The Young Turks - You're Re-hired!

Episode Date: March 14, 2025

Federal judge forces Trump administration to reinstate fired federal workers. Trump threatens EU with massive alcohol tariffs. Musk Shamed Into Abandoning Cut to Vital Social Security Service. Chuck Schumer tries to trick Democratic voters. 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. For a limited time at McDonald's, enjoy the tasty breakfast trio. Your choice of chicken or sausage McMuffin or McGrittles with a hash brown and a small iced coffee for five bucks plus tax. Available until 11 a.m. at participating McDonald's restaurants. Price excludes flavored iced coffee and delivery. Stop.

Do you know how fast you were going? I'm going to have to write you a ticket to my new movie, The Naked Gun. Liam Nissan. Buy your tickets now and get a free Tilly Dog. Chili Dog, not included. The Naked Gun. Tickets on sale now. August 1st. So, you know,

I'm going to be able to be. Welcome to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Casparian. We've got a lot of news to get to, so let's get started. The judge said that the government used, quote, lies and gimmicks to unlawfully terminate these workers. So we're talking about Veterans Affairs, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Treasury. Trump and Musk probably are going to appeal, right? So what would that look like? Well, a federal judge has ordered the Department of Government Efficiency, along with the Trump administration overall, to reinstate thousands of federal workers who had been fired as a result of this new administration. Now, if you're wondering why, the judge explains he does so in a very detailed way, and you're about to get a summary of that in this next clip. The judge says that they didn't follow the proper process, that they've unlawfully terminated these workers because they've,

They've said that this was for performance reasons. He said that in a lot of cases, they were not terminated for performance reasons, that they didn't follow the process established in federal law. The judges ordered these government agencies to essentially produce a report in the coming days. Each individual agency needs to essentially say they need to notify all employees that they're reinstated. They have to identify everybody who was fired and who was a probationary worker.

Yeah, I mean, this isn't rocket science. You're not able to fire people without cause. The Trump administration alleged that the fired federal workers were fired specifically because of their job performance, even though some of these individuals had literally just been promoted to a higher position. And so the judge's ruling here makes a lot of sense. U.S. District Judge William Alsup ordered the Trump administration to reinstate employees at the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy, Department of Interior, and the Department of Treasury. I notice that what's missing in that list is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. There were also 7,000 workers with the Social Security Administration who had been given notice that they would also be laid off. So I'm very curious what happens with those workers in particular.

But in what will surely be challenged, Alsup also prohibited the Office of Personnel Management from issuing any guidance about whether employees can be terminated. He also ordered OPM, Office of Personnel Management, Senior Advisor Noah Peters, to essentially be deposed. And the judge thinks that the Trump administration has been evasive throughout this entire process. The judge slammed the attorney representing the Trump's, representing Trump's Justice Department for basically refusing to make OPM acting director Charles Easel available for cross-examination. In fact, here's what he says verbatim. You withdrew his declaration rather than do that, meaning rather than allow him to testify and get cross-examined.

Come on, that's a sham. It upsets me. I want you to know that I've been practicing. or serving in this court for over 50 years. And I know how that we get at the truth, and you're not helping me get to add to the truth. You're giving me press releases, sham documents. So essentially, you know, again, the judge thinks

that the lawyers representing the Trump administration, defending the Trump administration's decision to fire these thousands of workers were just being evasive. They had made some claims. At that point, the judge and the plaintiffs or the, you know, the lawyer's representing the plaintiffs wanted to do a cross-examination to ask about some of the statements made. And they decide we're going to retract the statement rather than have some of these officials, these Trump administration officials, testify before the court.

Now, the judge also said that the government, I believe, has tried to frustrate the judge's ability to get at the of what's happened here, and then set forth sham declarations. That's not the way it works in the U.S. District Court. You will not bring the people in here to be cross-examined. You're afraid to do so because, you know, cross-examination would reveal the truth. I tend to doubt you're telling me the truth. He also said that the process in place to essentially reduce the federal workforce is a process that must be followed, but it is a process that is a process that that the Trump administration did not follow.

And I really wanna emphasize that. As I've shared with you all before, during the Bill Clinton administration, I mean, hundreds of thousands of federal workers were in fact let go. Clinton wanted to shrink the federal government. He did feel like there was too much waste and bureaucracy.

And I think even in this case, under the Trump administration, that is very likely true. But there is a process. The methodology behind it is a six month review, process to determine whether or not these federal workers are necessary, whether or not they're important in running various government programs that Congress has allocated resources for. And so, you know, none of that was done. I think what the Trump administration did here was

simply look at the probationary workers in the federal government and just assume, well, it'll be easy to let go of them because probationary in their minds means they haven't been working for the federal government or for these agencies for a long time. They're not necessarily represented by unions. So it's easier to let them go without pushback. But make no mistake about it. Obviously, there has been some robust challenge to what Doge and the Trump administration has been doing in firing some of these federal workers. Now, the judge also said that that process is in place. They didn't follow it. He says that the reason the OPM wanted to put this based on performance note,

as to why they were letting people go, was at least in my judgment, the judge says, a gimmick to avoid their reduction in force act because the law says, or the law always allows you to fire somebody for performance, Alsup said, adding that the employees terminated for performance can't even get unemployment insurance. And by the way, that's actually something

that I totally forgot about in our initial coverage of the story. When you are let go due to your performance being poor, you're not going to qualify for unemployment insurance. And that's insane. And so I'm glad that the judge stepped in here. I'm glad that there were plaintiffs who were willing to stick up for the federal workers who are certainly suffering some damages here because they've lost their jobs out of no fault of their own. And also with absolutely no review process to determine whether or not their position within the federal government is necessary. So this is

something that will surely be challenged by the Trump administration. I have no doubt that that will be the case. And so we'll see how this plays out. It'll probably make it to the Supreme Court. And we will update you all as the story develops. But for now, things not looking so great for Doge and this attempt to shrink the federal workforce. keeps the fun going. Keep the fun going. Twizzlers, keep the fun going. All right, let's move on to some other news today, including updates on Trump's tariffs and trade war. Let's get into it. It's another sort of turbulent day here. The volatility has really picked up. We're down another more than three and a half percent

for the week. Almost 10 percent from the recent highs. I know that you guys have brushed this off, but I do wonder if you're starting to get concerned now that these losses are picking up. 62 percent of Americans own stocks. I mean, it's near 20 year high. So how can the White House not be concerned about hardworking Americans 401K plans. Look, Sarah, I didn't say we're not concerned. I want to tell you this tremendous optimism out there about our country in terms of regulations being cut, in terms of taxes being cut. Isn't it great to have an optimistic president who has a real plan to make life better for

Wall Street and Main Street? Well, I mean, that would absolutely be great if it were true. But the markets have been absolutely roiling over Donald Trump's incoherent trade policies, tariff policies. He'll threaten certain tariffs and then renege on the tariffs that he's threatening various countries, including our allies with. And so that has certainly been reflected in how the markets are performing, how the stock market is performing.

And look, you guys know me, I don't really care as much about stock market performance. I don't think that that's the best metric to determine whether or not our economy is doing well. But it is one metric. It is one indicator of how things are going under the leadership of Donald Trump. And, you know, the instability, the uncertainty really does stem from the fact that we don't really know in any given month what the president of the United States is going to decide in regard to these tariffs. Now, Trump's threat toward the United, I'm sorry, the European Union was really fascinating because that was the latest threat that he put out. He is now threatening the EU with 200% tariffs on champagne and other alcoholic imports

coming from the EU. So Europe has decided to, of course, retaliate against Trump's previous tariffs against EU countries. These are tariffs on steel and aluminum. which I'm always tempted to say as aluminum, because I just love the way the British pronounce it. But nonetheless, let's talk a little bit about Europe's retaliatory tariffs, which then led to Trump, threatening to impose a 200% tariff on things like champagne coming in from Europe. So first, with tariffs as high as 50% on U.S. products, including Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Kentucky bourbon,

which will take effect, by the way, on April 1st. The second wave of tariffs coming from the EU in regard to U.S. goods coming into European countries is a series of measures in mid-April that would target farm products and industrial goods that are important, specifically to Republican districts. So what the EU is doing here is really interesting because they are intentionally attempting to apply as much pain as possible. to certain states or to certain areas of the country that manufacture products or, you know, have goods that they export to European countries because Republican voters are going to feel the pain, considering what they're choosing to target for tariffs. And so they think, well, if these voters feel pain, it's likely that they'll apply pressure on Donald Trump to essentially lift some of the tariffs that he's implemented on European goods that are coming into the United States. Now, European leaders say that they would absolutely like to avoid tariffs overall.

They want to sit down with Donald Trump. They want to make a deal. But in response to the retaliatory tariffs coming from Europe, we get another threat from Trump. So he announced this on truth social. Let me read what he wrote. He says the European Union, one of the most hostile and abusive taxing and tariffing authorities in the world, which was formed for the sole purpose of taking advantage of the United States, has just put a nasty 50% tariff on whiskey.

I love whiskey, so I would also find that very nasty if I had to pay more for it. But nonetheless, let me continue with the statement. He says, if this tariff is not removed immediately, the U.S. will shortly place a 200% tariff on all wines, champains, and alcoholic products coming out of France and other EU represented countries. This will be great for the wine and champagne business in the United States. I should note, it's like a very elitist thing to say, but it is true. Champagne is called champagne because it comes from a certain part of France called Champagne.

So you call, you know, other champagne-like products that weren't made in champagne, other names, but you guys get the picture. So also, this is why the EU decided to target politically sensitive product categories to inflict enough pain on Trump voters in particular, because again, they feel that Trump. Trump voters have some sway over the decision making of the Trump administration. And look, despite Trump's most recent 200% tariff threats, the EU wants to avoid caving to Trump. They were hoping that their retaliatory tariffs against the United States or products being imported from the United States would convince Trump to come back to the table and negotiate for a better trade deal. But obviously, his first course of action was to retaliate further with another threat. Now, Francis trade minister said on X, we will not give into threats. Trump is escalating the trade war.

He chose to unleash. And Trump supporter Bernard Alnalt is actually the one of the richest people in the world, number one. But he is the man behind a lot of the products that will be impacted by Trump's tariffs if he does, in fact, go through with them. And so what's interesting is this guy is a huge Trump supporter. He went to Trump's inauguration. We haven't heard a peep from him, but I should note that champagne technically is produced only in a specific region in France. About 16% of its total exports go to the United States based on industry data from

2023, making America the largest importer of the sparkling wine. Please, it's champagne. Champagne. It's not sparkling wine. You can't do that. Now, let's get back to the stock market, because that's what CNBC has. its hair on fire over. And it's actually really entertaining to watch it. I got to be honest with you on that. So despite how much these tariff tips are negatively impacting the stock market,

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent says, don't worry about it. Everything's great. I was with the business roundtable yesterday. I think it was 135 CEOs. And I talked to them about our plan, which includes tariffs deregulation and what I call reprivatizing the government and bringing down this incredible level of government spending. And one or two items with one trading block, I'm not sure why that's a big deal for the markets. I mean, it's not just about one trade. First of all, the trading block that we're talking about is the European Union, it's not a small thing. And it's not just about a few products, right? So Trump really wants to implement these retaliatory tariffs, but he also wants to keep the tariffs on

steel and aluminum for national security purposes. I think that there's actually a decent case to make about the steel and aluminum tariffs. But for Scott Bassett to pretend as though we're just talking about one or two products. We're just talking about like one or two countries we're engaging with in this antagonistic way. That's just not the case. This is obviously something that's impacting our relationships with our allies. It remains to be seen what Trump is actually going to carry out what he's being serious about or whether or not he's implementing some of these tariffs as a bargaining chip to negotiate better trade deals. We don't know. And the markets are always going to react poorly to uncertainty in the economy.

And that's certainly what we have right now. And, you know, of course, Trump goes back and forth on these tariffs. There's just a lot that is unknown. And so it's difficult for companies to know whether they want to invest in expanding their companies, whether they want to spend any money on innovation, when they don't really know what's going to happen next month. And that's really what's being reflected right now in the stock market. So as this story develops, obviously we will give you more and tell you what will happen with these alleged 200% tariffs.

But for now, it just seems like Trump doesn't have a real plan or strategy in place. But he could prove us wrong. I doubt it, but he could. So we'll wait and see. For now, we've got to take a quick break. We'll be right back. Welcome back to TYT, everyone, Anna Casparian, with you. I was about to say Anna Casparian, Jank Yugar.

Anyway, I'm having some technical difficulties today. So if we run into any of those issues, I just want to kind of give you that warning ahead of time. Luckily, things have been smooth so far, too, too, too, but I'm going to read some comments right now from our member section. where Jen writes in, Jen's been a member for nine months. Shout out to Ronald Fan, who turns a distinguished gentlemanly 39 years today. He's also a huge Casparian fan. Thank you so much, Jen.

And shout out to Roland. Thank you so much for the support. Bruce City, Mike says Elon also doesn't know engineering or gaming. Lady AF says, I don't like my wine to sparkle. I wanted to sit there with a brooding attitude. I love that. I actually am not a big champagne fan. I think champagne is super overrated, same with sparkling wine.

I'm more of a, I like beer, ever play quarters. The name's Bogdo writes in and says, whoever is on these Trump sound bites being included in the background music deserves an effing raise. That's Bart, DJ Bart Kyle. He runs the audio and he's an overall wonderful human being. So thank you for giving him a shout out. Make it make sense, says Anna, I know there's so much news, but an Article 5 convention of states proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States

is being called around the country. The count is currently at 19 out of 34 needed. Will T.Y.T. follow this. I will look into it. That's interesting because a constitutional convention is something that Jenk has been calling for literally for years. And he desperately wants to add an amendment to the Constitution in order to secure publicly funded elections. So we can get money out of politics. I heard some leftists for making fun of jank for trying to do that. Anyway, when you act like a clown and don't try to build a damn thing, maybe sit this one out. But for anyone who actually wants to see if they can help that dream come true, not just for Jenk, but for the American people, for our political system and our democracy, you can go to

wolf dashpack.com, wolf dashpack.com. You know, maybe this constitutional convention, If it happens, nothing's stopping anybody from bringing up an amendment for publicly funded elections. So I'll follow that story. I'll see if there's anything worth sharing on the show, and we'll cover it. For now, though, let's get to our next story. Most of the federal spending is entitlements. So that's like the big one to eliminate. Social security is the biggest palsy scheme of all time. Believe it or not, government databases list 4.7 million social security. members from people aged 100 to 109 years old.

Well, Elon Musk and Doge have apparently backed off of their plans to end the Social Security Administration's phone service, which, of course, considering the demographic that Social Security is serving elderly people, retired folks, disabled individuals, getting rid of that. incredibly important phone service seems like a really bad idea. And so they've backed off that plan, and I'm really, really happy to hear it. But it's not all good news because the White House is still eyeing cuts to vital services within the Social Security Administration. So let's get into the details because according to the Washington Post, social security recipients will no longer be able to change bank account information for direct deposits over the phone. And when I first saw that, I was really concerned about it, but it turns out that this might actually be a good idea. And I'll explain why in just a minute, but first, the details on what Doge is doing here.

So at a tense meeting Tuesday, Doge staff members grilled career officials about phone fraud. But as employees suggested potential solutions, as employees suggested potential solutions, Doge representatives weren't interested in anything else but defending the decision that they had already made, one of the people said. And the decision is to end the practice of allowing, you know, social security recipients to change their bank account information for direct deposits over the phone. So in attempting to explain why, the agency told the press that approximately 40% of social security direct deposit fraud is associated with someone calling the social security administration to change direct deposit bank information. The current protocol of simply

asking identifying questions by telephone is no longer enough to prevent fraud. And it turns out that they're actually right about that. You have to keep in mind, we're unfortunately living in a time when personal information on literally everybody in the country is readily available online. And so these fraudsters, you know, whether they engage in hacking or just rely on publicly available personal information online, they can use that to essentially trick the social security administration into believing that the person they're speaking to is the actual legitimate social security recipient. And so I'm going to give you some data on this in just a moment because it turns out that there is truth to what's being alleged here. And I say that as someone who was

very skeptical of Doge coming into this story as I started researching this story. You know, because we've seen Elon Musk lie about so many different things. I never take what anyone says at face value. I want to look into it. And it turns out that there is some issue here with fraud. Now, to be fair, fraud in direct deposit transactions has been recognized as a problem for several years. In fact, I'm going to share with you a piece that was written March of 2024, okay, a year ago. So this is before Trump won the election, before we had any idea that he was going to be, you know, the Republican nominee. It's titled how fraudsters break into social security accounts and steal benefits. Thousands of people receiving social security benefits have had their

money diverted into criminal accounts. Here's what to know. So in the body of this piece, the writers note that an estimated 2,000 beneficiaries had their direct deposits redirected in 23. And that's according to anti-fraud officials at the Social Security Administration. An estimated $33.5 million in benefits intended for nearly 21,000 beneficiaries were redirected in a five-year period ending in May of 2018, according to the most recent audit from the Office of the Inspector General. So that is to say that this fraud does occur. And, you know, the attempt at preventing this fraud from happening by disallowing Social Security recipients from changing their bank account information over the phone might be a decent enough solution. However, there's a big caveat here.

Remember, earlier we had shared a story with you in regard to Doge firing 7,000 workers from the Social Security Administration. As part of those firings, they also decided to shudder around 10 social security offices in which social security recipients would need to go to in order to change their bank account information for direct deposit. So it's really hard to buy into the notion that Doge is concerned about getting rid of fraud in this specific case when it comes to changing bank account information when they're essentially robbing social security recipients of one of the only ways that they can get in touch with the social security administration to change their bank account information in person. So that's a caveat I want to

make sure you guys know about. But another $23.9 million in fraudulent redirects were actually prevented before they happened over that same time period that was cited by the New York Times. So that five-year period ending in May of 2018. So fraudsters also use, you know, like there were, basically there are fraudsters who scour the internet or rely on hacked information in order to pose as Americans who have retired but have yet to file for their social security benefits, which is crazy. So they're keeping an eye on certain people, certain demographic. Once they hit retirement age, these fraudsters use the personal information that's available of the retirees, and then they enroll as the retiree, but obviously the social security checks are not

being deposited to the rightful owner or the rightful person. It's being deposited in the bank account of the fraudsters. And look, part of the problem has also been the fact that, you know, you need your entire social security number to establish an online account. But all fraudsters need to do is use the last four digits of the beneficiary social security number to break into their account once it has already been created. And this is why Doge says they want social security recipients looking to change their bank account information to do so at a field office in person. So please don't shudder the field offices, because if you do, that just makes it abundantly clear that Doge is not interested in doing the right thing. They're just trying to rob the American

people of their social security benefits an entitlement program because we've all paid into it. are entitled to those benefits. Now, let's talk about some of the other actions that have been taken at the Social Security Administration after Doge came in. So unfortunately, it does appear that Doge remains unhindered. They are targeting the agency for across-the-board staff cuts of more than 12%. As I mentioned earlier, they had already laid off 7,000 people and they had closed around 10 field offices, so they're looking to lay off more, unclear how a federal judge's recent ruling, basically pressuring or forcing the Trump administration to reinstate the federal workers who have been fired kind of factors into this particular story. But make no mistake

about it, Doge still wants to do additional cuts of the Social Security administration. And even though Doge is reversing its earlier decision to end the Social Security Administration's phone service entirely, there's already been some damage done because wait times were already bad for anyone calling into that toll-free hotline to talk to someone from the administration. Now it's apparently taking much, much longer. And it remains unclear what Doge could possibly do to find worthy areas of cutting weight weight. fraud and abuse other than what they have just announced that they will be implementing, which is forcing the recipients to go to a field office to change their bank account information. Now, remember, one of the things that they initially focused on, all of their messaging had been about people who were dead, but were receiving social security checks anyway.

And if you don't know what I'm talking about, get a load of this. And it's crazy things, like just cursory examination of social security, and we've got people in there that 150 years old. Now, do you know anyone on it's 150? I don't know. Okay. They should be on the Guinness Book of World Records. They're messing out. So, you know, that's the case where like, I think they're probably dead. It's my guess. Or they should be very famous, one of the two. So I want to clarify what Elon Musk and his, he's, you know, his friends over at Doge were finding and what's really going on here? Because it turns out that we have this insanely antiquated system in the Social Security Administration.

And basically, it relies on a software program that just keeps track of every single American that's ever received social security benefits, including those who died and are no longer receiving social security benefits. And so it seemed to have confused Elon Musk and Doge, but I want to give you some. more details about it. So in meetings last month, the career staff explained that the appearance of people with impossibly long lifespans on the roles was an unfortunate feature of an antiquated technology system, and that none of those deceased people or their relatives were actually receiving benefits. So what Musk was pulling these numbers from is a social security database known as numident, numident is what it's called.

It's got a clunky name. It's a clunky process. It's an antiquated system, but that's what it's called. And that system, again, contains a record of every person who has ever been assigned a social security number. And so that's, again, what seems to have confused Musk. And this numidant system details information on people who died, but who lack a recorded date of death. because those individuals receive benefits before social security records were digitized. And there was also a meeting between Doge and Social Security Administration staff in late February, specifically to discuss fraud.

And so during that meeting, the Social Security Administration staff showed Doge numbers or members a 2023 inspector general report. basically an inspector general report that showed that they had looked into this fraud. They had examined the death dates listed and the whole system overall to see if there was something that can be done about it. And here's what they found. So they found that close to 19 million people born before 1920 lack death information in this system, but that the problem wasn't worth fixing because guess what? It actually costs more money to fix it.

And funny enough, Leland Dutnik, who was appointed as the acting commissioner for the Social Security Administration in mid-February, actually helped put that Inspector General report together. So he's part of the Trump administration, but he was also privy to that Inspector General report because he was part of the team who did the research, who did the investigation into the social security system. And so Homeboy is like sitting there listening to Elon Musk freak out because he thinks there's like 250 year olds receiving social security checks when in reality he knew the truth. And so he's in this like impossible situation of having to correct the errors or the misstatements. That's how it was described, the misstatements from Musk and the Doge team. And so as the Washington Post notes, Dudesek has been issuing careful corrections to Musk and Trump. Trump's misstatements on fraud. So the Doge team did appear to drop the matter on the dead people allegedly getting social security checks. But unfortunately, that does not stop Elon Musk from

publicly sounding the alarm about the same issue again and again and again, which is why it's so difficult to trust someone like Musk. This issue has been clarified for him a million times, a Trump administration official who had done that previous inspector general report on this issue has clarified the situation entirely, but it's not good enough. He's going to still go out there and put out lies about how there's like a ton of fraud in the social security system. As I mentioned earlier, there's a little bit of fraud in regard to fraudsters redirecting social security payments into their own accounts. And I'm curious to see if, you know, ending the practice of changing your bank account information over the phone is going to help, you know, resolve that

situation. But I also want to say, I mean, when you consider the billions of dollars, the Social Security Administration sends to rightful social security recipients every month, you know, the number that was cited in that Inspector General report, or that New York Times report, I should say, really isn't that big of a deal in regard to fraud. Okay. So we'll see what happens. Let me see what that number was. Yeah, $33.5 million in fraud over a five-year period. So it's honestly peanuts compared to the grand scheme of things compared to how much money goes out in the form of payments to recipients. But I think it's important to root out any fraud. So if they can do that through this new system, sure, go for it. But again, it's just hard to trust Elon Musk and Doge

when Musk is going around lying about what's happening with the Social Security Administration, and on top of that, closing field offices where elderly people would go to change their bank account information. So we'll see what happens. But there is some reporting today showing that spending has actually increased under the Trump administration so far. We'll give you some more details on that in a little bit. For now, we're going to take a quick break. When you're a forward thinker, you don't just bring your A-game, you bring your AI game. Workday is the AI platform that transforms the way you manage your people, money, and agents, so you can transform tomorrow. Workday, moving business forever forward. Wayne Gretzky.

everyone, welcome back to TYT. I'm your host, Anna Kasparian. Let's get right into the next story, because we've got a lot to share with you about what's currently happening with Senate Democrats, the government funding bill, and the fact that I guess Democratic leadership thought that they can, you know, pull a fast one on us. They think we're dumb. I'll tell you what I mean. So Senate Democrats appear poised to play a trick on their constituents and essentially engage in a procedural maneuver that will ultimately help Republicans pass the continuing resolution to keep the government funded through September. Now, keeping the government funded is important. But you know, the devil is in the details. And everything we've been hearing from the Democratic Party

is that, oh, this continuing resolution is terrible. We're going to fight to the death to prevent it, to block it. But here's the real situation. Here's what's really happening. So in order to pass this continuing resolution, which of course, the House of Representatives passed earlier this week, but it needs to pass in the Senate. Well, basically, the Senate would need eight Democrats to join Republicans in order to pass it. And that's because of the 60 vote threshold to pass the legislative filibuster, right? You typically need 60 votes out of 100 in order to pass any legislation from the Senate. However, you also have the situation with Senator Rand Paul, who is a Republican, but considers himself more of a libertarian. He's also a deficit hawk. So he's not happy with

the continuing resolution. He feels that there's too much spending in it. And so as a result, you know, these Senate Republicans need at least eight Democrats in order to pass the House's version of the continuing resolution and keep the government funded through September. Now, on the surface, on the surface, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is really talking this big talk. He's claiming that, you know, he wants the Democrats to block the bill. That's what he's saying. But it turns out that's not actually true. And it does appear as though he's trying to trick Democratic voters by giving the appearance of fighting the Republicans to block the CR, the continuing resolution. In reality, let's read what Manorajou had shared earlier. So he says that

Thune, meaning the Senate majority leader, Senator Thune, takes procedural step to bring the House spending bill to the floor. Vote could occur Friday morning hours before government shut down deadline unless there's an agreement to have it sooner. 60 votes would be needed. Schumer is threatening to block it. Now here's the important part. This last sentence is what we need to focus on. But senators on both sides think an agreement to give Democrats an amendment vote for a 30-day extension, which would fail, could help end the standoff. So Democrats are pretending like they're going to get a win by convincing Republicans to allow them to hold a vote on an amendment that would have a 30-day continuing resolution as opposed to a continuing resolution

that funds the government through September. And, well, there's something interesting that happens because they also voted on something, cloture, which would basically allow for Republicans in the Senate to pass the continuing resolution after that amendment fails, right? That would only require a simple majority. So they're voting for cloture, which means that the Senate would just need that simple majority

of 51 senators to vote in favor, the CR in order for that legislation to pass. They wouldn't have to deal with that 60 vote legislative filibuster in the Senate. And by the way, AOC and other Democrats from the House have been raising alarm about this. AOC posted on X. I hope Senate Democrats understand there's nothing clever about setting up a fake, failed 30-day CR first to turn around and vote for cloture on the GOP spending bill. Those games won't fool anyone. It won't trust. it won't trick house members. People will not forget. And I just want to pause on that for a minute because think about how utterly embarrassing Democratic leadership is here. You know, people get so mad at me because I'm too critical of the Democrats, but what do you guys want me to do for the critics?

What do you want me to do? You want me to celebrate this that these Democrats, the Democratic leadership in the Senate, doesn't respect us enough. they think we're morons and we're not going to figure this out, that they're going to hold some sort of sham vote. And by the way, if you think keeping the government funded is more important than fighting the Republicans in this particular case, then grow a set, hold a press conference, and explain why. Instead, Schumer's trying to have his cake and eat it too. He's trying to pretend like he's some sort of fighter, when in reality, he's not trying to block this bill. He just wants to give constituents and Democratic voters the illusion that he's a tough fighter against the Republican Party. It's absolutely pathetic. As political reports, in order to meet the Friday night deadline to avoid a shutdown, Republicans will need all 100 senators to agree to speed up the process. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has pushed for the April 11th,

CR, meaning he's pushing for this sham vote, you know, this show vote on the amendment that would make the CR last only 30 days, when in reality, this is all just a stunt so they can vote on cloture and allow for the government funding bill in the Senate to pass with that simple majority. And by the way, we know that one Democratic senator, Mark Warner in particular, is absolutely against this maneuver. And I commend him for putting this video out to ensure that Democratic voters know what's going on. Take a look. It posted last night, let me be explicitly clear. No on the CR, no on cloture. We need to move to a bipartisan approach. Let me give you a couple reasons. The CR will cut back on our solemn promises to veterans. It will mean our ship builders and ship repair and Hampton Roads will be paralyzed. It takes an incredibly gratuitous shot at the District of Columbia in just a mean-spirited way. This and the whole notion that we're going to turn over the keys with no restraint to Trump and Musk. I am a no. Now, at the time, there were other Democratic senators

who were a clear no vote on the continuing resolution. That includes John Hickenlooper, Jeff Merckley, Chris Coons, Adam Schiff, Tim Cain, and Peter Welch. But guess what, just broke? It just broke, as I'm doing this story. It's incredible. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer privately told fellow Democrats during a closed-door lunch on Thursday, meaning today, that he would help advance a House GOP funding bill, a strong indication that Senate Democrats will ultimately back down from forcing a government shutdown on Saturday. Schumer's closed-door comments confirmed by two people granted anonymity to disclose his private remarks, comes amid days of Democratic agonizing about the possible shutdown.

And by the way, a story that was reported earlier in the day involved Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand essentially screaming at the top of her lungs at her Democratic colleagues so much so that reporters could hear. And she was apparently dressing them down for considering the possibility of blocking the government funding bill. So look, let's take a pause for a second because, you know, I think a mistake that tends to get made. I make this mistake all the time and then I have to kind of like back it up and make sure I know what's really going on is okay, well, Republicans are doing something. So by definition, that must be bad. And to be sure, considering what we've been hearing in regard to the budget blueprint, which is a separate

bill, keep that in mind. That's a separate bill. The budget blueprint, which is pressuring the committee that's in charge of Medicaid to cut $880 billion. That kind of story, that kind of news obviously should make people distrustful about what the Republican Party is seeking to cut what they're trying to do with the budget. But I do want to talk a little bit about what I found interesting about this government funding bill from the House of Representatives, which the Senate is now poised to pass. Because apparently there's all sorts of new spending in that bill. And that's probably the reason why Thomas Massey, a Republican from Kentucky, was like, I'm not voting for this. It's probably also the reason why Republican Senator Rand Paul

said, I'm not going to vote for this. This is too much. So look, the continuing resolution includes a ton of new spending, including $6 billion in additional defense spending, which I had shared with you earlier. However, this wasn't reported previously. It also includes $485 million for immigration and customs enforcement. Actually, that was reported earlier. But the next few things, I know were not reported earlier. So $13 billion in cuts to non-defense spending and $753 million in additional spending for air traffic control systems, which is good. I think we need additional spending for air traffic control systems. And we need better oversight to ensure that that money is spent productively and efficiently. I think that's the other issue. I think the left makes

the mistake of thinking, more funding, well, we need more funding, more funding. Okay, sure. Sure, but in some cases, you'll see more funding. But whatever issue Congress is trying to resolve doesn't get better because the money is used poorly. So I think there needs to be, there's additional spending. I'm all for it if it's actually used for the right purposes in an efficient way. But here's where it gets super shocking. Okay. So this is reported by CNN, very deep, deep, deep in their reporting. Funding for nutrition assistance to mothers, infants, and children in the WIC program would jump by more than $500 million to a total of $7.6 billion, a request made by the Trump administration. I mean, wow, why is that part of the story buried? And our

producer, Kate, made a really good point, although I kind of understand why this happened. Okay, that's actually great. Why didn't Republicans in the House tout that? It's probably because, you know, in the GOP, in the Republican Party, it is a big tent. And so you have these deficit hawks in the House Freedom Caucus. And then you have the more populous, you know, flavor of Republicans. I don't know if they're really represented in our members of Congress, but they're certainly represented in the Republican electorate. So maybe that's what this is about, right?

There's like some cuts in some areas, but additional spending in areas that I really do care about and I'm happy to see. So 500 million additional dollars for WIC and for infants and mothers, like I think that's good news. But there are some additional cuts as well, $185 million in cuts to the nuclear non-proliferation programs, $1.4 billion in cuts for the Army Corps of Engineers. Construction funding used for projects to mitigate impacts of hurricanes and floods. I think that's a really, really bad idea, but that is included in the continuing resolution. But also the bill includes a provision that effectively neuters lawmakers' powers to force a vote on whether to terminate a president's ability to impose tariffs that would help Republican members. avoid a politically painful up or down vote on ending Trump's tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

So it is a mixed bag. There is additional funding for things that I think need additional funding, air traffic control, the WIC program. But as with any legislation, it's going to be mixed. And there's going to be something in there for everyone. There's also going to be something in there for everyone to hate. So we'll see what happens in the Senate. But if I were to make a prediction, If I were to take a bet, I would say that the Senate, considering the fact that it's controlled by Republicans and now Democrats are doing what they do best, which is bow down and never fight, it's going to pass in the Senate. So the government will be funded through September. All right. We're going to take a quick break. When we come back, lots of other news to get to. Wazni Lombre will join us. And we will talk about, well, the latest in regard to Donald Trump's attempts at mass deportation. It looks like. like it's been a failure so far, we'll tell you why.