islands and that we're not cohesive as a United States of America. And if that in fact happens, I suspect it goes all the way to the Supreme

Court and it gets challenged there. So gear up everyone, right? This is going to be a very interesting, indeed a very interesting time. You know, we're fully independent here on the Trish Regan show. We appreciate everything that you guys do. I'm looking at your chat. You had somebody in there who didn't, who shouldn't have been in there, right? We've got a few of those now and then. And so we have to, we have to, we have to kick them out, right? I'm a big believer in free speech. I think you should be able to say whatever you want, but there's no point where it can cross a line. So we're going to keep it nice and keep it clean. And I think you guys all know that. So thank you for alerting me, Don, I include you in that crowd to the, to the, to the wackadoos out there. Anyway, we do appreciate

everything that you guys do. And I appreciate all of our sponsors here on this terrific show that help bring us, you help me bring you this show for free. And one of those happens to include our friends over in American Heart for Gold. Trish loves gold is where you need to go. You can text Trish to 65532 up to $15,000 right now in free silver. You can call them at 1844449.1.1.5. Big article, I think it was in the FT on gold today and just how the whole world has been sort of stocking up on gold because it is that safe haven, if you would. They believe it to be the safe haven when things are getting really crazy. We do have it down a little bit today, down about 1.5% at 3,400, still sitting near an all-time

high. But as I've told you before, I often go in when it trades down, because it's one of those investments that I hold, indeed for the long term. One of those things that I like having through thick and thin. We're going to talk a little bit more about investments coming up, including our Father's Day pick at 76 research, because we got a good. one for you. We got a really, really, really good one. We also want to talk a little bit about Bitcoin, which has been moving higher. I'm going to get to that in a second. But first,

did you see the story out of L.A.? I mean, like, it just keeps coming out of California, if you would. The national anthem getting sung in Spanish. Espanol. Yeah. Okay. So, there's this singer, her name is Nessa, and she was at the Dodgers game. And I actually have never heard of her. Full disclosure. Do you guys know her? Because, like, I'm sure some people know her. She's supposed to be like some kind of social media, TikTok star, singer, or whatever. I have no idea who she is, but that's neither here nor there

because, you know, I could tell you all the Fed governors. I could tell you, you know, a lot of stuff, a lot of stuff, a lot of minutiae that a lot of people don't know, but I have no idea who this woman is. But now I do. Maybe that was her goal, right? So she went out there to perform the national anthem at the Dodgers game, and she decided to sing it in Spanish

because apparently somebody was telling her not to and so that was like all the more reason to do so here she is speaking about that. All right, bear with me because I'm still very shucking out and emotional and I just... Anyways, I just got home from singing the national anthem in Spanish at the Dodgers game

and it is the official Star Spangled Banner in Spanish, you can Google it. I'll just read it to you really quick but it was officially commissioned in 1945 by the U.S. State Department as a part of President Franklin Roosevelt's good neighbor policy to foster a better relationship with Latin America. Because of this, I didn't think I would be met with any sort of like, no, especially because we're in L.A. and with everything happening. And I've sang the national anthem many times in my life, but there was today out of all days. I could not. I'm sorry Yeah I just could not believe

when she walked in and told me no but I just felt like I needed to do it for anyone who's been following me for a while you know everything I do is out of love like out of love good energy out of love and I'm proud of myself

for doing that today hmm Um, okay, really, really proud. My parents are immigrants. Okay, she's going on and on and on and on and on, right? Because this, this is her moment, right? As I said, I had never heard of this woman. Um, it could just be me.

Okay. Like, if you know her, let me know. It could just be me or it could just be that no, nobody really knows who she is. And this was a moment to kind of get some attention. She is a social media person. So, you know, they're always looking for their moment in the sun. Apparently they really did. They told her, the Dodgers said, no, we're going to do it in English.

I mean, given everything that's happening, especially this weekend in Los Angeles, maybe not a good idea, to fan the flames. This is that moment. Let's see if we have it. So there she is. She did it. I mean, it is a beautiful song. A lot of people kind of mess it up.

So we wanted to fix that. special thing for you today here on the Trish Riegan show. You know, you guys keep joking around. Will you sing? And I do sing, and I have a background in singing. And so it seemed an opportune time to drag this one out, right? Look, it's a beautiful song. It's a hard song to sing.

Whether you sing in English, whether you sing it in Spanish, I would just say, look, have some pride for your country and respect for your country and you know we've talked about do we need English to be a constitutional amendment do you have to actually declare that as the official language of the land and as this kind of stuff happens it gives rise increasingly to that because you should be able to hear your own national anthem in your own language am I right yeah I'm right Okay, we've got a big high note coming up. But I'm fun.

Anyway, Neza, whoever she is, singing it in Spanish, causing quite a commotion, trying to get her 60 minutes of fame or 60 seconds of fame out there on the internet. And we just wanted to show her how it should be done, right? I want to turn to the markets right now, which are trait. Let's see, we've got Donald Trump over there at G7 as we speak. And there's obviously a lot going on internationally. And you know what's amazing? We talked about this on Friday.

We talked about how the markets weren't down as much as you would anticipate in light of what was happening between Israel and Iran. But maybe that is for a reason because people actually see this as coming to a resolution in a way that would be, of course, beneficial to Israel, to the world, to us and our security. And so because of that, you now see the Dow trading up 6 tenths of percent, the S&P trading up almost a percent. And the NASDAQ up a whopping 1.5% right now. Again, all of this going down as Donald Trump speaks there at G7, has his meetings at G7.

There's some optimism that we're going to get a deal with Canada. We'll see he just spoke on this. What is holding up a deal with Canada from your perspective? It's not so much holding up. I think we have different concepts. I have a tariff concept. Mark has a different concept, which is something that some people like. but we're going to see if we can get to the bottom of it today.

I'm a tariff person. I've always been a tariff. It's simple. It's easy. It's precise. And it just goes very quickly. And so he wants to get, we'll see whether or not we can get to something with Canada today. But he's pretty set on the terrace.

And just look at what's happened, right? When you think about the revenue that recently came in in the last quarter as a result of the terrace, when you look at, or forgive me in the last month, when you look at the unemployment rate being still very low when you look at inflation coming down, all of these are very, very, very good things to see. We've talked a lot about the optimism out there and the good stuff that's about to come there with 76 research, which is the financial research company that I own. And Rob and I put out a note over the weekend. It's kind of like our father's day pick. By the way, do you have a good father's day? I was with my dad. I was with my dad. I was actually with my whole family.

My dad was visiting from New Hampshire, which was great and my mom and we had a really, really, really good time. I just thought, you know, that's my dad. My dad's wonderful. He's just the greatest guy in the world. But I just thought it was worth mentioning in terms of Father's Day. This particular pick is up 23% and still climbing. Our belief is that it does have some more room to run.

You can get the pick. You can get all our picks there at 76 Research.com. Sign up for the 76 reports. Just use code word dollar. It's a dollar a month for the first two months after that. It goes to $9.95. You can cancel any time. So the worst you're ever going to be out is a dollar. Just cancel anytime. But, you know what? Try and actually invest in this. I mean, this is a huge opportunity, I think, for everyone. And you want to be part of that. Part of the opportunity,

from my perspective, anyway, includes cryptos. I know, Don, you don't like this. Not everybody in the audience likes cryptos, but you know, I'm a big believer in this. And I do feel very strongly that this is sort of how we're going to move forward. This is the finance. of the future, if you would. But we need some framework around it. We need some laws around it. We need some opportunity around it. And that's what the Clarity Act is trying to do.

They're trying to get this one through the house this week. So this is all happening in real time. And I think as we look at the markets reacting to G7, and we look at the opportunity right now, if I can pull up my cryptos for you. I mean, there has been such a surge. Has there not? What don't we tell you to get into,

over on 76 research, I think we were telling you, it was worth taking a good hard look at Bitcoin back when it was around 55,000. And of course, now as I look at it today, up another 3% at $108,860. Rob was saying recently at 76 research that his concern was a lot of people were not going to actually get in on this, in part because it is scary, right? And it's hard to understand. And I get that. And part of that is because we haven't had enough regulation around the industry, but good regulation.

I don't mean regulation that's going to actually curtail it, but allow it to thrive. And so that's partly what they're trying to figure out right now. They're with the Clarity Act, the Clarity Act for Crypto. So keep an eye on that one, guys. I think that this has the opportunity to really advance us in new ways within the crypto space. And there's a lot of really exciting blockchains out there. I mean, personally, full disclosure, I have invested in Bitcoin. I have invested in something called Bitenzor, which is a crypto called Tao.

It's a play on AI technology, as well as Solana. These are all blockchains. In Ethereum, don't let me forget Ethereum. These are blockchains that I find really compelling and really interesting. And I want to make sure, right, for the sake of the future that there is a framework around this so that we can really really, really move forward because I think we're about to. I sat down recently with Representative Hezinger, Bill Hizenga, and we talked about this. He's on the House Financial Services Committee. And like me, he's kind of a Bitcoin dork. He's been following it for a while. And we were getting

into this. I want to show you with you this interview. Where is Bitcoin heading? You don't have to give me a price level, but just sort of from a regulation standpoint. Do you see it being embraced? They're in D.C. now. It's the future. And I have some colleagues on the other side of the aisle that are digital deniers, right? They just, they can't imagine a world that is going to have digital anything, you know, whether it is a crypto asset or whether it's a distributive ledger use for information. And that's the reality of where we're going on this. And I, you know, look, this was something that I too was introduced to this very early on.

I've been on the Financial Services Committee for now 15 years. I'm in my eighth term. And I was on the subcommittee, the capital market subcommittee. And in my third term became a subcommittee chair. And so I started having these meetings very early on. And what I tell people is, look, you have to have this view with that. Just as we articulated by Vice President Vance, I think, you know, the crypto assets are a store of value.

That's the reality of it. Is it going to supplant the U.S. dollar? No, I don't believe it will. In fact, I think with our stable coin bill that now the Senate's working on a Genius Act version of that, what it does is- It's going to help us. It's because you're going to need the stable coins. You're going to need to buy U.S. treasuries in order to have some stability in your cryptos. Yes.

And that makes it worldwide. And it's going to solidify the standing of the U.S. dollar and that it's the primary currency of the world. And I think that is going to do nothing but help. Now, what's the Senate going to do with it? you know, Leader Thune is opened up all of these. One big beautiful bill, as well as my understanding with Genius Act, to amendments. And that's going to be tough. There may be some poison pills that certainly get introduced, if not inserted into it. That's going to make it much more difficult. What do you mean? Well, I mean, I know poison pills in terms of like an M&A deal, but what do you

mean? Poison pills. Yeah. So there's maybe non-germain or non-germain. non directly tied to issues that get inserted into it. The simple fact is, is we have to get something. Look, the president wants this, the administration wants this, the securities exchange commission had wants this, the CFTC head wants this, the house wants this. Really? I mean, because I feel like the financial, you know, Jamie Diamond was on with my former colleague Maria Bordoromo this week, and he's like, we need missiles, we don't necessarily need Bitcoin. I mean, I think Bitcoin actually represents, dare I say, a little bit of a challenge or a little bit of a threat to some of the big financial institutions, because I can totally see a day. I kid you not. And maybe Texas

Stock Exchange will be the one to take this over because they're embracing a lot of technology. But, you know, where you have a day where I don't like meme coins, that's not my deal. I think they're like stickers. It's like kids trading stickers, right? But if meme coins, they represent a technology, right? So if one day that's actually an equity price and an equity ticker, and that's what's being traded on these various exchanges. So the exchange, is being backed by certain technologies, whether it be Ethereum or Solana, all of this stuff, which is super interesting, enabling all these transactions to happen more quickly without all the lawyers. I mean, think about all the derivatives trading you could do. I'm going to totally walk out.

I know everybody's like, what are you talking about, Trish? But it's seriously cool, and I think it's the future. It is. Absolutely is the future. We need as little friction in those transactions as possible. But you make the distinction rightly so. I'm talking about the policymakers and the regulators. You know, look, we had Gary Gensler at the SEC who, when he was at the CFTC, viewed everything that was crypto as a commodity. Then he magically changed his viewpoint that when he was head of the SEC, that everything is a, is a... An equity? Sorry, sorry.

So you can trade like, yeah, the ETS. Got it. And because, look, policymakers want to view it sort of as fish or foul, right? Turns out this is kind of a platypus. It's got a lot of characteristics of various things, and it kind of depends on how it's applied. Well, that's what we're attempting to do now is to make sure that with a stable coin act or genius act, something that we're putting out some rules of the road. And my point was is you've got a president who wants. this and has made a decision on this. Last administration, they didn't know which way it was up.

You've got, I don't think they knew what it was. I mean, they didn't know what anything was, right? I mean, Elizabeth Warren knows, I guess, but, you know, she's terrified of it. Yeah, I was just going to say, they got people like Elizabeth Warren who are talking it down and aren't willing or able to embrace this. And you've got a president now who absolutely is embracing it. You've got his regulators, his most trusted advisors who embrace it as well. People, you know, my mom was like, well, I don't understand. I don't know what it is. And I said to her before the election, but you need to be in it.

Like you just need to. You need some allocation. You don't necessarily understand everything about invidia either, but there's a reason you're in it. And if you're not getting exposure to it, you know, you're going to be at a disadvantage. Yeah. Yeah. And again, it's a store of value.

At this point, it might become more if we get our act together. Yeah. And we're going to have to start leading on this and not just reacting to it. And that's been the difficulties because we've seen other locations, other countries, get much more aggressive. And frankly, we want to have that pace by us here in the U.S. not be reactive to others. You bet. You bet. Now, you're talking my language. So it's a little bit of the interview. We have more coming your way. But anyway, I think, you know, as I look at everything that's happening,

right over the weekend. It's been a tough weekend. I get it. Look at what's been going on in terms of the protests. Look at what happened in Minnesota. Just heartbreaking stuff, heartbreaking stuff. Obviously on the international front, just tragic, awful stuff. And yet, you know what, we're persevering, guys. We're moving forward because I think the reality is this. There are good times ahead. And I say this with a true conviction for the optimism that's I believe in this. I believe in the policy that's being put forth. And I think this is beneficial for our country. And you know, we have to do all this. There's some, you know, like for whatever reason, and I can't understand, I can't explain it. And, you know, other than to say maybe they had

a political motivation for allowing 20-some of a million people to come in and not keeping track of who was here. Why did they do that? I don't know. But you know what? A lot of people were asleep at the switch. A lot of people were refusing to take. responsibility for this. A lot of people allowed for all of this to happen. And now the chickens are coming home to roost, right? And so now Donald Trump is saying, I got to go in there, I got to actually take this over and clean this up. And so part of the cleanup is going to cause a lot of commotion and a lot of concern. And there's going to be a lot that's going to get decided in the courts. And I don't think that Letitia or Gavin or the AG,

out there in California or the AG and governor in Illinois are really going to be able to stand strong in the face of what the law is. So again, if you want to change the law, let's go back to what Christie said. You know what? Her job is to enforce the law. And if you want to change the law, then go change it. In the meantime, the federal government actually does have a job to do. My only question to you, I'd say a question back to you is which laws in the United States should be enforced and which ones shouldn't. I mean, my job, here's the deal, guys. My job is not to pick and choose which laws we enforce and which ones we don't. We have laws in this country, and they matter.

If you want the law changed, go to Congress. Once the last time you went to Capitol Hill and told your senator or representative to change it? That's what they need to do. This is the perfect time for Congress to make a decision on how they want people in this country to be able to have an opportunity to come here, legally and to fix this. We as law enforcement officers and as a national security department and agency, my job is to uphold the law. And that's what I will continue to do. Boom. Boom. That's what's happening. Quick reminder. You know gold. It's down a little bit today. Maybe you want to think about getting in up to $15,000 worth of free silver for Friends of the Trish Regan show, which would be you.

Go to Trish loves gold or text Trish to 655.3 to go check out my own publications. 76 research. go get that Father's Day pick. And you know what? Remember this. No matter how bad it gets, we really are one nation under God. We really are the United States of America. And if we have to push a little bit so that everybody understands those laws, then so be it. God bless America for real.

Beautiful for spacious skies. Okay, well, if you don't subscribe now, I don't know what to tell you. Yes, I trained for years to be an opera singer. But, you know, the news is pretty operatic. You've got to admit. Thank you for being here, everyone. We've got a lot more to talk about live on the program tomorrow. I will see you then.