Monday, June 9, 2025

Young Americans are Returning to Traditionalism


In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, a seismic shift caught many political analysts off guard: young voters, assumed to be a reliably progressive demographic, showed unprecedented support for conservative candidates. This was no fleeting anomaly. Rather, it reflects a cultural transformation among America's youth, in particular young men, one that is steering them toward traditionalism and a rejection of the liberal paradigms that have dominated their cultural landscape for decades. From a resurgence of traditional religious practices to a renewed appreciation for authentic, skill-driven music, the young are embracing values that align with Traditionalism. As politics is downstream from culture, this shift is not only reshaping the present but will influence elections for years to come.

Traditionalism, as described, is a belief in timeless, sacred principles that shape a higher, spiritual order for society. Tradition comes from divine truths and guided ancient civilizations with strong hierarchies and spiritual focus. 

A Cultural Awakening: The Rejection of Empty Promises

At the heart of this transformation is a growing disillusionment with the hollow promises of modern liberalism. Young people, raised in an era of rapid technological change, social fragmentation, and existential uncertainty, are seeking meaning and stability in timeless institutions and traditions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the realm of religion, where a notable trend is emerging: the youth are flocking to the Catholic Church, rejecting the relativism of atheism and liberal Protestantism.

According to the New York Post, young men are converting to Catholicism en masse, drawn to its rich traditions, moral clarity, and sense of community. The article highlights how Gen Z and Millennials are finding solace in the Church's rituals, such as the Latin Mass, and its uncompromising stance on issues like family, marriage, and life. "Catholicism offers a countercultural rebellion against the secular, individualistic ethos of modern society," the article notes, quoting a young convert who found atheism lacking in purpose. 

This religious revival is not about blind adherence to dogma but a deliberate choice to embrace a worldview that provides structure and meaning. The Catholic Church, with its emphasis on tradition, hierarchy, and moral absolutes, resonates with a generation weary of the moral ambiguity and existential drift of secularism. 

Music as a Mirror: The Rise of Roots and Authenticity

The cultural shift extends beyond religion into the arts, particularly music, where young people are gravitating toward genres that celebrate authenticity, skill, and tradition. Bluegrass, blues, and other roots music forms are experiencing a renaissance among younger audiences, as evidenced by the rising popularity of artists like Sierra Hull, a mandolin virtuoso who has become a standard-bearer for the bluegrass revival. In a Rolling Stone feature, Hull describes her music as a blend of technical mastery and emotional depth, performed without the crutches of auto-tune or elaborate production. "I’m trying to find that sweet spot where the music feels alive and real," she says, emphasizing the importance of live performance and instrumental skill.

This resurgence of roots music reflects a broader rejection of the polished, synthetic aesthetics that dominate mainstream pop. Young listeners are drawn to the raw, human quality of bluegrass and blues -- genres that demand virtuosity and storytelling over glamour and spectacle. Artists like Billy Strings, Sierra Ferrell, and Sierra Hull have also seen meteoric rises, with their music resonating with audiences who crave authenticity in an age of digital artifice. A 2023 article from Billboard notes that bluegrass festival attendance has surged among under-30s, with events like the Grey Fox Bluegrass Festival reporting a 20% increase in young attendees over the past five years.

This musical trend mirrors the conservative ethos of valuing tradition, craftsmanship, and individual effort. Just as young people are turning to the Catholic Church for spiritual grounding, they are embracing music that honors heritage and skill, reinforcing a cultural shift that prioritizes substance over superficiality.

Politics Downstream: The Youth Vote in 2024 and Beyond

As culture shapes politics, the conservative leanings of today's youth are manifesting at the ballot box. The 2024 election saw a remarkable shift in the youth vote, with young men and women alike showing increased support for conservative candidates. A Yale Youth Poll conducted by the Yale Institution for Social and Political Studies revealed that voters aged 18 to 21 leaned Republican by 11.7 points when asked about their preferences for the 2026 congressional elections, a stark contrast to the 22-to-29 age group, which favored Democrats by a narrower 6.4 points. This data underscores a generational divide, with the youngest voters leading the charge toward traditionalism.

The reasons for this shift are multifaceted but deeply rooted in the cultural changes described. Young people, disillusioned by economic instability, cultural fragmentation, and the failures of progressive policies, are drawn to conservative platforms that emphasize economic opportunity, traditional family structures, and national pride. A 2025 Young America’s Foundation survey further illuminates this trend, noting that young conservatives cite personal experiences, family, and religion as the primary influences on their political views, rather than media or influencers. The survey also found that 61% of young voters reported moving rightward on social issues, a clear reflection of their alignment with traditional values.

This political realignment is not confined to white voters, as some might assume. Latino and black youth are also showing increased support for conservative candidates, driven by economic concerns and cultural alignment with conservative values like faith and family. A 2025 analysis highlights how Latino voters, particularly those with strong Christian beliefs, gravitated toward Republicans in 2024, citing concerns about government overreach and a desire to preserve traditional family structures. Similarly, the Brookings Institution notes a rise in conservative identification among black nondenominational Protestants, a fast-growing demographic within the black church.

Why the Shift? A Reaction to Institutional Failures

The question remains: why are young people, once the vanguard of progressive ideals, turning toward traditionalism? A significant catalyst appears to be the fallout from institutional failures, particularly in public education, exacerbated by the COVID-19 lockdowns. A number of studies  and reports, including those released by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Northwest Evaluation Association, the International Journal of Educational Development, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education reveal how public schools grappled with the consequences of prolonged closures, including disrupted learning, eroded trust in educational institutions, and exposed ideological biases in curricula. The Return Tracker study shows that enrollment in public schools -- down 3.5% nationally from 2019 to 2022 -- as parents and students sought alternatives like homeschooling and private institutions, many of which align with traditionalism values. 

The lockdowns exposed what public schools were teaching, and many parents didn’t like what they saw.  Controversies erupted over critical race theory and gender ideology.

For young people, the lockdown revealed the fragility of systems they were taught to trust. Remote learning often meant disengagement, and isolation. This betrayal has fueled a broader skepticism of progressive narratives that dominate public institutions, pushing youth toward alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, family, and faith -- hallmarks of traditionalism. 



And we Know, On the Fringe, and more- June 9

 



The LA Chaos Is an Illusion and Trump Will Not Fall for It

 
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong

Kurt Schlichter  | Jun 09, 2025 | Townhall

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Let’s understand what’s going on in Los Angeles because most people don’t. This is not a battle of cops versus rioters; it is a battle between narratives. Most people see regime media video of Third World savages waving the tacky banners of their garbage homelands, lighting fires, hassling cops, and doing other things consistent with being barbarians, and think that Los Angeles is in chaos and therefore get scared. The idea behind this color revolution – it is organized and planned, not spontaneous or genuine – is to intimidate normal people into submitting and embracing the politicians associated with its goals in the hopes that it will stop. This is the work of the Democrat Party; the rioters are its useful idiots, acting to support the party’s goals while its maintaining deniability. But this scheme only succeeds if the target is feckless and weak, which such targets usually are. Trump isn’t. He’s going to win this because he understands this fight better than his enemies. The chaos is an illusion; his strength is reality.

Remember, this is not a kinetic operation. A kinetic operation achieves its goal by the violence itself. Kinetic operations destroy enemy personnel, reduce enemy combat power, or conquer territory through physical destruction. But this is an information operation. It accomplishes its mission by influencing the population. The violence itself is not an end, but a means; the goal is to compel people to submit by convincing them to accept the narrative.

And the narrative here is that Los Angeles is in complete chaos as a result of Donald Trump attempting to enforce federal law, so to stop the violence, Donald Trump must be compelled to cease enforcing federal law. This, of course, would be a devastating neutering of Trump while strengthening the Democrats. They want to make Trump look weak and convince America to submit to their intimidation. But this plot only works if we accept the illusion they are presenting.

Remember, it’s an information operation. None of what you see on the regime media is real. Oh, they are burning a few cars and screaming and yelling and running around waving flags of garbage countries, but what does any of that actually do? Nothing. They can’t make anyone do anything. They are not eliminating any federal law-enforcement capabilities. They are not significantly hindering federal law enforcement operations. They are not holding significant territory over time. They’re simply acting out in front of the cameras to try to convince you that Trump is powerless. 

To some extent, this works. As a Southern Californian, I’ve been bombarded by people around the country asking me if I’m okay. Of course, I’m okay. I live among rich people who like their Chardonnay oaky and their illegal alien domestic help cheap and compliant. They won’t let that nonsense happen in my neighborhood. Hell, my liberal neighbors would call the local SWAT team in if poor people knocked over one of their “Hate Has No Home Here” signs. The violence is happening downtown, where practically nobody lives except bums and a few urban pioneers, as well as in some scruffy suburban cities on the east side of the metropolis. The impact on the daily life of 99% of people in Los Angeles is exactly zero. There are approximately 20 million people here. Maybe 5,000 have anything to do with this nonsense.

Again, it’s all an illusion designed to frighten and confuse you. That’s what an information operation does. It creates a narrative in people’s brains to achieve an effect it can’t achieve by force. These mobs don’t have the capacity to do much of anything except block some freeways and set a few cars on fire. If the cops and the Guard decided to get kinetic, they’d be wiped out faster than they could chant, “No justice, no arrrggggghhhh.” They aren’t a revolutionary army. They are a bunch of jerks pretending to be a threat.

And Trump has called their bluff. They were counting on what usually happens when the professional agitators in blue cities start getting frisky – they get catered to by the Democrats who run these urban areas. The Democrats react like a mommy while Trump reacts like a daddy. He’s not taking any of their guff, but what is important is that he understands that this is an information operation. He escalated by activating the California Army National Guard – I was a deputy commander of the brigade Trump called out and on the streets with the Army during the Los Angeles riots – but not so he could go kinetic. He’s not calling in the Guard or the Marines to bust heads or quell disorder, like we did in 1992. The guardsmen are basically providing point security around federal facilities to free up federal cops to go out and do cop things like arrest scumbags. 

What Trump is doing is messaging to the country that he’s not taking their crap. He’s not going to be intimidated. He’s not going to let this get out of control. The ones who are letting it get out of control are the Democrats who run California, like slack-jawed moron Mayor Karen Bass and Governor Gavin Hairstyle. Let’s understand the relationship between the riots and the Democrat establishment. The rioters are catspaws, cut-outs whose act of violence and intimidation support Democrat policies even as the Democrat establishment pretends to be upset about the chaos. However, the Democrats must at least appear to be trying to maintain order. Trump knows that is one of their weaknesses. He is sticking them with the consequences of their own disorder. Have you noticed how the Los Angeles Police Department, Los Angeles sheriffs, and the California Highway Patrol are the ones dealing with riots? They are the ones who look powerless in the face of the rioters. This, in turn, makes Gavin Newsom and his pals look powerless – an image compounded when they whine and complain impotently about Trump calling up the Guard and Trump ignores them.

A color revolution information operation depends on an inept response from the targeted authority. Either the target of authority overreacts by going in and shooting a bunch of people, therefore appalling the weak-hearted citizenry, or it under-reacts and demonstrates its own powerlessness. But the color revolution fails when the target understands the game better than the leftists who initiated it. That’s what’s happened here. Donald Trump has projected strength, but not too much strength. He understands that normal American citizens are going to show absolutely no sympathy for the vandals, looters, illegal aliens, and other criminals, setting fires and looting 7-Elevens live on television. He has made Democrat officials look weak by ignoring their whining and forcing them to handle the part of the response that creates the worst optics.

At the same time, this situation provides an opportunity for Trump’s federal law enforcement to map out the network of organizations and individuals who coordinated and logistically supported rioting in Los Angeles. This isn’t a unique phenomenon. Leftist groups do this all around the country. Remember, time is on Trump’s side. Federal law enforcement can target the conspirators with criminal indictments and finally break this cycle. It can dismantle the infrastructure that allows these faux-spontaneous insurrections to pop up across the country. Offering rewards for specific criminals is another way to highlight to Americans that these people are criminals. And the situation also provides an opportunity to defund the government support to NGOs that launder government money to fund this kind of violence. The LA rioting has exposed our enemy to scrutiny, and we should take full advantage of that to crush it.

Trump is handling this just right. The battle isn’t on the streets of Los Angeles. The battle is in the hearts and minds of normal Americans. When normal Americans see burning and looting by degenerates, they are naturally frightened and appalled. What the leftists want to do, what the purpose of their information operation is, is to convince normal people that they have no choice but to submit because no one can protect them. Trump breaks that paradigm by providing an alternative – he will protect them, and therefore normal citizens don’t have to submit to the intimidation. All you need is someone willing to stand up to these dirtbags and it completely disrupts their info op.

The left has two main options going forward. One is to become even more violent and see if they can provoke an overreaction – remember, they don’t have the combat power to achieve anything by force. Even if they increase their level of violence, this is still an information operation. However, they risk overplaying their hand and justifying a forceful reaction by Trump. If some criminal – a substantial number of the rioters are not political activists but common street thugs – decides to shoot a fed and the feds shoot back, normal people are going to cheer.

The second and more likely course of action is for the word to go out to dial back the disorder. It’s not working. It’s not having the desired effect. It’s also hurting the Democrats, who tacitly support the violence but want to maintain distance from it. It’s their city that’s in chaos, not Trump’s. The Democrats are united in whining about Trump not submitting like cowards to the thugs, but all this is doing is making them look weak. It’s not Trump‘s forces that are getting pushed around by the rioters; it’s the Democrats’ local cops who are. The Democrats have had nothing but problems lately, and the last thing they needed was to have several days of news footage making them look ineffectual while also blowing the Elon vs. Donald cage match off the front pages.

The only real question is whether or not Donald Trump and his team planned this. It’s working to his advantage  – the Big Beautiful Bill debate just stopped being about saving a few pennies and became about saving our country from foreign invaders. You have to wonder whether the Trump 2.0 administration specifically choose a super leftist city to spin up ICE raids knowing that there would be a riotous backlash that they could then co-opt to message strength. Did they make a conscious decision to provide America a clear and unequivocal choice?

All I can say is that I hope so.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2025/06/09/the-la-chaos-is-an-illusion-and-trump-will-not-fall-for-it-n2658455

Let Democrats Destroy Themselves


Democrats favor illegal aliens over Americans, and the more violent they are, the better. There is no illegal Democrats will not defend or donate to. How much money do you think racist groups like La Raza spend on lawyers for violent illegals versus how much do you think they’ve donated to victims of illegal alien crime? I bet they’ve given nothing to help victims; their focus is on creating more of them. 

As the deportation of people who have no legal right to be here and have not only not contributed anywhere near what they cost our economy – in health care, welfare, and inflated education costs – more and more riots will break out in Democrat areas. Identity politics leads to the election of bloated whales like Eunisses Hernandez, Democrats (of course), who call for riots while expressing loyalty to people because they share her ethnicity over Americans.

Honestly, she needs to face legal consequences for her actions and words.

As for the rest of them – from the rioters to the people who vote for the politicians who enable and support them – let them suffer. A violent mob is like a wave; it will build and build, leaving destruction as it crashes on the shore and dissipates naturally. They burn out, eventually. In their wake, they leave a mess, a mass of destruction and oftentimes death. Let them.

President Trump sending in the National Guard is not the normal thing to do; the normal thing to do would be for the mayor of the city facing riots to use the police to stop it. If that failed, the governor would step in with the National Guard. What do you do when both of those people are idiotic Democrats who refuse to restore order and protect their law-abiding citizens? It should be nothing.

Democrats elected these people. Who would vote for someone who supports people who have no right to be here over them, their families, and fellow countrymen? Democrats, that’s who. So, honestly, to hell with them. 

 Vote for morons, get bad things. Why should anyone else care?

They shouldn’t. 

What I don’t get is why people vote for politicians who do not take their side when there is violence. That’s the very basic thing elected officials are supposed to do. 

Since they won’t and since these people voted for this, let it happen. Riots are either squashed or burn out, and obviously, there is significantly more damage when they burn out, but so what? This is, or must be, what the people want. Let them have it. Let Democrats get a big taste of what they vote for.

More than that, there should be a clarifying law that protects the police officers and National Guardsmen deployed, even by Democrats, to stand around and just be attacked, so that they are free to defend themselves when they are attacked.

How many times have you seen footage of police in riot gear taking hit after hit, unable to respond and stop the attacks? I don’t care what they pay for it; it’s not worth it. And even with a helmet and pads, rocks and bricks hurt and do damage. Laser pointers designed to blind and Molotov cocktails designed to kill need to be met with force. And police should have immunity, criminal and civil, for that response. 

And it should be clear: whether you are the person throwing the firebombs or just standing next to them chanting and cheering them on, you are just as responsible, and should you be hurt in the reaction to an attack, so what. 

I know the left wants you to think that “mostly peaceful” means the majority of participants are free from consequence, but they should not be. The idea of “innocent” people rolling with a violent mob needs to end – you march with a mob, some of whom are trying to kill police, you are just as guilty. March and chant all you want, once the violence starts and you don’t leave, you’re involved and have chosen a side. When the rocks fly, you should too, or face the music.

Every participant should be charged for the crimes of any participant – RICO all of them – and if police feel the need to defend themselves and their lives, that is a direct result of the choice these people have made to join a mob and not leave. 

This isn’t protesting, it’s insurrection. Police and National Guard need more protection for themselves against those goons, then maybe they’d think twice before getting involved in a violent riot. If not, perhaps they’ll learn the hard way.



Democrats’ Man Trouble


You have probably heard about the Democrats’ awkward attempt to reach out to young men, but enough about the uproar over the Navy ship named after Harvey Milk. The Democrats just spent about $20 million to find out that men don’t like being disliked. This shocked the Dems and no one else. After all, disliking men is central to the ideology of the Democrat Party 2025; multiply that contempt by infinity if said men are both straight and of pallor. It seems like a risky idea to decree that about 50% of your potential voters are unwelcome; it seems especially risky to go so far as to idolize men who pretend not to be men at all. But hey, I want the Democrats to lose, so this is great.

Men aren’t perfect, and testosterone can become a hallucinogen – see the recent dust-up between Elon Musk and Donald Trump – but they sure beat the alternative. Now, that’s not just my opinion; that’s Democrat gospel. After all, the Dems have made a key sacrament of their weird, pagan weather goddess religion the idea that men make exponentially better women than women do. Lately, the news has been full of men crushing girls in track and field, softball, and even boxing. You’ve come a long way, baby – now get out of the winner’s circle and make way for Velma and her penis. 

Fake Grrrrl Power! What can’t it do?

Well, it can’t get men to vote Democrat. Not real men, anyway. They have nailed down the Tim Walz contingent. Unfortunately for them, no real man wants anything to do with Tim Walz. Comical shotgun mishandling, jazz hands, and having a less sterling wartime deployment record than Da Nang Dick Blumenthal are not going to attract the testicularly-endowed. But they just don’t get it. They’re still letting this mincing, prancing doofus go out in public in their name to call ICE “the Gestapo,” Trump “Hitler,” and Top Gun: Maverick “a real let-down” because it didn’t have a volleyball scene.

Democrats have made the conscious choice to be the party of young women, specifically young liberal women, and this itself is risky because recent research indicates that young liberal women are, by and large, insane. Again, that’s not just me and everybody else observing what’s clearly manifest on social media – that these chicks are complete lunatics. It’s scientifically proven by Licensed and Approved Science™. According to the Official Experts, a stunning 56.3% of liberal women between the ages of 18 and 29 have some form of mental illness. The revelation that a little more than half of liberal women within this cohort are nuts is stunning because it’s so low; based on my online observations, I would estimate that the real number is about 95%, with the 5% in the negative category only registering that way because their mental pathology is so profound that psychiatry is incapable of classifying them. They’re basically purple-haired, daddy-issued Hannibal Lecters, except they want to eat your soul with avocado toast and a nice kombucha.

They’ve decided to outsource their outreach to various alleged Democrat influencers. Of course, the danger is that they’re going to influence men to be even more right-wing. You had Harry Sisson, who at least tried to score with girls, however ineptly. You’ve got David Hogg, not exactly the manliest of men; he’s pretty much the Private Upham of the Democrat Party, only less butch. And then there’s that hefty lady they want to send around to frat houses to chill with the bros. Democrats can’t understand that real men are more interested in bikini-clad Princess Leia than Jabba the Hutt. 

It’s not clear what the goal of this introspection kabuki theater really is, but it’s almost certainly the dumbest of the two possible options. The first option is that Democrats are reaching out to men to learn what they want and to modify their positions in order to appeal to men who have been alienated by the policies of the Democratic Party. However, it’s unlikely that’s why they are doing this. After all, their bizarre witches' brew of social pathologies that passes for an ideology is less a collection of reason-derived positions than of divine mandates. They fill up that hole inside themselves where God is supposed to be with what Norm MacDonald accurately described as “commie gobbledygook.”

The other option is the real reason they’re reaching out to men. They want to find a more effective way of pestering, hassling, and nagging men into compliance. The problem isn’t that men don’t like what the Democrats are selling. It doesn’t matter to them what men like. They want men to shut up and obey. You know the kind of man they want us all to be – the sad dude sitting at the corner in the neighborhood party, afraid to get a second beer because his SSRI-goblin wife will hit him over the head with her “Hate Has No Home Here” sign. You watch him trudge to his Prius every morning, his soul growing a little deader each day, and wonder if this is the Tuesday he finally snaps and runs off with Kayla from accounting or if he’ll just endure it until freed by the sweet release of death. 

They want a nation of that guy, and they are angry because none of us wants to be that guy. How can we be so selfish that we won’t utterly negate ourselves to let them be the very best sexually dysfunctional, oaky Chardonnay-guzzling wine women they can be?

Democrats are completely baffled by those of us who stand to micturate. The fact that they handed all that dough over to their consultants just to get back the generic report that men don’t think Democrats really care about them is utterly hilarious. Hell, I can give them more details for just one million bucks. Men think that you hate them because you do hate them, and they don’t like people who hate them. So, stop hating men. Easy.

But they don’t want to hear that. They aren’t really looking for an answer. There I go, just like a typical man, actually providing advice that would solve the problem when what they really want me to do is to docilely affirm them.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


“Something INSANE Is Happening in America Right Now... | Victor Davis Hanson...

Victor Davis Hanson Unpacks the Biden Illusion He quietly dismantles the carefully curated image of Joe Biden — not with insults, but with uncomfortable facts.

Behind the “Uncle Joe” persona lies a history of plagiarism, political spite, and repeated misuses of personal loss for public sympathy.


Kevin Hassett Outlines Current Status of White House on Senate BBB Debate and China Trade Negotiations


The blood slowly drains from the face of Margaret Brennan as she faces the indefatigable smiling truth that Kevin Hassett represents. The furrowed brows deepen, the lips pulsate to a purple posture, the accusatory sanctimony drips from her squints and failed constructs until ultimately, she is reduced to a sneering inflection of autonomous twitching.

Kevin Hassett smiles, thanks Ms. Brennan for her endeavors, outlines the White House position on the BBB and China trade negotiations, then happily orders an ice-cream cone for his walk back to the office on a bright sunny day.



[TRANSCRIPT] – MARGARET BRENNAN: We’re joined now by the Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. He joins us from the White House. Good morning to you.

KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Hey Margaret, good morning.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So I do want to allow you to respond to some of the very specific criticisms that Senator Klobuchar made. One of the things she brought up was something that, frankly, the Senate Majority Leader seemed to acknowledge was under discussion, and that was touching Medicare, making some kind of adjustment. He said anything we can do that’s waste, fraud, and abuse is open to discussion. Is the White House open to any discussion around Medicare?

HASSETT: Well, first of all, what’s happening is that the senators, respecting the legislative process, are discussing what they think that they can put on the table. And the President has made it clear that ending waste, fraud, and abuse, and giving benefits to illegals and giving benefits to people who are able-bodied workers, those are his high priorities. If the Senate comes up with other things they’d like us to look at, I guess- I guess we would have a look at them. But, there have been a lot of false stories about Medicare being on the table, and it’s totally not on the table.

The way that that was covered in the news a couple of weeks ago was that in the end, when the budget process ends, if they don’t waive the budget caps, then there’s going to be reductions across the board in spending. And that’s what no one would intend, and no Democrat would vote for that, but that was covered as our intent to go after Medicare, and it was just a big fake news story last week.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so Leader Thune and leader Johnson have- and Speaker Johnson have said anything with waste, fraud, and abuse. But you right now, you are taking-

HASSETT: Waste, fraud and abuse. Waste, fraud and abuse–

MARGARET BRENNAN: But to be–

HASSETT: It’s the same.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood, but you were taking Medicare off the table. The White House says don’t do it-

HASSETT: No we- no, but, but, but, but I’ve not- I’ve seen a massive amount of waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, and I’ve not been briefed on Medicare waste, fraud and abuse. But if they find something then, of course, we would look at it.

MARGARET BRENNAN: You would look at it —

HASSETT: — Of Course

MARGARET BRENNAN: — Senator Hawley was also brought up by Senator Klobuchar- Klobuchar, and Missouri senator has made it clear he wants to see changes to the increased copayment requirements for Medicaid that was in the House version that was sent over to the Senate. Are you comfortable with this House bill as it is written? What do you want to see done to Medicaid?

HASSETT: Again, what we want to see done now is we want the Senate to pass the bill, and then we want the House and the Senate to work out their differences, while negotiating with us. And right now, the Senate has to get the votes they need to pass the bill, and we’re supporting them in that process. But you also need to be mindful when you’re thinking about this, that one of the things that we put out a report for the Council of Economic Advisers, that if the bill doesn’t pass, then they estimate that this would cause a reduction of GDP by 4 percent. We’d be in a deep recession. We’d lose six or seven million jobs of those people, almost all those people, would lose their insurance. And so this idea that the only person who ever is going to get insurance is someone who’s getting it from the government is just incorrect, and if we create the jobs that we have in the bill, then we’re going to create a heck of a lot more insurance than what we’re talking about in waste, fraud and abuse.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So you’re open to what Senator Hawley is looking to change, though, that’s what I understand.

HASSETT: I’d, I’d have to go see what he has and I’d want to look at the high details before I say I’ll open it. And I also would want to talk to the President about the specific matter, which I’ve not done.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so one of the other massive influences on the economy right now is the, the trade war, particularly with China. Tomorrow in London, the treasury secretary, the trade representative and the commerce secretary are going to meet with Chinese officials. Treasury Secretary Bessent told us last Sunday that the recent tension was around exports of critical minerals. When will those exports resume? And what do you expect to come from tomorrow’s meeting?

HASSETT: Right. Those, those exports of critical minerals have been getting released at a rate that is, you know, higher than it was, but not as high as we believe we agreed to in Geneva. And President Trump, being a deal maker, talked with President Xi, and he said, let’s take, you know, our senior guys, and the people who are the same level as you. Let’s have them meet somewhere, and let’s get these things cleared up, and then we’ll clear up what you don’t like that we have agreed to release on our side, and we’re going to shake hands about it. He literally said, I want to meet in London, and I want to shake hands on it, so that we know we’ve got a deal. And then after that, I think there was a very affable exchange about President Trump visiting China and President Xi coming here. And so, I’m very comfortable that this deal is about to be closed, and it’s going to be closed not with a bunch of staffers and bureaucratic language, but with handshakes. So that’s the way President Trump operates.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Same terms, nothing new.

HASSETT: Well, I think that there- we can’t talk about the terms that they’re coming out with throughout because they’re still working on it. But the point is, we want the rare earths, the magnets that are crucial for cell phones and everything else, to flow just as they did before the beginning of April. And we don’t want any technical details slowing that down, and that’s clear to them.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So our CBS News polling shows that most Americans don’t like the tariffs, and most Americans don’t think the Trump administration has a plan. We’re also hearing from top economists, including the head of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve who said the rules are really unclear, and business leaders need certainty. When will they get that certainty from the administration?

HASSETT: Well, you could be certain that there’s going to be some tariffs, and the stuff that folks have been saying that’s going to happen to tariffs is inconsistent with what you and I have talked about before, Margaret. So what’s going on, right, is that we’ve had a trade deficit with China forever and ever, because they just want to sell stuff here, so they create jobs in China and help, you know, control their government so people are unemployed, that it’s harder for a dictatorship to run. And so the point is just that, that if we put a tariff on them, then they’re going to bear the tariff. So what just happened? What just happened is that we had about 60 billion dollars in tariff revenue in the U.S., and inflation, inflation, every measure of inflation, is the lowest that it’s been for more than four years. And so all of our policies together are reducing inflation and helping reduce the deficit by getting revenue from other countries. And how much revenue, I think that you might have covered it, the Congressional Budget Office put out a 10-year estimate that says that the tariff revenue that’s already in place right now is going to raise 2.8 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. That’s more than their own estimate, their own static estimate. So this entire bill, so that that’s deficit reduction right there.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, I’m glad you brought up that stat, because it made me wonder. You just said that one certainty is there will be tariffs. You are saying tariffs are staying put, that this is a constant source of–

HASSETT: –we’re, we’re negotiating reciprocal-

MARGARET BRENNAN: –of

HASSETT: –You’ve seen deals.

[CROSSTALK]

HASSETT: And exactly where they are. We’re working it out, and we’re opening up markets. So that–

MARGARET BRENNAN: Yeah but the deals- this is where I’m stuck, because deals is about negotiating down the tariffs. So that’s a diminishing source of revenue over time. But, are you saying that there will be blanket tariffs–

HASSETT: –Last year–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –of what percent?

HASSETT: Last year, before we got here, we were raising 80 billion a year in tariffs. Right now, the CBO projects that we’re going to get 2.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Exactly where the number ends up is going to depend on how much foreign countries open up their markets to our products and how much- how well they treat our farmers and we’ll see–

MARGARET BRENNAN: –So you don’t know how much revenue you are going to have–

HASSETT: Revenue, revenue was 80 billion last year. Revenue- tariff revenue, is not going away. That’s what I’m saying.

MARGARET BRENNAN: But we don’t know what the tariffs are going to be. So-

HASSETT: We’re negotiating them on a country-by-country basis.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Exactly.

HASSETT: We’ve got a whole bunch of trade deals. We’ve got a trade deal with UK that’s already, you can see what the trade deal with the UK is now.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Right, so it’s a fluctuating number. It’s not- it’s not a constant. But before I let you go, the Senate Finance Chair, I know you were in this meeting at the White House this week, he indicated quadrupling the state and local tax deduction, or SALT tax, is not something he’s interested in doing. They don’t have the politics in the Senate like they do in the House that would require it, right. So is the White House committed to keeping this, this quadrupling of the SALT tax deduction as it is?

HASSETT: The- the President has said that he supports changing the law, the state and lo- local tax deduction. And this is a very, you know, it’s a horse trading issue with the Senate and the House. And again, the President has listed his priorities of the tax bill, and you know, it’s no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, you know them all. And the Senate and the House, they know that those priorities for the President are red lines. And then on the other side, they’re negotiating what they’re going to negotiate, because there’s a different level of support in the Senate that there was in the House. And in the end, the one thing we need, the President wants, is a bill that passes. It passes on the Fourth of July.

MARGARET BRENNAN: So Senator Crapo needs to prepare himself that that is staying as the House wrote it.

HASSETT: He’s got to work it out with the House.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay. Kevin Hassett, thank you for your time this morning. We’ll be back in a moment.

{END TRANSCRIPT}


Virtually everything you do online is being watched by someone.

 Tucker Carlson Network


   
Social media companies. Internet providers. Even your own government is keeping tabs on you 24/7.

That's why Pavel Durov created the Telegram messaging app. Unlike other platforms, messages sent on Telegram stay encrypted even when they reach the company's servers. No one, not even Telegram itself, can read what you are sending.

That poses a risk to the ruling elites who want to control you. Which is why the moment Pavel Durov stepped foot in France, he was arrested, thrown into solitary confinement, and remains under house arrest while he awaits trial on trumped up charges.

It's clear they are trying to make an example out of him. Pavel Durov sat down with us to speak out for the first time since his arrest, and our conversation was just released. 

Telegram founder Pavel Durov has effectively been under house arrest in France since he was arrested there ten months ago. For the first time, he explains why.



Congresswoman Harriet Hageman Outlines Background of Big Beautiful Bill


Congresswoman Harriet Hageman from Wyoming outlines background and perspective on the Big Beautiful Bill in a brief statement uploaded to her social media accounts.  Rep Hageman walks through the important aspects of the bill as well as parliamentarian rules for its construct.  WATCH: