The Young Turks - Taco Thursday - May 29, 2025

Episode Date: May 30, 2025

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at ⁠shopify.com/tyt A federal court rules Trump cannot impose tariffs without congressional approval, marking a major blow to his trade agenda. The Trump administration quietly agrees to return an immigrant it “wrongfully” deported after losing in court. Piers Morgan clashes with Israel’s ambassador over Gaza. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on⁠ YOUTUBE⁠ ☞ ⁠ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks⁠ FOLLOW US ON: ⁠FACEBOOK⁠  ☞  ⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks⁠ ⁠TWITTER⁠  ☞      ⁠ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks⁠ ⁠INSTAGRAM⁠  ☞ ⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks⁠ ⁠TIKTOK⁠  ☞ ⁠         https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks⁠ 👕⁠MERCH⁠  ☞⁠      https:/www.shoptyt.com⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to the Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. Welcome to Young Turks. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian, and today's show is fascinating. If you're an longtime TYT viewer, if you've been a member since the early days, the second hour of today's show is kind of reminiscent of what the second hour of TYT used to be. a lot of cultural stories, a really interesting study about what happens to women in America when they have children, really interesting stuff. So I can't wait to get to that. Wozni Lombre will be joining us for the second hour and the bonus episode for our members

today. So definitely tune in. Stick around if you're watching us live at the moment. In the first hour, I got to say, the first hour contains a few stories that really show you that When it comes to the American political system, there are definitely breaks on the car. And so it's something that I want you guys to internalize as, you know, sensationalize stories, percolate in the media, try to scare you about everything. There's definitely some breaks in the car. And we're actually going to start off the show with that and talk a little bit about how the courts have weighed in on Trump's tariff wars and tariff policies.

So stick around for that. But as always, just want to encourage you to like and share the stream. If you're watching us live, it's a free and easy way to help support TYT and get the message of TYT out to people who might not be familiar with us. And if you've got a little extra change, you know, a little bit of that disposable income, maybe become a member. You can help support us by becoming a member. Just go to tyt.com slash join, a URL that I mentioned on this show regularly, but somehow forgot yesterday. TYT.com slash join or smash that join button if you're watching us on YouTube. All right. Let's get to our first story.

Investors reacting to a federal trade court ruling against President Trump's sweeping tariffs. The judge is citing a lack of authority to implement them. What this really shows if the global deep state is real, this legal deep state. This is their last line of defense. We have these unelected judges who are trying to force their own will when it comes to tax policy, trade policy. And really, this shows the battle Maria that we're in between American sovereignty and having the globalist takeover.

Yes, Jason Miller. It turns out that in the American political system, there are, in fact, some breaks on the car. And it appears that the courts have now weighed in on Donald Trump's announcement on Liberation Day, right? The announcement of this widespread trade war that he intended to engage in with a lot of our trade partners, a lot of our allies. Then he kind of reneges or temporarily pauses some of these. far ranging tariffs and says that he's going to engage in negotiations to get better terms for the American people and U.S.-based companies. Look, it's been pretty chaotic. And as I've said, many times before, I'm not necessarily against targeted tariffs if they're well thought out and doesn't actually end up hurting Americans through inflation. However, a three-judge panel on the court of international trade. I bet you didn't even know that court existed, but it does. The court of international trade has dealt a severe blow to the Trump administration's trade wars. They made a ruling that was announced last night, essentially blocking the implementation of his sweeping tariffs.

However, an appeals court later weighed in and already temporarily paused the ruling by the court of international trade. But before we give you the details of that, I want to get to the original decision first. Okay, so this is the original decision coming from the Court of International Trade. So here's the court's reasoning. Trump had used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact these so-called Liberation Day tariffs. Now, the 1977 law does grant the president emergency powers over the economy. Trump pointed to the trade deficit that the United States has run each year since 1975 as the emergency justifying his sweeping tariffs and his citation of this emergency economic powers act in order

to be able to implement those sweeping tariffs. Now, we also cited illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking to justify additional tariffs on some of our closest trade partners, including Canada, Mexico, and yes, China as well. But the judges, one of whom, by the way, is a Trump appointee did not agree that the law applied in this instance. Okay, the Emergency Economic Powers Act does not apply in this instance. So the court noted that the IEPA says the president may only use his emergency powers to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared. So Trump would turn around and say, well, there has been a national emergency, the fentanyl and,

you know, the drug trafficking, and the trade deficit. I think the trade deficit is an emergency. That's what he would argue. But the court's not buying that. They also said the law didn't give him unlimited power to levy tariffs. The president's assertion of tariff making authority in the instant case, unbounded as it is, by any limitation in duration or scope exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president under IEPA. The worldwide and retaliatory tariffs are thus contrary to law. So that was

their argument and their reasoning. And look, I got to say, it's just the way Trump has gone about these tariffs and the way he just kind of like pulls back and then threatens the tariffs again and then pulls back and then threatens them again, it just feels as though there's some market manipulation going on. You know, when you have the president of the United States essentially telling people, hey, might be a good time to buy stocks. And I get that people love that because if you trust the president and you decided to take his advice and buy stocks the last time he told you to buy stocks, well, you made some money in the stock market. So I get people who are like, Anna, just let him do what he's doing. Let him cook. No, I don't want to let him cook. That's not

okay. Okay, manipulating the markets in that way opens up a can of worms that we should all be super uncomfortable with. And so that really made me question whether Trump is really worried about the trade deficit or if he sees this as an opportunity to engage in market manipulation and essentially, you know, maybe even do some pump and dump schemes that obviously I'm very much against. Now, the judges said that the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the authority to impose tariffs under most circumstances. So look, Trump did do targeted tariffs in his first term. And look, for the most part, there were some issues with those tariffs. I mean, American farmers were harmed to some extent, which is why Trump took the

revenue that the federal government raised through those tariffs and helped to subsidize our farmers. So there were some issues with those tariffs. However, on the whole, the targeted tariffs toward China were actually very successful. The Biden administration kept them in place and even expanded upon them. So those targeted tariffs did not run up against the courts at all. What he's doing now with these wide-ranging sweeping tariffs, obviously, according to this court, brings up a pretty big problem, and he doesn't have the power to unilaterally do this. You would need Congress to weigh in. And they argued that the limited conditions that would allow Trump to act alone had not been met.

So the court also shot down Trump's justification for the fentanyl tariffs or implementing tariffs as a result of fentanyl trafficking, which was that the tariffs will create leverage to get other countries to crack down on the drug trade. So the ingredients for the fentanyl that's, you know, sweeping across the country and causing a lot of damage, well, it's sourced from China. The drug is made in Mexico and then, I guess, brought across the border. That's the argument that the Trump administration is making. But under IEPA, the judges wrote, the tariff must directly deal with the emergency a president's sites when imposing the tariff. The fentanyl tariffs do not directly address the drug trade, the judges wrote, but instead merely attempt to create economic pressure within other countries.

And it also feels as though after he made his announcement on Liberation Day, he just tried to justify those sweeping tariffs after the fact by throwing anything he could at the wall. Oh, it's the fentanyl. Oh, it's the trade deficit. To be fair, he's complained about the trade deficit it from the jump, but it just seemed like he tried to use things like the drug trade to make justifications for his sweeping tariffs after the fact. Now, the decision was issued across two cases. So one was filed by a group of small businesses, which obviously are going to be hurt if these tariffs are enacted, because a lot of what they sell at their stores or some of the parts they need for what they manufacture comes from foreign countries. Another was a case that was filed

by 12 Democratic attorneys general. So what the ruling applies to is what we should talk about next, because the trade court's decision applies to the reciprocal 10% tariffs that Trump imposed on all foreign products, which is a big deal, by the way. The fact that the court struck that down is a huge deal. And the additional tariffs he imposed on China, Mexico, and Canada, those were also impacted by this court's ruling. Other targeted tariffs on steel, aluminum, and cars were imposed under a separate law, okay, not the emergency law, a separate law, and therefore will remain in place. So it appears that the court's big issue here is the fact that in order to justify the reciprocal 10% tariffs and the additional tariffs on some of our closest

trade partners. He justified it by citing this emergency act. And the court is saying that emergency act just does not apply. You have not made a good case for why you believe that that emergency act applies to these tariffs. Now, the White House was ordered to take measures within 10 days to remove the tariffs in order to comply with this court's ruling. But the Trump administration is already fighting back. The White House immediately responded by rejecting the court's authority. White House spokesperson, wow, his name is Cush. Cush Dessay said in a statement, it is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency. But Cush, but Cush, he did not make a good case for a national emergency. That's the point. Okay, you can't,

It's like Michael Scott just declaring bankruptcy. You don't declare bankruptcy by screaming, I declare bankruptcy, okay? You have to actually, in the case of Donald Trump, you can't just say, oh, it's an emergency, and therefore I get to do what I want. You have to prove that there's an emergency and that what you're doing applies to the emergency that you're citing. And he just hasn't really done that. But let's put that quote back up.

Let's hear more from Cush, who says President Trump pledged to put America first, and the administration is committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American greatness. Okay, so that statement doesn't really tell you anything, but it does repeat a common talking point that you will hear from Trump's defenders about how, oh, these are unelected judges. Okay, these are federal judges who are appointed by elected presidents and confirmed by the Senate. And we have a system of government in which you don't have a king that gets to do everything he wants to do unilaterally. We have a system of checks and balances, which I would venture to say the right wingers who defend Trump and say that he should just ignore the judges,

they probably won't say the same thing if you have a Democrat in the White House who tries to unilaterally abuse his power the way that you're seeing right now with the Trump administration in regard to these, you know, reaching tariffs. Now, the Department of Justice on Thursday requested a stay, saying it's needed to avoid immediate irreparable harm to United States foreign policy and national security. And this afternoon, a federal appeals court did agree to temporarily pause the ruling until at least June 9th. So the court ordered that both sides provide written arguments on the question of blocking Trump's tariffs. And it is possible that the could end up before the Supreme Court. I'm very curious to see what would happen if it does actually land in the Supreme Court. Now, remember, the Supreme Court has ruled against Trump previously. They ruled against Donald Trump in regard to his unlawful deportation of Abrago Garcia, and they said that he needs to facilitate his return back to the United States. And one thing that I know for sure when it comes to this Supreme Court is, yes, it definitely is slanted as socially conservative, but this is also a very pro-corporate Supreme Court. I mean,

the Federalist Society, which handpicks the conservative justices and recommends them to a Republican president, as they did with Donald Trump, first and foremost, look for candidates who would be very much in favor of protecting corporate interests above anything else. So in this case, these tariffs obviously would hurt some U.S.-based corporations that would rely on cheap labor abroad or would need to import parts for products they manufacture here in the United States. So I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court ruled against him in this case, if it does, in fact, make its way to the Supreme Court. And while the trade court's ruling was certainly a major blow to Trump's signature policies, there are other routes for him to take, pursue these tariffs. So various other laws do grant the president power to intervene on trade policy, though in a slower and more limited way. And one thing we know about Trump is he's not

interested in slower or more limited. He just wants to go full steam ahead without really thinking much about the consequences or ramifications of what he's doing. Now, it sounds like good news, but Trump has various other mechanisms to invoke tariffs or have leverage in trade negotiations. It's just the speed of their rollout will be weak slash months rather than immediately as he did with the IEEPA. That's the Emergency Act. Now, Trump did freak out at reporters on this issue. So he's been having a rough week when it comes to trade policy. And the court's decision barring his tariffs from going into effect comes one day after a reporter basically triggered Trump by asking him about Wall Street's reaction.

to his policies. Take a look. Mr. President, Wall Street analysts have coined a new term called the Taco Trade. They're saying Trump always chickens out on your tariff threats. And that's why markets are higher this week. What's your response to that? I kick out. Chicken out. Oh, isn't that high chicken out? I've never heard that.

You mean because I reduced China from 145% that I set down to 100 and then down to another number? And I said you have to open up your whole country. and because I gave the European Union a 50% tax tariff. And they called up and they said, please let's meet right now. Please let's meet right now. You call that chickening out? Six months ago, this country was stone cold dead. We had a dead country.

We had a country people didn't think it was going to survive. And you ask a nasty question like that. It's called negotiation. But don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question. question. Go ahead. To me, that's the nastiest question. You heard it here first, folks. You know, up until recently, this country was stone, cold, dead. I don't even know what that means, but look, I want to understand, like, what the people who,

the people over at Wall Street that are accusing Trump of being a chicken, like, what do you want? Are you trying to like goad the guy into being even more extreme in his trade policy? policies, which obviously hurts the stock market, I don't get it. I really don't. I get that people want to insult Trump. Like, that's really what's behind calling him a chicken. But did they maybe consider that by calling him chicken and clowning on him for pulling back on some of his trade policies, that would maybe encourage him to double down, triple down, do things that are even more extreme? Like, what are you guys doing? And look, I think tariffs should be considered in some cases, in some instances.

But now, because of the chaos of this whole situation, I've said this before, I'll say it again, it has soured pretty much every American on the whole notion of tariffs, except for maybe Trump's closest allies, his biggest offenders, who would turn around and trash tariffs if, you know, Trump did the same. But for people who might have been a little more open-minded toward targeted tariffs, not anymore, right? Because it's left a very sour taste in people's mouths, a bitter taste in people's mouths, because of how chaotic this has all been, because of the uncertainty of the economic consequences of it.

It's just dumb. I just wish that he was more targeted, a little smarter about this, and approach this in a more strategic way, kind of similar to what he did in his first term. But obviously, that wasn't the case in the second term. So there you have it. We'll tell you how this story develops. But for now, there is a temporary stay on that court's decision to block Trump's tariff policies. We're going to find out in early June how the Trump administration is going to proceed based on what the courts decide. For now, let's move on to another story. This is actually some pretty good news because it shows that the Trump administration is, in fact, willing to comply with the courts, something that a lot of people have been concerned about. So the Trump administration appears to be complying with at least one court order to facilitate the return of a wrongfully deported immigrant. And that is good news because so far when it comes to the courts weighing in on Trump's decision to unlawfully deport people,

he's less willing to bring those who are wrongfully deported back to the United States. And we're going to get to those cases in just a minute. But let's start off with some good news for once, okay? So basically what happened to the immigrant who was wrongfully deported was that he came to the United States, came to the southern border, but during his travels to the U.S., he faced sexual violence, and I want to just kind of give you a trigger warning if you've been a victim of sexual violence or you have a difficult time hearing details about that kind of stuff, because I know how hard that can be. But with that out of the way, the immigrant is a gay Guatemalan who is only

referred to in court documents as OCG. So he was the victim of sexual violence and kidnapping, specifically in Mexico as he was making his way to the southern border. So immigration officials initially claimed that OCG wanted to be sent back to Mexico. He's Guatemalan, by the way. But later, they admitted in court documents that their claim was based on erroneous information. And the judge was not happy about that. We'll get to his statement in just a minute. Now, federal immigration authorities failed to screen this immigrant for a incredible fear assessment before deporting him back to the same country where he was raped and held for ransom. This is, how many of these stories have we covered now where the administration doesn't even bother to go through proper protocol and then they wrongfully, unlawfully deport people and then admit it, by the way, in court documents.

Now, what makes this story different is it appears that the Department of Homeland Security and the Trump administration is willing to not only just admit that they wrongfully deported this man, but it looks like they're willing to listen to what district judge Brian Murphy ordered the administration to do. He ordered that they facilitate OCG's return to the United States. And the judge wrote that in general, this case presents no special facts or legal circumstances. Only the banal horror of a man being wrongfully loaded onto a bus and sent back to a country where he was allegedly just raped and kidnapped. Now, he was also irritated at the lies about this case from the Trump administration initially, including the claim that the man was from Guatemala wanted to be sent back to Mexico. He did not. And so once the Trump side of this equation was willing to admit that they were wrong, that was based on erroneous information, the judge let him have it. He says, how was this mistake made? Murphy asked government lawyers during a hearing last week. It is a big deal to lie to a court under oath. It is an extraordinary

big, extraordinarily big deal to do so when there are matters of national importance at stake. I take this extremely seriously. So on Wednesday of this week, Officials with the Department of Homeland Security actually began preparations to return OCG back to the United States. So look, we've been very harsh toward the Trump administration for their unwillingness to facilitate the return of others that they wrongfully deported. But in this case, it appears so far, they could change their minds, but so far it appears they're doing the right thing. And for that, they deserve positive reinforcement. because look, law and order does matter, okay? And it shouldn't just apply to ordinary civilians in the United States.

It should apply to everyone. So if the Trump administration and its lawyers are willing to admit in official court filings that they wrongfully accidentally deported someone, well, they should write that wrong. And in this case, at least, it seems like they're willing to do that. So the Trump administration could also potentially release this man, OCG, from custody for humanitarian reasons. So rather than bringing him back to the United States and keeping him detained,

they might just let him go entirely, which I think is probably the right thing to do, because it appears that he had a legitimate asylum claim. So a flight crew in Phoenix is working with immigration and customs enforcement air division to put him on a charter flight, and that's according to court filings. And OCG's case is part of this wider class action lawsuit targeting the administration's so-called third country removals. So that means when, let's say you have a Guatemalan immigrant, Mexican immigrant, whatever, an immigrant from anywhere. And rather than deporting them back to their country of origin where they're actually from, the Trump administration will send them to a terrible prison in El Salvador. door. So obviously there's lawsuits in regard to that act. And so, you know, Judge Murphy's

decision is now the third time the Trump administration has been ordered to return wrongfully deported immigrants. It's just that this is literally the first time that it appears the Trump administration is willing to comply with the court orders. So the independent reports, the independent reports that last month, the Trump appointed federal judge, a Trump appointed federal judge found that the government's removal of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man named in court documents as Christian violated a court settlement intended to protect young immigrants who have pending asylum cases. And even the Supreme Court has gotten involved, as I mentioned earlier, and they unanimously, meaning all of them, agreed that the Trump administration illegally deported

Kilmar Abrago-Garcia to El Salvador and that he must facilitate Abrago-Garcia's return to the United States. Now more than a month after the highest court's decision, though, the Trump administration has yet to facilitate his return and is engaged in a tense legal battle to avoid answering what steps, if any, it is taking to bring him back and arguing that the administration does not need to answer questions from a federal judge about its arrangement with El Salvador. Well, they're wrong about that. If they value our constitution, our system of government, they absolutely do have to answer questions from a federal judge. Because we don't live in a monarchy, we don't have a king, we have a system of checks and balances,

and our judicial system is an important part of that system of checks and balances. And look, that goes back to the whole point that Trump's defenders are making about the judicial branch and how, oh, this is overreached by the judicial branch. I get the frustration about how the way our government is set up does kind of hinder some of what the executive branch wants to do. But I think it's important to have those brakes on the car, even when, you know, that very system of government stands in the way of the left getting some of what they want policy-wise. And it's because you don't want too much power concentrated with one government agency or one branch of the government. And you want to make sure that there is a path forward to write the wrongs of an

administration when they, I don't know, wrongfully deport someone to a third country that they're not even from. Because think about it, if they don't even bother to ask questions or investigate the specific people they're deporting, I mean, they could just deport American citizens accidentally. And then what? No due process? It's crazy. You don't want that. And while the right thinks they want it, they don't want that. Because if the tables were turned and it were a Democratic president doing something similar, they'd be up in arms about it. And they should be up in arms about it. It's just really, really shameful that they're not up in arms about the overreach of the Trump administration in regard to stripping people of due process and sending them to third

countries. They're not even from. Like, what kind of country do you want to be? And I hope the answer is not the kind of country that just wipes its ass with its whole system of checks and balances and allows the executive branch to do as it pleases unilaterally. Welcome back to the show, everyone. You're watching TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. And now we go to one of the most satisfying interviews, debates, Pierce Morgan has literally ever done.

You have two doctors in Gaza who have 10 children, and nine of them are killed in a bombardment by your forces. All you're achieving at the moment is making. Israel more and more of a global pariah. How come you know exactly how many Hamas terrorists you've killed, but you have no idea how many children you've killed? Well, Pierce, I can answer that question for her. And the person he's speaking to is Zippy Hotevelli, who is Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom. She doesn't know how many Hamas militants have been killed. You'll hear There are all sorts of inflated numbers coming from the Israeli government and the IDF.

And she doesn't know how many children have been killed because she literally doesn't care. Anyway, so what you just watched was a compilation, some snippets of this interview that Pierce Morgan had with Zippy Hotevili, who, you know, he seems to have a friendly relationship with otherwise. friendly relationship with otherwise. But in this instance, he had some pretty tough questions for her, and she didn't really know how to answer them. And the reason why this stood out to me is because for the longest time, Pierce Morgan seemed to be trying to do like this both sides coverage of what's happening in Gaza. Now, it's been over a year and a half, so many Palestinian civilians have been killed.

In the beginning of this war, the only thing that Pierce Morgan seemed to care about was whether or not his guests on his show condemned Hamas. Do you condemn Hamas? Do you condemn Hamas? I mean, yes, yes, we all condemn Hamas. Hamas committed horrific atrocities on October 7th. It did nothing for the Palestinian people. It has led to the absolute destruction of the Gaza Strip, the slaughter of tens of thousands. At this point, probably more Palestinian civilians. It's just, yes, we all condemn Hamas. But at what point are you going to wake up and realize that all of these children, all of these women, all of these elderly people, all of these civilians have now been killed

by the IDF. And no one seems to be addressing that in mainstream press, in establishment, legacy media. You know, there's just some quick mentions, but never a real reckoning with. with what the current Israeli government is carrying out. You can address the atrocities of Hamas, but for whatever reason, the atrocities of the IDF seem to be absent from these debates and conversations. Well, not anymore. And I think it has a lot to do with the fact that not one, but two, two former Israeli

prime ministers in recent weeks, recent days have come out to criticize how the government of Israel is prosecuting this war in Gaza. In fact, Morgan even started this episode by citing former Israeli prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Omer, someone we talked about earlier this week, who both criticized Israel's war on Gaza. So here's a little gem from Omert himself. The statements made by Israeli cabinet ministers,

the leading cabinet ministers that say we should starve Gaza. What is it, if not a war crime? I mean, how can a serious person representing the Israeli government can spell it out in such an explicit manner that we should starve Gaza, that there should be no supply of basic fundamental humanitarian needs to a couple of millions people living there. There are terrorists that we need to fight, but this is not a war against Hamas. This ill looks more and more like a political war of the Israeli prime minister in the cabinet and the group of fags which are now representing the Israeli government inside Israel and across the world are committing actions which can't be interpreted in any other way. I mean, that statement was very clear. And when you have former prime ministers speaking out against what the current Israeli government is doing,

I think what that leads to is permission, honestly. Because look, when people like me or Jank pretty early on in this war are willing to call balls and strikes and call out what we're seeing with our own two eyes as it's transpiring in Gaza, obviously there's a lot of risk that comes with that. So I'm not going to get into specifics, but I know that Jank has lost important, you know, business relationships and friendships over his criticism of the current Israeli government. You know, people will call me whatever names they want to call me, but I'm used to it. I don't really care, right? I'd rather speak the truth and say what's actually on my mind as opposed to like placating or pleasing people. Other people, by the way, have lost jobs. I mean, there are some consequences.

that's what leads to some people, maybe privately saying what they actually think, but publicly playing this both sides game that Pierce Morgan has from the very beginning, but not anymore because I think these prime ministers, former prime ministers in Israel have given him permission. And I'm glad they gave him permission because finally he's addressing things that need to be addressed, including the high death toll among Palestinian children in Gaza. So he brings on Hotevili, again, that's the Israeli prime minister to the U. who demonstrated a complete disregard for the tens of thousands of children in Gaza who have been killed from Israeli bombardment or starvation. Take a look.

Answer me that one question. Do you know how many Hamas terrorists you've killed and how many children you've killed? You know there's two numbers? I know the numbers that came from the IDF. I know the numbers that came from a very, very established thing time. Give me the two numbers. Wait a second. We kill 30,000. We kill 30,000. We kill. 30,000 terrorists in phase one of the war. Since the war is back, I don't have the numbers. But let me tell you one thing. We never target civilians. We never target civilians. So this question is irrelevant. How many children have you, how many children have you killed? Pierce, Israel is not killing children. Hamas is using them as human children.

Israel is killing children every single day. Pierce, this is a blood label you're putting on Israel. You know it's not true. No, it's not actually. And what you're trying to do is be very weasily with your words. No, I'm not. The truth is, the truth is, you are killing a lot of children. Wow, Pierce. Look at that. Okay. All right. I mean, Miss Rachel, who does content for kids, was willing to call out what was actually going on earlier than you, but I give him, I give him a lot of credit. I actually do. Because it was real satisfying to watch him ask her specifically the questions he was asking her. And it was satisfying to watch her flail because maybe for the first time, she's being pressured to answer important questions about the high civilian death toll,

especially as it pertains to children in Gaza. Now, she claims, laughably, that the IDF has killed 30,000 Hamas militants. 30,000, 30,000, okay. And by the way, in the first phase, of this war, they killed 30,000 Hamas militants. I don't believe her at all. Now, right now, the official death toll in Gaza, according to the Palestinian health ministry, is around 56,000 people. Okay, let me just round up, or not even round up, I'm rounding down a little bit, but 56,000 people. Really, out of 56,000 people who have been killed in Gaza, 30,000 of them are Hamas militants. In the beginning of this war, Israel claimed that there were 25,000 Hamas militants in Gaza.

I mean, the numbers, they cite different numbers all the time. So the United Nations, which verified fatalities from three independent sources, by the way, found that 70% of the Palestinians killed were women and children. In March of 2024, Haretz actually interviewed several standing IDF commanders and reserve commanders who cast doubt on Israel's official figures of how many terrorists it had killed. Okay, so you could read that piece for yourselves. One reserve officer told Horets that in practice,

a terrorist is anyone the IDF has killed in the area in which its forces operate. rate. So you kill a civilian, especially if it is a fighting age male, just chalk that up to a Hamas militant, even though there's no indication that that individual was actually a Hamas militant. A reserve officer who served in Gaza, by the way, gave Heretz that quote. A senior officer in Southern Command also told Horat's, it's astonishing to hear the reports after every operation regarding how many terrorists were killed. You don't need to be a genius to realize that you don't have hundreds or dozens of armed men running through the streets of Khan Yunus or Jabalya fighting the IDF. By the way, in regard to actual figures of people who have been killed, 180 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza by the IDF.

Humanitarian aid workers have also been targeted and killed. I don't know the exact numbers for that. So I'm not just going to pull a number out of my ass, but obviously we've covered very serious. specific stories of humanitarian aid workers who have been targeted and killed. Sometimes when they're traveling in vehicles that are perfectly marked to indicate that they're humanitarian aid workers. Colgate Total is more than just your favorite toothpaste. It's dedicated to advancing oral health. The new Colgate Total Active Prevention System features

a reformulated toothpaste, innovative toothbrush, and a refreshing antibacterial mouthwash, all designed to work together to fight the root cause of common oral health issues, such as gingivitis, plaque, and tartar. Use the full routine twice daily and be dentist ready. Shop the Colgate Total Active Prevention System now at walmart.ca. But Hotsavelli insists that Israel is following international law. Take a look. The international humanitarian law says very clearly, as long as you're targeting civilian targets,

you're allowed to attack hospitals that you know they're terrorists. No, but you're not answering my question. Israel is not deliberately killing children. And this accusation is a fake thing that you keep on saying again and again when you know we're a democratic country cares about human life. I just asked you a simple question. And at the same, at the same time, Hamas is deliberately using the children as human children. The idea that right now and throughout this war, the Israeli government and the IDF has been following international law is the most laughable thing I've ever heard in my life.

I mean, collective punishment violates international law. What do you think mass starvation is? What do you think the blockade of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip is? They have bombed every hospital. They have bombed every refugee camp. They have bombed every university. A university doesn't even exist, doesn't even exist. That's what the Turks did to Armenians during the genocide.

They bombed every university. They wanted to just, they specifically targeted scientists, doctors. How many doctors have been killed in Gaza? I didn't know that slaughtering journalists was okay under international law. Actually, it's not okay under international law. Targeting humanitarian aid workers also violates international law. What happened during this war was the complete dismantling of international law. Because why would any other country engaged in war give a damn about international law

when there seems to be a massive pass for one country and one country only, and that's Israel. Israel can do whatever it wants, and because it has the globe's military superpower, the United States backing it, can do whatever it wants. But now people are speaking out, and Hotevili doesn't know what to do because she's not used to this. She's not used to anyone asking her these difficult questions. I mean, in the past, all she needs to do is accuse them of being anti-Semites and they'll shut up, accuse them of repeating blood libel, and they'll shut up because no one wants to be called an anti-Semite. But the fact of the matter is all sorts of people who are raising legitimate concerns of war crimes, of innocent people getting slaughtered, have just been slapped with the label anti-Semite to the point where that label doesn't mean much to anyone anymore. That's what people like Hotevili have done.

And it sucks because I believe anti-Semites do exist. But it's harder to decipher who is and isn't an anti-Semite when you have people like Hotevili labeling people who aren't anti-Semites as anti-Semites because they have the audacity to call out the Israeli government and the IDF for the war crimes that they're currently engaged in. Luckily, Pierce Morgan didn't buy anything she was selling. Let's watch. The overriding picture, which is what's getting Israel so much a program around the world, is that your strategy isn't working. There's no clear plan for what happens at the end of all. this, Hamas is still clearly alive and well and thriving. Yes, you've killed another one of their leaders today, but you killed his brother who was the architect of October the 7th months ago,

and that didn't seem to make any difference to Hamas's ability to continue engaging in battle with you. And the argument remains, how many Palestinian, civilian, innocent lives, women, and in particular children, are you prepared to kill as you continue going after Hamas when it doesn't appear that you're winning that battle, that that strategy is failing. That strategy is failing. And nothing radicalizes an individual more than a military, literally slaughtering every single member of their family. Oh my God, can you imagine?

Can you imagine being a mother, being a doctor? You're working in a hospital in Gaza, in a freaking war zone. You're doing your best to save other people's lives. And these tiny little bodies start showing up to the hospital, seven of them. And every single one of those seven little bodies happens to be your own children who just got killed in an Israeli airstrike. Then you find out two more of your children died in that airstrike. And you only have one child out of your 10 children who survived. How does that not radicalize people?

I just don't understand the logic behind the people who are defending what Israel is currently doing. Okay, let's say you don't even give a damn about Palestinian lives. I think you're a bad person, but okay, let's just say you don't care about Palestine. All you care about is Israel. Okay, how is this good for Israel? How is it good for Israel to act in a manner that turns the entire? entire international community against them, all that goodwill toward Israel gone because of what's happening on the ground in Gaza. And by the way, the West Bank as well. And I want to

end on that. Because if you think the persecution and the terrible treatment of Palestinians only exists in Gaza, well, you're mistaken because Israel just announced they're going to keep building more illegal settlements in the West Bank. You know, the area, the land that belongs to Palestinians, but many of them have been driven out of their own homes by Israeli settlers as the IDF watches and essentially protects the settlers as they're carrying out these crimes. That's the West Bank I'm talking about. So just recently, Israeli ministers say 22 new Jewish settlements have been approved in the occupied West Bank, the biggest expansion in decades. Several already exist as outposts, built without government authorization, but will now be made legal under Israeli law.

Others are completely new, according to defense minister Israel Katz and finance minister Basilel Smotrich. And here's the kicker, and I want you guys to really absorb what Katz says here, because this has been the policy from the jump. Katz said the move prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger Israel. They never would allow and they never intended to allow Palestinians to have their own state. That has been very clear based on the statement I just read for you now and based on statements that Netanyahu has made in the past. The reason why he facilitated the funding of Hamas through Qatar, he facilitated that, he facilitated. He did that because he knew if you have this terrorist organization in power in Gaza, well, then the international community is going to be with me in not allowing Gaza to really be its own independent state.

That was the goal. And that scum of the earth guy failed to protect his own citizens on October 7th. Let's not forget that. So a lot of people will say, well, Anna, what's your solution? What's your solution? My solution is you guys have a powerful military. You have the Iron Dome. You have the backing of the United States.

Maybe use those things to defend your country from any potential harm, any other country or group might want to do. You know, use those weapons to defend yourselves or prevent another attack from happening. At the same time, yeah, I think Hamas needs to go. But what Israel's currently doing is essentially multiplying Hamas militants by essentially slaughtering innocent people and that least the radicalization of people who might not have been interested in Hamas to begin with. But there will never be peace for Israelis. unless they allow Palestinians their own statehood, period. I don't think a one state solution honestly makes much sense.

Polling of Palestinians indicates they don't want to, I mean, the one state exists right now. And I just, I don't, I think Palestinians need to have their own statehood, period. But if Israel doesn't allow it, this is never going to end. What are they going to do? They're going to slaughter every last Palestinian. I mean, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised when it comes to the current Israeli government. But I think the international community has had enough. And really, the only country where there's still support for what Israel is doing is the United States, unfortunately.

And guess what? Even Donald Trump is calling for a ceasefire, and that has upset that loudmouthed, screeching pig known as Mark Levin, who's mad at the Trump administration for calling for a ceasefire. I'm just going to give you a few comments from him where he says, in all caps, this is a social media post on X. Why is the United States dictating to Israel how to fight Hamas? Because we're paying for it, bitch. If Israel doesn't want us to have any say over the war crimes that it's committing, then they should fund their own goddamn war. But they're not. And as long as American taxpayers are bankrolling that country, we're going to speak our minds.

Period. End of story. We got to take a break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to the show, everyone. Since I'm such a chatty, Kathy, we don't have much time to cover a story in this segment. I'm going to read some super chat, some comments. We're going to take a break and bring Wazen to cover this fallout with Elon Musk and the Trump administration.

But before we do, some comments from our super chatters, including the last overdue Bachelor, who writes, just a side update missed super chat yesterday. a bipartisan nonprofit, noted since 2019, deep frustration grew as Israel maintained full control. Palestinians faced half-day blackouts, contaminated water, and food shortages. This crisis didn't start on October 7th. You're right about that. You're absolutely right about that. Look, while there was certainly an occupation of Palestinians in the West Bank, in Gaza,

you know, Israel likes to argue, no, no, we pulled out of Gaza. There is no occupation in Gaza. But Israel clearly had full control of everything that was going on in Gaza, their electricity, their water, what was allowed to go in, what was allowed to come out. So when I hear these arguments about like, you know, Gaza could have been such a wonderful place, and they could have built it up, and they could have used their resources to, you know, engage in business and international trade. They were blocked off from doing any of that. And you have to recognize that when you're making these arguments to treat Gaza as if it was some sovereign country that had the ability to engage in international commerce and things like that. It's laughable to say the least.

I mean, Palestinians in other countries who want to visit their family members in Gaza had to jump through hoops and obstacles in order to be able to do so. So thank you for raising that issue again because I think oftentimes people do forget that this has been an ongoing conflict and the treatment of Palestinians has been just absolutely abysmal for a very, very long time. All right, the last overdue bachelor, man, you must be stacking that paper. Thank you for the super chats. IDF and Satan Yahoo have reportedly weaponized AI drones, manipulating systems to flag innocent civilians. as threats. You're right about that. Operation Daddy's home is a good example of what you're talking about. Then there's shameless mouthpieces. These blood-soaked ambassadors appear on TV to justify genocide with the biggest lies in modern history. You're right about that as well. But in this particular case, you finally have Pierce Morgan shutting it down. And I appreciate that he did that.

Gail writes in and says, I just want to have BB say, when is enough enough? Doesn't seem to like it's ever going to be enough for Netanyahu, especially since he knows once the war ends, he's going to have to face those corruption charges and also the Israeli people who don't even want him in office to begin with. And by the way, they hold him responsible for failing to keep Israeli safe on October 7th, and they should. Stinky stalking full of lies says, when even Pierce Morgan is seeing the light, it must be obvious. They haven't been there. Have you been there? All right, I'll read one more and then we got to take a break. This is from Claudi 3241, who says Wish Pierce would have made it a morality issue. His response is, his response to the it's

legal under UN argument, he could have asked, do you think, do you think it's okay to knowingly blow up a child together with a combatant? That's a really good point. And I would venture to say no. In fact, even the U.S. military in targeting Osama bin Laden called off an attack because they thought there would be too many civilian casualties. And the U.S. military isn't full of doves. Let's just put it that way. So the whole human shields argument, like you'll hear this. And Honelli, in fact, made this argument in that interview or that debate. She's like, Well, you know, Hamas is using them as human shields and they know how the international community is going to react when all these children die in an airstrike that was targeted at a Hamas militant. Okay, then maybe don't do the airstrike. But they can't help themselves. They're going to do the airstrike anyway.

Even when they have bad intel or shaky intel on whether or not there's a Hamas combatant that's being targeted. Anyway, all right, we got to take a break. When we come back, Wosney Lombray joins me. We'll talk a little bit about Elon Musk bouncing from the Trump White House and what he thinks about his time there.