-
Unknown A
Good morning everybody. Happy Thursday. Have an amazing show for everybody today.
-
Unknown B
We have crystal jam packed show today. We're going to try to rip through as much news as we possibly can. So last night around midnight we got the first Supreme Court weighing in. Not really a ruling but a temporary stay weighing in on some Doge activity. So break all of that down for you. What it means, what is going to happen next. Also big cabinet meeting yesterday that Elon Musk was at. Some very interesting things happened there. We'll show you some of the highlights. Saga really wanted to sound off on the Trump golden visas. Ryan Emily covered it yesterday but we had a bit of a different view. So we wanted to express that as well. Obviously important in the context of sort of like philosophically and what is this country and how do we want to pursue immigration, et cetera. More airplane near misses.
-
Unknown B
Absolutely terrifying. Two coming in very close succession. We'll show you some really shocking footage from one of those near misses. There's a new Biden book that is going to be coming out. It is the inside story of his decline and the COVID up. Jake Tapper is involved. So that's led a lot of people to ask whether he is the right person to be doing the reporting there, whether he was himself in on part of that cover up. And Jeff Bezos making it plain that the Washington Post is not going to brook any dissent from the pro oligarch agenda. So we'll talk to you about that and the fallout that commenced afterwards.
-
Unknown A
Yeah, there's a lot to say about it. It's just, it's just so, so hilarious to me the way that how naked, how all of these people are and more. It actually fits well with guests that Counterpoints had on yesterday. Really excited to be able to bring this to everybody. They got to sit down with the CFPB's former Rohit Chopra who was behind the scenes working at the Biden administration. Rohit Chopra previously has not yet responded publicly to a lot of the allegations made against him by Mark Andreessen and by Mark Zuckerberg. We will be exclusively dropping that for our premium subscribers early. So if you want to go ahead and subscribe, you can, but we're going to give you a little tea teaser of what that looks like. Let's take a listen. When it comes to debanking, I don't think people should ever lose their account because of their exercising their religion speech.
-
Unknown A
And I'll tell you, one of the first things I did years ago was to put forth a stronger policy that made it Clear when that type of discrimination or debanking ran afoul of the law, guess who sued to block it? Who's that? It was actually the bank lobby and the Chamber of Commerce. So if you want to hear the whole thing early, breakingpoints.com and support the type of journalism that we're able to do here, thank you very much. But that. Well, why don't we get to the mini block? Crystal.
-
Unknown B
Yeah. So some news, some court news, legal news coming out last night. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts weighing in on whether or not the Trump administration needs to immediately unfreeze these USAID funds. Let's go ahead and put the Tara sheet up on the screen. Headline here from Politico. Chief justice allows Trump administration to keep foreign aid frozen for now. And this actually applies specifically to foreign aid contracts where the work has already been performed and people are waiting on payment. So it specifically applies to those payments. This is part of a back and forth that's been going on that we've been tracking here about USAID that has been working its way through the court system. Multiple federal judges have said to the Trump administration, you have to unfreeze this aid. And rather than try to do that, the Trump administration has repeatedly come up with different legal rationales why they believe like we are complying.
-
Unknown B
And we just have now a new, different legal theory for why this aid can be frozen. A federal judge yesterday had said, listen, I'm done. You've been playing these games for weeks now. You have until midnight to unfreeze these funds. The Trump administration basically came back and said, we literally can't do that. They appealed to the Supreme Court. This is not any sort of a final decision or final ruling. This is just to preserve the status quo. John Roberts weighing in and saying, okay, we're going to give you some more time and asking for new filings to be put into this case by Friday. So Supreme Court almost certainly ultimately going to weigh in on this, but really significant because like I said, it's the first time the Supreme Court weighed in. And also, of course, we've been tracking this building crisis of whether or not the Trump administration was going to comply with the court orders that are coming down now.
-
Unknown B
So far, like I said, they haven't been in compliance. And there have been multiple judges on this case specifically who have said you aren't in compliance. But at this point, they're not just openly defying those court orders. They are coming up with legal theories for why they think they are justified in continuing to freeze this aid in Addition, as part of this filing, the latest legal theory that they've put in front of the courts is, okay, well, you said we couldn't do this blanket freeze. Now we've gone through line by line and we've decided that we want to freeze some 90%, we want to cancel some 90% of these contracts with regard to USAID specifically. So now they're saying, well, it's not a blanket freeze anymore. We just have gone through and decided that 90% of these contracts want to be cut. That in and of itself saga, of course, is very significant because it includes some of the things that had previously actually gotten waivers.
-
Unknown B
So included in that 90% cut is things like PEPFAR, funds for people, largely in Africa, who have HIV and AIDS. It's going to tie in with some comments that Elon Musk made with regard to the Cabinet meeting on Ebola. There's a lot of pieces here, obviously, when you cut something by 90%, that come into play. And this is all building up ultimately to that showdown where they want to take a case, the Supreme Court, and make the argument that they should be able to unilaterally cut funds as executive branch, even things that have been appropriated by Congress. This is part of that unitary executive theory. This is part of them wanting to deem the Impoundment Control act unconstitutional so that Congress effectively, in their view, sets what is a ceiling for funding. But then the executive branch can come in and say, but we don't like that program.
-
Unknown B
We don't like that program. We don't like that program, and effectively consolidates the power of the purse largely within the executive branch, that we're one step closer to that eventual showdown. And I think it's anybody's guess which way the Supreme Court's going to rule.
-
Unknown A
Yes, very good summation, as we said. So it's that this is just a stay. It's a stay that will refer the matter to the Supreme Court, which will allow it to happen. Before they can make that, I will say there's some interesting, actually stuff also happening at the same time when the House of Representatives is continuing a resolution to fund the government. Now, theoretically, that continuing resolution would do what it would continue to fund these very programs which have been paused by Doge. So there's actually an interim House maneuver which would both fund these, perhaps adding more to how SCOTUS will have to weigh it, with the current Congress actually funding the programs right now. So legally, as I understand that, that will add to some of the argument, obviously, for congressional power over the purse. But it will go to the full Supreme Court.
-
Unknown A
I mean, I said here before, while you said it's definitely anybody's guess, I don't think Roberts would likely rule on behalf of the impoundment clause in the way that the Trump administration wants. The people with the most expansive views of presidential power are Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Alito. Justice Thomas is kind of a wild card in this regard.
-
Unknown B
Oh, really? I thought he'd be on board.
-
Unknown A
So you would think theoretically. But again, as I understand it, in his very small C conservative views previously in the way they've been applied, from a Federalist Society person I spoke to, he's more of a wild card. And Justice Gorsuch actually would be the number one person. Justice Gorsuch and Amy Barrett both come from a similar, more libertarian school. If you look at some of the past rulings Gorsuch has made in this, it would seem to indicate likely to side with the liberals. So it's not a slam dunk by the Trump administration at all. They're trying to get this as early as possible so that it can obviously inform what their stuff, what actions they can continue to make in the future. So it's interesting nonetheless, and it is the latest thing, as you said, it's a relatively routine legal maneuver. We see go to stays all the time, whenever, before they want to decide a full movement at the court.
-
Unknown A
And you were talking also about the midnight deadline. It's like, well, you know, in terms of actually be able to comply with a literal midnight deadline with all these crazy governmental systems, doesn't seem particularly realistic. So they also want to want to set up some sort of showdown just on that.
-
Unknown B
Totally. And I think that's an important part of it. I mean, I do think it was probably impossible for them to comply Biden midnight, which is what they were saying, like, we really can't do this because the government is not just a switch you can flick on and off. On the other hand, the petitioners would say, you've had, like, weeks and weeks at this point to get it together and try to unfreeze these funds. And instead of taking any action in that direction, instead you've spent your time trying to come up with new legal rationales that would justify you defying this court order. So that's what this came down to. But, you know, you have to keep in mind, if you're Chief Justice John Roberts, if you're the Supreme Court, you really wanna maintain your legitimacy. So if you're weighing in and saying, no, no, no, I agree you have to unfreeze these funds by midnight.
-
Unknown B
And you know that that's probably impossible to accomplish. Well, then you're already in the situation of a total head to head showdown with the executive branch. And they know that the second that the executive branch, if they were to go down the path of open defiance, then the Supreme Court as an institution is on, let's just say, very shaky ground. So, you know, that's part of the dynamics that play in here is they want to preserve their legitimacy. And if there's a credible threat, which I think there is, that the executive branch is just going to defy orders that they don't like and don't want to comply with, then that puts pressure on them to weigh in on the side of the Trump administration so that they can preserve the appearance of their own power. So that's one of the dynamics that go in here.
-
Unknown B
And you've made the FDR comparison before. I think there is an apt comparison here because part of why the Supreme Court ultimately decides, like, all right, we'll let some of your programs go through that they were previously blocking is because he had threatened to back the court. They knew that their sort of like power and legitimacy was on the line. And that's part of what applied pressure to them to go ahead and back what he was doing. And I think there is a kind of a similar dynamic that could play out here as well.
-
Unknown A
Absolutely. There's a book, I'm totally blanking on the name right now, which I highly recommend. Okay. Supreme Power, that's what it Is, by Jeff Social. I read it several years ago. It's called Supreme Power, Franklin Roosevelt versus Supreme Court, which goes into this. I should probably reread it for some of these before the decision comes down. But if anybody's interested, that will give you some parallels. Hey, if you liked that video, hit the like button or leave a comment below. It really helps get the show to more people.
-
Unknown B
And if you'd like to get the full show ad free and in your inbox every morning, you can sign up@breakingpoints.com.
-
Unknown A
That'S right, get the full show. Help support the future of independent media@breakingpoints.com.