The Darrell McClain show
Independent media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one Planet; nobody's leaving so let’s reason together!! Darrell, McClain is a Military veteran with an abnormal interest in politics, economics, religion, philosophy, science, and literature. He was born and raised in Jacksonville FL, and went to Edward H white High School where he wrestled Under Coach Jermy Smith and The Late Brian Gilbert. He was a team wrestling captain, District champion, and an NHSCA All-American in freestyle Wrestling. He received a wrestling scholarship from Waldorf University in Forest City, Iowa. After a short period, he decided he no longer wanted to cut weight which effectively ended his college wrestling journey. Darrell Mcclain is an Ordained Pastor under The Universal Life Church and is still in good standing, he's a Believer in The Doctrines of Grace Also Known as Calvinism. He joined the United States Navy in 2008 and was A Master At Arms (military police officer) He was awarded several awards while on active duty including an expeditionary combat medal, a Global War on Terror medal, a National Defense Medal, a Korean defense medal, and multiple Navy achievement medals. While In the Navy he was also the assistant wrestling coach at Robert E Lee High School. He's a Brown Belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu under six six-degree black belt Gustavo Machado, Darrell Trains At Gustavo Machado Norfolk under the 3rd-degree black belt, and Former Marine Professor Mark Sausser. He went to school for psychology at American Military University and for criminal justice at ECPI University.
The Darrell McClain show
When the poorest are told to make do with less, why aren't the rich?
What does it say about our society when those with the least are consistently asked to sacrifice the most? In this thought-provoking episode, we examine the troubling paradox at the heart of America's economic discourse.
When President Trump suggested American families could simply "make do" with fewer toys in response to tariff-induced price increases, it highlighted a fundamental disconnect from economic reality. For families already struggling to provide basic necessities, such advice isn't just tone-deaf—it's a painful reminder of who bears the burden in our economic system.
The numbers tell a staggering story. Billionaires like Jeff Bezos earn approximately $1.27 million per hour—more than most Americans make in an entire lifetime. Since the 1970s, worker productivity has increased by 500% while wages have remained stagnant. Meanwhile, 62% of Americans continue living paycheck to paycheck, and even many active-duty military families qualify for government assistance programs.
We also dive into congressional testimony that reveals deep partisan divides over immigration policy, agency funding, and executive authority. The contentious exchanges between lawmakers and administration officials exemplify how governance has become increasingly about political theater rather than substantive problem-solving.
The most pressing question remains: When will we ask those at the top to contribute more proportionally? When will we suggest that perhaps billionaires don't need multiple mega-yachts or dozens of luxury homes while others struggle for basic housing? True economic justice requires a fundamental recalibration of our expectations and an acknowledgment that we cannot build a sustainable society by continuously demanding more sacrifices from those who have already given everything they can.
Tune in, question everything, and join us in reasoning together toward solutions that recognize our shared humanity and commitment to fairness.
pay in the short term to have a recession. Look, yeah, everything's okay. Are you worried it could happen? Do you think it could happen? Anything can happen. When does it become the Trump economy? It partially is right now, and I really mean this. I think the good parts of the Trump economy and the bad parts of the Biden economy. Are you saying that your tariffs will cause some prices to go up? No, I think tariffs are gonna be great for us because it's gonna make us rich. You said some dollars are gonna cost more, isn't?
Speaker 2:that an acknowledgement that some prices will go up.
Speaker 1:I don't think a beautiful baby girl needs that's 11 years old, needs to have 30 dolls. I think they can have three dolls or four dolls. They have 250 pencils. They can have five.
Speaker 2:Darrell McLean. I'm your host, Darrell McLean.
Speaker 2:Independent media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one planet, nobody is leaving, so let us reason together. I have to be quite honest. When I heard the statements that you just heard from the president of the United States from the president of the United States, I had a two-part belief. Thoughts, passion, reflections came into my head. Chest spirit, which is the first, was okay. We can make the case that Americans consume too many goods. That's one. The second one was a more visceral reaction where I thought how come it's always the people who have the least who are asked to sacrifice the most?
Speaker 4:And.
Speaker 2:I mean that, in the general sense, the poor are always asked to shore up everything, they're always asked to sacrifice and to wait and it'll be your turn.
Speaker 2:They're always asked to just wait another year and you'll get a promotion, you'll get that raise, and it never happens. That was that thought. The other thought was this ignores the fact that there are some people that already can only afford to buy one toy, uh, for their young ones, and now that these prices have gone up, they won't be able to buy any toys. And then there's already people who are able to buy zero toys and that just puts that buying of one toy for their children further and further out of reach. Then, if you do just a quick search of is this what the president believed and it is the practical application he put forward to his own children, and you're going to get a resounding no, because you're going to google, uh, trump young kids and you're going to find them in a toy mercedes with, wrapped around with every present that you could imagine, and you just think is there ever going to be a time in this country that people actually ask the billionaires hey, it's your turn, it's your turn to have less.
Speaker 2:When are we going to say, hey, you don't need $253 billion, you may be okay with $50 billion? When are we going to say, hey, you may not need $50 billion, you may be just fine with $20 billion? When are we going to say you don't need a 100-foot yacht, you may be okay with the 70-foot yacht. What are we going to say? You don't need a vacation home in Florida, and then one in California, and then one in Bora Bora, and then one in Bali and then one in Japan. When is it going to be the people with the most turn to sacrifice, even when you come and look at who joins the military and who raises their right hand and says they're going to give everything they can up until the point of their life, up until the point of their life?
Speaker 2:When you look at the economic background of 90% of the people who raise their right hand, they come from lower economic backgrounds. So much so that a lot of people, while they are serving in uniform, still qualify for most government assistance programs. In uniform still qualify for most government assistance programs. It was a shock to me when I found out that a lot of people in the military still were on food assistance. They were still getting food stamps and um, and they sacrificed the most. They and they come back. They have substandard health care. You know you get a different VA system and whatever.
Speaker 2:They have to fight vigorously to get their veterans benefits A lot of them. When they get out, they don't want anything to do with the government, so they never even tap into their benefits. They don't use their college fund, they don't use a va home loan, they don't use the uh va for medical, they don't tap into veterans disability. And when are we going to ask the insurance companies that skim and scam, scheme and do everything they can to deny you coverage? What are you going to ask them to? Hey, maybe your CEO shouldn't make $70 million. Maybe $20 million is okay. Maybe $1 million is fine. That was my initial thought when I heard this, and it was kind of funny because the architect, karl Rove, had something to say about this as well, and he said Donald Trump saying this came off like he was the Grinch who stole Christmas, or like Scrooge or somebody like that. I think we have a clue.
Speaker 6:I thought it was really problematic when he said well, you know what, the kids, you know those little girls at Christmas, they don't need $30. They can do it too, and if they have to pay a couple more bucks for them, you know okay. Well, it sounds like Mr Scrooge.
Speaker 2:The minimum wage in the United States is $7.25 an hour. Meanwhile, the world gains a billionaire every 17 hours, and this time frame only keeps getting shorter. It would take a minimum wage worker over 1,500 years to earn a billion dollars, provided they work 160 hours a week and they don't have any expenses. And that's just how much you have to make to get there, in a decade at least. Let me just give you a bit more perspective on this point. If we were to do this comparison and this is going to be some people that are very familiar Now nobody ever said that life was fair. If it was, everyone might earn close to the same amount of money, but the wealthiest earn more cash in an hour than many people earn their entire lives. So here's just how much top few billionaires earn every hour, thanks to outsize impact that they have on the economy. Now and I'm doing this math when I'm calculating how much billionaires are an hourly, we're laying the model down if they work 40 hours a week, so around 2,080 hours annually, and so you can look at how much a billionaire's net worth is, how much has increased or decreased over the past 12 months divided by the figure of 2,080 hours they worked in the year and that is the best estimate to how much they've earned on an hourly basis. When it goes to somebody who's well-known, like Jeff Bezos, who created Amazon, turning it into a trillion-dollar company before retiring, his net worth is around $203 billion is around $203 billion, according to Bloomberg, which is reporting that it actually went up $26.4 billion over the last 12 months. So, using the math from the previous conversation, that means he earned $1.27 million an hour last year. Now, that's not bad, considering that the average American brings in around 1.7 million dollars in their lifetime earnings. Plus, bezos is technically retired from his role at Amazon now, so he may have earned that money without even actually working 40 hours a week. Is anybody asking him to sacrifice more? Is anybody asking him to not buy his loved ones more items or less items or whatever?
Speaker 2:Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, one of the most recognizable billionaires on the planet net worth of $154 billion. Recognizable billionaires on the planet net worth of 154 billion, up 21 to up to 26.1 billion over the last 12 months, also cited by bloomberg. That means he earned 1.25 million per hour last year, close to what bezos made. Bill gates didn't do quite as well. Pity the billionaires. And he didn't do as well as his tech peers zuckerberg and bezos. Last year, according to bloomberg, his networks increased by 9.28 billion over the last 12 months, but comes up to around to 44 million dollars per hour.
Speaker 2:Warren buffett is the oracle from omaha. Warren buffett, next worth, increased by 12.9 billion dollars over the last 12 months, according to Bloomberg. Good, roughly $62 million an hour. Buffett is a bit unique in his addition to the list. Many of his peers built their wealth by starting technology. Companies are assuming prominent roles, and massive ones, at an early stage. Buffett, of course, didn't. He built his fortune by constantly making genius level investment decisions throughout his 50 years in the market. His savvy has helped him outperform the S&P 500 market index over time.
Speaker 2:Elon Musk actually saw his net worth decline over the past 12 months, unlike many of his counterparts on this list. It dipped by a cool $27.5 billion, as Bloomberg cited, meaning he lost around $1.3 million for every hour he worked. Now don't feel too bad for Elon Musk. His net worth of around $202 billion still leaves him as the third wealthiest man in the world. He leaves him as the third wealthiest man in the world, plus. He was earning $333.33 million per day in early 2002. Larry Ellison created Oracle, one of the most valuable companies in the world and a major player in the growth of Silicon Valley. His net worth grew to $8.75 billion over the last year, also according to Bloomberg, meaning he earned about $42 million for each hour he worked. Steve Ballmer was the CEO of Microsoft from 2002 to 2004 and owns the NBA's Los Angeles Clippers. During his time as CEO, ballmer amassed a 4% ownership stake in the company, which is worth billions of dollars today and, as reported by Techopedia, this helped Ballmer reach a net worth around $139 billion, cited by Bloomberg. That figure increased $8.67 billion over the last 12 months, good for around $41.6 million per hour.
Speaker 2:Bernard Arnault is currently the richest person on this list, slightly around $217 billion, according to Bloomberg. He made his wealth by creating some of the most popular luxury brands on the planet, including Louis Vuitton, hennessy and Moet. Months, arnaud's fortune increased by about $9.28 billion, good for around $44.6 million per hour. Suffice to say, he can more than afford his own products. Sergey Brin is next. He's one of the co-founders of Google. His net worth is $132 billion. It increased by $8.75 billion over the last 12 months, as also cited by Bloomberg. Given that, you can assume he earned $42 million for each hour he worked. Jensen Hang, a relatively new entrant into the billionaires club, had the best year to name on the list. The founder of Navita increased his net worth by around $33.3 billion over the last months. According to Bloomberg, that's around $1.6 million he made every hour. Hong's fortune has grown as the AI boom has taken off and his company has become a trillion-dollar company under his watch and a darling of the burgeoning industry. Burgeoning industry Now.
Speaker 2:How do these figures compare to the average salary? It can be depressing, but it's a great way to put it into perspective of just how much wealthier these people on the top are compared to other people. The average US worker earns only $34.69 per hour. According to Indeed. If you earn that much, you would have to work 46,122 hours around 22 years just to equal what Jinsing made per hour last year. The disparity is even more impressive if you look at the average income on a global basis. The latest data actually shows that the average worker on the planet earns around $8,700 annually. They would need to work nearly 184 years to reach what Hung earns every hour. The richest people on the planet earn enough in an hour for the average person to retire comfortably. But don't let this dissuade you, because Because it's okay, because there's a trade war happening that has made things way more expensive, and don't buy the 36 dolls, just buy the two, it'll be better and you'll get something next time.
Speaker 2:Sorry if I do not believe this to be true. Year after year, this very well-done documentary by the former labor secretary His name is Robert Rice and the documentary if you want to look at it is called Inequality for All and in this documentary they look at worker productivity and they watch the worker productivity go up over 100 percent, 200 percent, 300 percent, 400 percent, 500 percent. And you know what happened when worker productivity went up year after year after year in this model that they track started in the 70s nothing happened, nothing. The wages stayed stagnant. So for all these years record bonuses, fairly low unemployment rate, stock markets boom and bust, housing market crash, desert storm, iraq, afghanistan, stagnant wages 62% of people still live paycheck to paycheck. 80% of lottery tickets are bought by the poorest people in the country, which shows who's actually desperate. And again, these are the people who are told to sacrifice. Can't have had enough of hearing this.
Speaker 6:Thank you very much, madam Chair. Madam Secretary, thank you for being here. I'm sorry that I missed your call yesterday. I look forward to working closely with you. I say this with seriousness and respect, but your department is out of control. You are spending like you don't have a budget. You're on the verge of running out of money for the fiscal year. You are illegally refusing to spend funds that have been authorized by this Congress and appropriated by this committee. You are ignoring the immigration laws of this nation, implementing a brand new immigration system that you have invented that has little relation to the statutes that you are required, that you are commanded to follow, as spelled out in your oath of office. You are routinely violating the rights of immigrants who may not be citizens, but, whether you like it or not, they have constitutional and statutory rights when they reside in the United States. Your agency acts as if laws don't matter, as if the election gave you some mandate to violate the Constitution and the laws passed by this Congress. It did not give you that mandate. You act as if your disagreement with the law, or even the public's disagreement with the law, is relevant and gives you the ability to create your own law. It does not give you that ability.
Speaker 6:Let's start with your spending. You are on track to trigger the Anti-Deficiency Act. That means you are going to spend more money than you have been allocated by Congress. This is a rare occurrence and it is wildly illegal. Your agency will be broke by July, over two months before the end of the fiscal year. You may not think that Congress has provided enough money to ICE, but the Constitution and the federal law does not allow you to spend more money than you have been given or to invent money.
Speaker 6:And this obsession with spending at the border, as the chairwoman mentioned, has left the country unprotected elsewhere. The chairwoman mentioned, has left the country unprotected elsewhere. The security threats to the United States are higher, not lower, than when before Trump came to office. To fund the border, you have illegally gutted spending for cybersecurity. As we speak, russian and Chinese hackers are having a field day attacking our nation. You've withdrawn funds for disaster prevention. Storms are going to kill more people in this country because of your illegal withholding of these funds. Your myopia about the border, fueled by President Trump's prejudice against people who speak a different language, has shattered many of this country's most important defenses.
Speaker 6:Now let's talk about the impoundments. When Congress appropriates funds for a specific purpose, the administration has no discretion as to whether to spend or not spend that money, unless you go through a very specific process with this committee. Let me give you two of many instances of this illegal impoundment. The first is a shelter and services program. Senator Britt may want to zero that account out, but that account is funded and it was funded in a bipartisan way. You don't like the program. Your policy is to treat migrants badly. I think that's abhorrent. But it doesn't matter that you don't like the program. You cannot cancel spending in this program and you cannot use the funds as you have to fund other things like ICE. You have also canceled citizenship and integration grants, which help lawful permanent residents become citizens, helping them take the citizenship test. I know your goal is to try to make life as hard as possible for immigrants, but that goal is not broadly shared by the American public. That's why Congress, in a bipartisan way for decades, has funded this program to help immigrants in this country become citizens.
Speaker 6:Now let's talk about why encounters at the southern border are down so much. This is clearly going to be your primary talking point today. You will tell us that it represents a success, but the primary reason why encounters are down is because you are brazenly violating the law every hour of every day. You are refusing to allow people showing up at the southern border to apply for asylum. I acknowledge that you don't believe that people should be able to apply for asylum, but you don't get to choose that. The White House doesn't get to choose that. The law requires to process people who are showing up at the border and claim asylum. Why? Because our asylum law is a bipartisan commitment, an effort to correct for our nation's unconscionable decision to deny entry to Jews to this country who were being hunted and killed by the Nazis. Our nation Republicans and Democrats decided, wrote it into law that we would not repeat that horror ever again, and thus we would allow for people who were fleeing terror and torture to come here, arrive at the border and make a case for asylum.
Speaker 6:Finally, let's talk about these disappearances. In an autocratic society, people who the regime does not like are people who are protesting the regime. They are just often picked up off the street, spirited away, sometimes to open-ended detention. Sometimes they're never seen again. What you are doing?
Speaker 6:Both the individuals who have legal rights to stay here, like Kilmar Obrego-Garcia or students who are just protesting Trump's policies is immoral and, to follow the theme, it is illegal. You have no right to deport a student visa holder with no due process simply because they have spoken in a way that offends the president. You can't remove migrants who a court has given humanitarian protection from removal. Now reports suggest that you are planning to remove immigrants with no due process and send them to prisons in Libya. Libya is in the middle of a civil war. It is subject to a level four travel advisory, meaning we tell American citizens never to travel to Libya. We don't have an embassy there because it is not safe for our diplomats. Sending migrants with pending asylum claims into a war zone just because it's cruel is so deeply disturbing.
Speaker 6:Listen, I understand that my Republican colleagues on this committee don't view the policy the way that I do. My Republican colleagues don't share my level of concern for the way that this administration treats immigrants. That's fine, but what I don't understand is why we don't have consensus in the Senate and on this committee on the decision by this administration to impound the spending that we have decided together to allocate in defense of this nation. We, as an Appropriations Committee, we work interminable hours to write and pass a budget. This budget is really hard to write and pass, and so we make ourselves irrelevant when we allow the administration to ignore what we have decided. And then when we look the other way, when the administration rounds up immigrants who are here illegally and have committed no offenses worthy of detainment, we also do potential irreversible damage to the Constitution. These should not be partisan concerns Destroying the power of Congress, eroding individuals' constitutional rights. This should matter to both parties.
Speaker 2:Secretary, thank you for being here and I look forward to your testimony snippet of what happened when Kristi Noem went to Congress to testify. That was the Senator Murphy and there is a compilation, of course, of of Gnome talking about, you know, this problem with the border, the problem with ICE, right, I don't think she did a great job. I don't think I think ICE is out of control. I thought ICE has been out of control for a while. Here's Republican Senator John Kennedy. Obviously he's going to have a different flavor of questions, but this is Republican Governor John Kennedy.
Speaker 7:I need a little help from a chair that respects the members of the committee. Madam Secretary, I'm sorry to hear this.
Speaker 5:You pretty much secured the southern border, haven't you?
Speaker 3:Yes, sir, the CBP the—.
Speaker 5:And that upsets some of my colleagues, doesn't it? They say you've done it the wrong way, haven't they?
Speaker 3:Could you answer that? Yes, sir, they do say that.
Speaker 5:Do you think they're upset because you supposedly did it the wrong way? Do you think they're upset that?
Speaker 3:you did it at all. I think they're upset that by President Trump enforcing the law, it happened so quickly and successfully enforcing the law.
Speaker 5:it happened so quickly and successfully. Now, when President Biden came into office, the first thing he did was get rid of all of the things we were doing to stop people from coming into our country illegally, didn't he? Yes, I mean he. It was like the price is right, come on down. Except he said come on in. And most of my Democratic colleagues went along with that, didn't they? Yes, they did. In fact, they cheered him on, didn't they? Is that a yes, yes, sir. How many people do you think President Biden let into our country illegally? Just give me a ballpark figure.
Speaker 3:Sir. We don't know for certain, but we believe it could be upwards to 20 million people that are illegally in this country.
Speaker 5:So that's like adding 10 Nebraskas to our country, isn't it? That's correct 10 Nebraskas to our country, that's correct. Why do you think President Biden and my Democratic colleagues did that?
Speaker 3:Do you think they believe in open borders? I think they believed in open borders and letting people come into this country that would affect our society and criminals. Those other countries emptying out the worst of the worst, their mental institutions, their prisons, came in here and jeopardized and known terrorists.
Speaker 5:Well, only one or two circumstances are possible. It seems to me Either President Biden and the Democrats who supported him believe in open borders, or the people that President Biden put in charge of securing the border you wouldn't trust to run a snowball. Stand right, that is correct. So nobody is that incompetent, so it has to be. They just believe in open borders, do they not?
Speaker 3:Yes, because I know the people who were securing the border and they weren't allowed to do their job. Do you think they?
Speaker 5:believe that vetting people at the border is racist.
Speaker 3:Yes, I do. I think, by the way, they allowed people in and granted them immediate parole status. Do you think?
Speaker 5:that President Biden and some of my Democratic colleagues. I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, madam Secretary. Democratic colleagues, I don't want to paint with too broad a brush. Madam Secretary, thought of these foreign nationals in our country illegally as potential new voters. I do, sir. Okay, if you're an ordinary American and you oppose illegal immigration but you support legal immigration, does that make you a?
Speaker 3:racist? No, sir. No sir, not at all. It just means that you believe there should be a rule of law, and that's what America was built on.
Speaker 2:And that's what— you can kind of see the flavor that Kennedy is going. This is why nothing in the country gets done. You see the one senator grilling the da-da-da-da and the other one's having like a nice little ass-kissing contest. Do you think that they believe in open borders? And these potential voters? If you're here illegally, who's rushing to buildings to vote, to get IDs, to register at the DMV, to go vote Anyway?
Speaker 3:That's what you've been enforcing right Exactly. We have been following the Constitution and the rule of law in this country and I want to be sure.
Speaker 5:I understand, because there's been a lot of confusing testimony here.
Speaker 3:You've secured the border, have you not?
Speaker 5:This administration has, yes, sir, and some of my colleagues are upset with you yes, sir, and they say you did it wrong. Yes, sir, with you, yes, sir, and they say you did it wrong. Yes, sir, and do you agree with me that what they're?
Speaker 5:really upset about is that you did it at all? Yes, sir. Okay, I want to ask you a last question about our federal judiciary. I've said repeatedly that all of us has a moral and a civic obligation to follow federal orders and I stand by that. But there have been a lot of national injunctions universal injunctions issued to try to stop you from doing your job. Where were these judges when people were breaking the law and coming into our country illegally? Were any of them speaking up and issuing national injunctions against the Democrats?
Speaker 3:I don't believe I can be specific about every single judge, but these judges that now are trying to stop us from enforcing our laws, I don't believe or recall them.
Speaker 2:How can you do an injunction on something that's not in court? The Republicans would have needed to sue the Democratic whatever whether it's a party or whether it's a person for having a specific law that they were in court for. Anyway.
Speaker 5:I think, madam Secretary, of one single solitary federal judge who, when President Biden and my Democratic colleagues not all of them, but many of them-, gentlemen, silence expired. Well, secretary, or Senator Murray went on over about two minutes, so I'm going to take a minute.
Speaker 4:Well, Senator Van Allen just had to shut down.
Speaker 5:Yes, if you can finish your question. Can you recall one single solitary federal judge when President Biden and my Democratic colleagues were letting 20 million people come into the country illegally? I don't recall. Can you think of one single solitary judge issued a national injunction to stop them? No, I can't recall one. I can't recall. Can you think of one single solitary judge to issue a national?
Speaker 3:injunction to stop them.
Speaker 5:No, I can't recall one, I can't either.
Speaker 2:If there weren't for double standards, there wouldn't be any standards at all. Thank you, Thank you, Senator.
Speaker 5:Kennedy, senator Peters.
Speaker 7:Senator Van Hollen, thank you. Thank you, madam Chairman. Madam Secretary, it's good to see you, and I was glad to see in your recent testimony that you reaffirmed your obligations to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and I understand you had an exchange with Senator Murphy on the Abrego Garcia case, and so I'm just going to put the question directly to you Are you or DHS doing anything to comply with the 9-0 Supreme Court order to facilitate his return to the United States?
Speaker 3:Just yes or no. This administration is following all federal court orders.
Speaker 7:This is a simple question.
Speaker 3:It's the president's prerogative on conversations that happen with the president to develop a new order? This is a simple question I'm asking.
Speaker 7:It's the president's prerogative on conversations that happen with the president of El Salvador. I ask a simple question. I would you know we have a limited amount of time. I just asked you, madam Secretary, whether or not you or the Department of Homeland Security are taking any action to facilitate the nine to nothing Supreme Court decision, to facilitate his return. This is a very simple question. Are you taking any action to facilitate his return or are you not?
Speaker 3:This administration is following and complying with all federal court orders to make sure that we, so you are because the court order that you facilitate is returned, so you are facilitating this return. Sir Senator, thank you for the question but what I would say? Is that we are following court orders and that your advocacy for a known terrorist is alarming that, madam secretary to me because he's a human smuggler.
Speaker 7:Adam's secretary, I'm gonna have to reclaim a terrorist and he's not a US citizen.
Speaker 3:He's a citizen of El Salvador in his home, if they were to come back.
Speaker 6:Secretary we would take him immediately.
Speaker 3:All All right, I'm going to have to.
Speaker 7:Madam Secretary, you should know a couple of facts, then, which is number one in 2019, the immigration court said that he should not be returned to El Salvador because it would put his life in danger. The Trump administration at the time did not appeal that decision. After that, he got a work permit and was working legally in the United States of America. This is also why the district court and the appellate court and the Supreme Court have ruled as they have. I suggest that, rather than make these statements here, that you and the Trump administration make them in court under oath, because, despite what you just said, the federal district court, whose judge is hearing this case right now, said and I'm quoting that the administration has provided no evidence linking Abrego Garcia to MS-13 or any other terrorist activity. I'm not vouching for the man. I'm vouching for his process.
Speaker 7:Well, yes you are sir. No, no, no, madam secretary.
Speaker 3:I was that you defend and matter alongside the victim of your.
Speaker 7:This is political rhetoric.
Speaker 3:Citizens who live here, and I did States Americans. I would suggest you advocate for them as hard as secretary, I know you're doing a political speech.
Speaker 2:I get it.
Speaker 7:I'm asking questions of law. No you're just.
Speaker 3:Believe this? I just believe rhetoric. Let me ask you this Do you, do you agree?
Speaker 7:do you agree with Justice Scalia? In the Supreme Court opinion in Reno v Flores that I'm quoting, it is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings. End of quote.
Speaker 3:Sir, we are utilizing every due process tool that this Congress has afforded us. This is Congress decides what process is appropriate for every situation. Expedited removal is a due process that you have afforded us that we are utilizing.
Speaker 2:The alien enemies. I'm going to reclaim my time, Madam.
Speaker 3:Secretary.
Speaker 7:So we are giving due process and giving using the tools.
Speaker 7:Madam Secretary, this is really. You know, I'm asking sort of simple questions of law and simple questions like are you complying with the nine to nothing Supreme Court decision? And you seem to think that's some kind of trick question. Let me ask you this you were down at at Seacott in in El Salvador, and you said, and that I'm quoting, it is one of the tools in the toolkit that we will use, and it's well known that the Trump administration is paying the government of El Salvador to keep these individuals, including those who the US courts have determined were illegally taken out of the country, in violation of their due process rights. Have you seen the grant document between the United States and the government of El Salvador with respect to?
Speaker 3:the CICOT. It's important that everybody knows the consequences of what happens for their actions in this country when you break the law and you're a member of a foreign. Madam Secretary, I asked you a question. Have you seen the document? You're a member of a foreign. I asked you a question, have you?
Speaker 7:seen the document. This is not hard. Yes, I have. Okay, and what? What are the provisions of the doctor? So do you know who? What entities in el salvador are receiving the fire.
Speaker 3:You can see this document as well and have looked at it for evaluation. Why have you?
Speaker 7:raised that, madam secretary, because I sent you a letter, along with many of my colleagues here on april 8th asking for, among other things, that document. Will you respond to the letter that we sent?
Speaker 3:I will respond to your letter.
Speaker 7:Thank, you, can I get some sense of?
Speaker 3:when we will take a look at it. I don't remember seeing your letter yet, but I will start well it's been there over the senator's, the Senator's time has expired, madam Chair. Senator Kennedy.
Speaker 5:Madam Chair.
Speaker 7:Madam Secretary, I have some additional questions.
Speaker 5:No, sir, that's up to you to manage that time, senator Kennedy.
Speaker 7:Madam Chair, I need a little help from a Chair that respects the members of the committee.
Speaker 4:Madam Secretary, I'm sorry to working with you and Ranking Member Murphy in this Congress. Madam Secretary, as Senator Murphy mentioned in his opening statement, secretary Noem, under your leadership, we have seen you ignore our appropriation laws, our constitution, common sense and even basic humanity. Like a lot of Americans, I really have been horrified by the lawlessness and incompetence and cruelty that we have all witnessed. And for all the talk about going after criminals, you have sidetracked DHS staff who are investigating drug dealers, dhs staff who are investigating drug dealers, terrorists, human traffickers and rather than photo ops. We need more of your focus on providing basic diligence, because your crackdown has roped in American citizens and people who are here legally with no criminal record.
Speaker 4:Now, I'm not going to ask you whether that was right or wrong. I know it's wrong, the world knows it's wrong, and I think the first thing that history is going to say about your leadership is that you are responsible for many of these travesties. So I'm deeply concerned. You've deported a four-year-old US citizen with cancer, you've disappeared people to a notorious prison in El Salvador and you have spent $100 million in taxpayer dollars to air TV ads thanking President Trump. That is really reckless, it's unacceptable and, in my opinion, can't continue.
Speaker 4:The American people are paying for this with our taxpayer dollars and with their most basic rights. Now, in the last three months, you have frozen or canceled over $100 billion in funding that was approved by Congress. Bipartisan, we are talking about everything from disaster relief to grants that keep people safe, but when my staff has requested information on the status of this unacceptable holdup, the department failed to provide any acceptable justification. This illegal freeze and it is illegal is taking a real toll on communities who are waiting on the investments that Congress has delivered. So will you commit to immediately unpausing these funds?
Speaker 3:Well, Senator, thank you for covering a lot of topics there. Let me touch on a few of those right away. What the Trump administration is doing is enforcing the law for the first time Under the Biden administration illegal aliens were prioritized over American citizens. Now the scales of justice have been leveled and no one is treated better than anyone else. Citizens are treated the same, and these illegal aliens and criminals are being deported.
Speaker 3:The grants that you are referencing have been paused and re-evaluated to make sure that they are truly being spent in the way to which they were appropriated. Many of these grants were being diverted into things they were never intended.
Speaker 3:These funds were passed on a bipartisan basis by members, absolutely the Biden administration perverted them in how they use them, diverted them to facilitate illegal immigration, to house people in places like the Roosevelt Hotel who held illegal criminals. We're talking about a hundred billion dollars. It is not credible to me that all the recipients of that Madam Secretary, it is not credible, Madam Chair.
Speaker 4:It is not credible that $100 billion is used to break the law. That just cannot be true. Change this a little bit. On the other hand, I am very concerned that DHS is now dramatically overspending funding that Congress has not provided. If you were a CEO doing that, I don't think you'd be in your job long. We need accountability and we need answers, and that includes informative responses to oversight questions sent to the department over the last three months. I am a ranking member on this committee. I have worked with every member of this committee. We take our responsibilities serious to fund your department and others. We need to have answers, we need to have accountability and we need to make sure you're not overspending money that you were not allocated.
Speaker 3:Well, thank you for that question. I will be very clear in the fact. Do you want me to respond? Well, you can. Well, I've worked many, many jobs in my life, but I also have been a CEO. I've run businesses.
Speaker 4:I've been a governor. I'm not questioning your credentials.
Speaker 3:I'm questioning your spending. We are prioritizing where our security needs are in this country and we are hoping that this body will agree that reconciliation is necessary to address the things that have been neglected in this country for too long, that we have the technology upgrades, the manpower upgrades that are necessary. So the 170 billion dollar request for the department of homeland security is incredibly important to make sure we have the tools.
Speaker 4:I do have a couple of additional questions. The fact is that you've not been given this funding. Saying that it's going to come in reconciliation that has not passed is not an acceptable answer. I did want to ask about FEMA and disaster relief. This is really important.
Speaker 4:A lot of disaster relief has been politicized. You've endorsed eliminating FEMA outright. We have seen an upheaval at FEMA that is going to put lives in jeopardy. One in five FEMA employees have been pushed out, taking this administration's so-called buyout offer. We are losing indispensable staff just weeks away from fire and hurricane season, and over $100 billion in disaster relief and FEMA grants are still being held up. Over $100 billion in disaster relief and FEMA grants are still being held up. Dhs is making it a lot harder to qualify for relief, something people in my home state of Washington are experiencing firsthand. Multiple requests from governors have been rejected in recent weeks, including a request from our state. We haven't been given any response about this, and I'm watching this and I'm thinking. Has President Trump directed you to prioritize funding for Republican states? Absolutely not. Have you directed your staff to prioritize funding to Republican-led states over Democratic states? Absolutely not.
Speaker 3:Under this administration, there will not be any politicization of support relief.
Speaker 4:FEMA assistance or grants given based on politics. Every single person will be very different than the Biden administration. Madam Secretary, there's a clear trend of Republican-led states getting very fast responses and funding. Democrat-led states are being forced to wait. We have never treated FEMA as a partisan issue in this country. Thank you, thank you.
Speaker 2:So I watched a lot of this. One of the outlets that I give to is Forbes and there is a full hearing on Forbes breaking news. As of five days ago. Of this hearing, that was an hour and 41 minutes in their runtime, so you can watch all of that and just kind of see whatever the hell that that was. Like I said in the beginning, I think Rose I think a lot of people have come to believe can see that ICE is a rogue agency and it is, and so much that they've accidentally arrested several American citizens.
Speaker 2:The big time YouTube streamer, hassan Piker, was actually interrogated recently at the airport over his criticism of Israel, and that is where this type of stuff is going. Uh, kristi Noem went and testified. There's also the secretary who is responsible for a lot of the cuts of staff that are happening at the VA. He went to Congress and I've been watching that. He had a very tough go at it. I would say as well. Kash Patel had to go. Who's leading the FBI? Same thing. They do a lot, a lot gets done, but when senators get their chance to go at these secretary heads, that's kind of what all of it is job, and you know, aren't they just upset that you're just so great, and then, if you're not on the team, you're gonna nail into them and, um, at the end of the day, um, nothing is going to fundamentally change, but uh, it is. It is ridiculous.
Speaker 2:But now, because the current administration has got past their 100 days, the Democratic Party is flexing. The only muscle they really have is to, when they have these hearings, to speechify. My only question is a good speech, is a good speech Eventually to speechify? My only question is a good speech, is a good speech Eventually? There's going to have to be some good policy that goes behind all these speeches, and that's just kind of where I have to put it. Thank you for tuning in. I got something that I'm going to open up with tomorrow which makes this immigration conversation a lot more interesting about who immigrates and who they want to be, about this push to legalize people coming here from a very interesting country. We'll just say that. See you on the next episode.