Michael Knowles In The White House EXCLUSIVE Updates & Interviews

Charlie Sheen is an icon of decadence.

I lit the fuse and my life turns into everything it wasn't supposed to be.

He's going the distance.

He was the highest paid TV star of all time.

When it started to change, it was quick.

He kept saying, No, no, no, I'm in the hospital now, but next week I'll be ready for the show.

Now, Charlie's sober.

He's gonna tell you the truth.

How do I present this with any class?

I think we're past that, Charlie.

We're past that, yeah.

Somebody call action.

Aka Charlie Sheen, only on Netflix, September 10th.

Trip planner by Expedia.

You were made to outdo your holiday,

your hammocking,

and your pooling.

We were made to help organize the competition.

Expedia, made to travel.

Tires matter.

They're the only part of your vehicle that touches the road.

Tread confidently with new tires from Tire Rack.

Whether you're looking for expert recommendations or know exactly what you want, Tire Rack makes it easy.

Fast, free shipping, free road hazard protection, convenient installation options, and the best selection of Firestone tires.

Go to tirerack.com to see their Firestone test results, tire ratings, and reviews, and be sure to check out all the special offers.

TireRack.com, the way tire buying should be.

Last week, I got to go to Washington, D.C.

Not only that, I got to go to the White House.

Not only that, I became the first podcaster to attend a cabinet meeting.

Not only that,

but afterward, I got to sit down with one of the most important cabinet secretaries, in fact, one of the most important men in the entire world, successor to Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Besant.

Here's our interview.

I'm here at the White House.

I have the privilege of sitting down with a man whose every decision affects your wallet and the financial health of our country.

That would be Treasury Secretary Scott Besant.

Mr.

Secretary, thank you for being here.

Good to be with you this afternoon.

So we were supposed to sit down about two and a half hours ago, but we didn't because you and I were both in the cabinet meeting over in the West Wing for what I believe was the longest cabinet meeting in presidential history.

And probably the first one on a Tuesday before Labor Day.

There was a lot to fit in.

There was a lot of history, but it was an incredible meeting.

You You know, I think I actually might be the first podcaster ever invited into a cabinet meeting, which I was very honored by.

And they really gave me my money's worth, you know?

I mean, that was a full showing.

A lot of it hinged on what you're doing, though, of course, the entire cabinet was reporting.

Some of the big news was about the Federal Reserve, the next Fed share.

But before we get to any of that.

This was the Tuesday before Labor Day.

President Trump has made the American worker a key

of his, well, both of his terms, I suppose, and has implemented real economic reforms that are designed to benefit the American worker.

How's it all going?

It's going well.

We're off to a great start.

I call it parallel prosperity because what we've seen for too long, especially since the China shock in the early 2000s, was Wall Street's taken off and Main Street's gotten left behind.

Capital's done great, stock market's at all-time highs, And as you said, the American worker has struggled to keep up, especially the bottom 50% of working Americans.

So I don't think it's an either or.

I think both can do well.

So parallel prosperity, Wall Street can do well, but now it's Main Street's turn for a catch-up.

And that's what we're really starting to see here.

So a lot of people said at the implementation of the tariffs that it was going to destroy the entire economy.

There were a lot of people that the president dubbed panic hands.

And the numbers that we're seeing right now look pretty good.

What is it, a hundred billion dollars in revenue from the tariffs?

And manufacturing is looking up, I think three-year highs, and a lot of great trade deals.

The European Union giving us $600 billion, some crazy number.

Things are looking up.

Well, look,

there was a lot of whataboutism.

There was

a lot of vested interest because the mantra, again, especially since the China shock, but had gone gone back before then, was to design or market and sell in the US, but not manufacture it in the US.

So we had offshored so much of that production.

And look, over the long term,

for working Americans, manufacturing jobs are the way to middle-class lifestyles.

It's very difficult in the service economy to really move up the economic chain.

There are some great service jobs.

That's why we've done no tax on tips, no tax on overtime.

But we saw it during COVID.

Working Americans are the backbone of the country.

Capital has been treated very well.

We're going to keep treating capital well, but it's going to come in in a different form.

Before, we had these gigantic trade deficits,

which were the current account deficits.

And how did the countries that

created these surpluses invest back in the U.S.

They'd either buy treasury bonds, they would buy Google stock, or they'd buy private equity.

And that created a lot of distributional, bad distributional outcomes.

The Coast did well, the Middle didn't.

Now, what we're going to see is if someone sells us an LG

television, we are going to sell them a General Motors car again,

just like we used to.

Now,

I mentioned it's all going very well.

As you mentioned, it's all going very well.

But

Walmart recently, on their earnings call, said they had some trepidation.

They're seeing the effects of the tariffs.

Prices might start going up.

Obviously, President Trump won the election in large part because Joe Biden so mishandled inflation.

So I'm looking around on a sunny day in August, right before Labor Day.

Things look fine.

Do you have any trepidation?

And are there strategies to mitigate what might come in Q4 or Q1 of next year?

Well,

I think what we've seen is the economic establishment was wrong, as you said earlier.

I was at a conference on Jackson Hole, and several of the economists there had mea culpas.

They've said, look,

before Liberation Day, if you were to find out

what percent of PhD economists

like tariffs, it would be

negative 50.

99%

and Peter Navarro.

Yeah.

It was 99% versus Peter Navarro.

And that

once again, the consensus has been proven wrong.

Look, a big portion of it, our biggest trade deficit is with China.

So they are selling things below the cost of production.

So they're not going to stop.

They're not going to raise prices.

That industry in China is an employment scheme mostly, not a capitalist system.

And that's part of what the tariffs are here to remedy.

When a country has a completely different belief system, governmental system, and economic system, then

we don't align with them and they could just flood our markets.

Same thing with Vietnam.

I'm not sure.

I can't remember what the head of Vietnam is called.

I think he's called the premier.

They are not a completely market-based economy.

It's an employment thing.

And I think a lot of the standard economists didn't use that kind of imagination to be able to say, well, of course, China's going to eat these.

And

the other thing, too, that Walmart has been eating a lot of the costs.

So, you know, across, it hasn't

flowed to the consumer.

And also, preferences change.

That

if somehow the price of an avocado goes up, then you buy a South Carolina peach.

Right, right.

So, well, that answer is very important.

But to answer your question,

I don't see any reason why this should flow through.

A Biden administration created this terrible affordability crisis.

The stated CPI numbers, the inflation numbers were 19 to 21 percent.

Working Americans had a different bundle of goods and services.

Probably their inflation was over 35.

So the first thing for us to do to get at the affordability crisis was to stop the inflation.

And we've seen a 1.9% inflation back to the long-term trend since President Trump came in.

And the other way to solve for inflation is to increase real working class.

class wages, which is what we saw in President Trump's first term.

President Trump's first term, hourly workers did better than supervisory workers.

The bottom 50% of American households saw a greater increase in their net worth than the top 10%.

So I think we can go back to that.

But look, we're not going to be satisfied.

But the other thing, too, that

if I think about my weight, I think last time I checked, I weighed about 210 pounds.

What I care is about my overall weight.

Like, I don't care how much my arm weighs.

I care.

So

energy,

especially gasoline, is coming down.

President Trump is going to do a substantial decrease in pharmaceutical costs.

So we're looking at the macro number.

And other people, especially a lot of vested interests, might be screaming on a micro level.

I think my wife would prefer if I had more weight in my biceps and less in my gut.

But I think the point is totally accurate economically.

And I also love your response when you say, look, Walmart is griping about seeing costs go up.

And you say, yes, they are griping because they're eating those costs largely.

And it's not actually being passed on to the consumer.

And

good for them, good for the Americans.

So then, speaking of percentages,

it's a little bit of a hard transition to interest rates and the Federal Reserve, but it does seem to be on everybody's mind.

We were just in that cabinet meeting, and President Trump rarely missed an opportunity to jab the Federal Reserve chairman.

You will be instrumental in the next pick.

You've said that you don't want the job yourself.

One, how important is an independent central bank, in your view, to the country?

And two,

who do we need to see in the Fed chair role?

Well,

thank you.

Not me.

But an independent central bank

is very important.

But as I said

as we were going around the table, when the president called on me, the Federal Reserve gets its authority because the American people trust it to be independent.

And when we have a potential scandal like this or a potential member

who

seems to have a very serious mortgage violation, because one thing we have not heard yet from Lisa Cook, we haven't heard her say I didn't do it.

Yeah, yeah.

We haven't heard her say I didn't do it.

So just for people who haven't followed followed this that closely, Lisa Cook

on the Fed,

accused of a scandal, fired by the president, saying that the president doesn't have the power to fire her, now threatening to sue the president.

The president says, you know, go on and try it.

I've got a list of 500 problems.

Get in line.

All of this news breaking within the last several days.

So

where does that stand?

Well, we'll see.

As I said,

the independence of the Federal Reserve comes from the American people, from them believing there's an agreement there.

We will give this unelected body the control over or substantial amount of control over the economy.

In return, we expect

that the members of that group are above reproach, especially that Lisa Cook is accused of a financial crime.

And the Fed, aside from setting interest rates, also sets bank regulation.

So I'm not sure you could be a regulator.

And as I said, and maybe we will in the coming days, but so far, we have not seen Ms.

Cook say, I didn't do it.

The other thing we haven't seen is the Federal Reserve come out and say, we stand behind her.

We haven't seen the institution say, we've investigated it, she didn't do it.

And one of the things that I have called for over the past couple of months is for the Federal Reserve to do a big internal review before

an external review comes along.

And thus far,

Nada on that.

And I think this should be the thing that pushes them over the line just to review all that because there's monetary policy, there's regulatory policy, and then there's the administration of this sprawling

institution with a very large budget that's losing.

The Federal Reserve is losing $100 billion a year because of

some bond buying that they did at bad prices.

So

again, for now,

I'm calling for an internal investigation.

Before they get the external investigation, right.

That's the way it rolls.

President Trump, during the cabinet meeting, was attacking the Fed chairman because he said, look, America's housing is doing very well right now, but it would be the housing market would be doing much, much better if not for Jay Powell's stupid rates.

One, from your position at Treasury, how do you assess how the Fed is doing and housing and elsewhere?

And then looking ahead to the next Federal Reserve Chairman, what sort of things do you want to see other than it not being you?

Well,

one of the things that I said that I won't comment on the mistakes the Fed's going to make, only on the mistakes they have made, because

that's a big folder.

And a couple of the big mistakes was when they did a quantitative easing, which was large-scale bond buying.

That had the effect of lifting assets.

And again,

the top 10% of households own 88% of equities.

The top 50 really own the other 12%.

The bottom 50% of Americans have debt and rent.

So

again, you end up with this distributional problem.

There's a progressive economist, Karen Peteru, who has a book called The Federal Reserve, The Engine of Inequality, who says that they've set off this massive amount of inequality that we have in the U.S.

And if we look back to the COVID period, I couldn't have agreed with the Fed more in terms of when the markets became destabilized, March, April, even May, June of 2020.

We didn't understand COVID.

We didn't know what it was.

Then

large-scale asset purchases,

both to stabilize the market, to take a lot of uncertainty out of the economy,

certainly warranted.

But the Fed kept buying bonds

until, I believe it was February of 2022.

And at the same time, house house prices

went up substantially, more than 50%.

And

we became this bigger nation of haves and have-nots.

And now rates are stuck at this high level, and they're more distributional consequences.

Google, Microsoft, Meta have net cash, so they like high rates.

Like a lot of upper-income households like high rates.

But as the president said, the aspirational households, young people, we saw a terrible statistic last month.

We saw more people over 70 buy homes than people under 35.

Supposed to go the other way.

So that's not sustainable over the long term.

So again, we're back to the distributional aspects of what's going on.

And if we want to get the housing market going, one of the biggest components is obviously rates.

In terms of what are we looking for in the next Fed share, it's going to be the president's decision.

I'm interviewing 11 excellent candidates, very different.

Some I know well, some I've known for more than 20 years,

some I've never met before, other than the phone call when I said I'd like to consider you.

This is going to hit the news.

Would you like to be considered?

And I'm looking forward to that.

It'll be beginning after Labor Day.

But what are we looking for?

We're looking for someone who has respect of the markets,

understands monetary policy, but also is more like Alan Greenspan was as Fed share.

He came in in the 80s, went all the way to the mid-aughts, and he had a very open-minded approach to monetary policy.

He came in,

I had started in Wall Street, crash of 87.

He knew exactly what to do.

Everyone thought,

not unlike after Liberation Day when the market went down, I remember in 87,

there's going to be a depression.

And turned out 88, 89 were

great years in the market.

And he guided the economy through.

But in the 1990s, there was a real technological revolution.

It was the internet and then all the embedded office electronics.

People finally started using them.

So you had this big productivity boom.

And I think there's a chance, very good chance,

that we are going to have a similar productivity boom from AI starting next year.

So I want to hear someone talk about, okay, what will I be looking for in this productivity boom?

How should monetary policy look in the future as opposed to in the rearview mirror?

Two,

the Fed is responsible for bank regulation.

I think that the regulations have been much too tight.

I began my career as a bank,

as exciting as I may seem.

I may not seem like I was a banking and insurance analyst, but I was.

And I began my career.

So I understand how these institutions work from the bottom up.

And this big market outside of the regulated banking system that we're seeing in private credit, in buy now, pay later, all that tells me that the regulated banking system has been in this regulatory noose.

And

we need to unshackle the banks, especially the small banks.

And the small banks doing well is the key to Main Street doing well because they provide a huge, huge amount of the small business loans, the ag loans, the small real estate loans.

So it'd be someone who understands bank regulation well.

And then, three, is someone who can run an institution of this magnitude.

Because this is a big institution.

They're branches, their employees.

It's a gigantic budget.

President has criticized Chair Powell for

the cost overruns on the building projects.

There's an investment/slash professoral function here, but then there's also a CEO function.

You've got to run the business.

It's a big business.

It's a big business.

It's a business that's losing $100 billion a year.

So it's a turnaround.

Last question before I let you go, because I know it's been a very long day.

An historically long podcast with the Treasury Secretary after the historically long cabinet meeting.

The president just acquired 10% of Intel for the American taxpayer.

Great deal.

The president has talked about a sovereign wealth fund for the United States.

He said there are going to be more investments to come.

I think many people in America right now would like to see him acquire a Cracker Barrel as soon as possible, maybe turn that around too.

But assuming that's not on the docket for businesses that he's looking to

to constitute the sovereign wealth fund, what sort of industries, what sort of businesses could you see down the line if that fund is to to be built?

Well,

we'll see whether it's in the form of a sovereign wealth fund or

other businesses.

But I think your viewers should think about it in two ways.

One, their strategic industries.

So

as I've said many times, the only good thing about COVID was it was a test run for what happens if we were to get into a kinetic war with a major economic slash political adversary, i.e.

China.

And we saw that we were woefully negligent in our supply chains.

So five to seven strategic industries that we have to rebuild at home.

So with chips being one, 99% of the high-value chips are made on the island of Taiwan.

And that doesn't even require war.

I have no reason to believe that China will do it, but I know they could do it if they were to do a blockade of Taiwan and stop semiconductors from getting off.

That would be a problem.

As the president said, we're getting along very well with China right now, but you've got to be prepared.

Precursors for pharmaceuticals, moxicillin.

If you have children,

you've given them that.

So a huge amount, 80-90% of precursor drugs go into our pharmaceutical ecosystem, steel,

rare, rare earth, rare earth magnets.

So I think you will see that.

Then on the other side, the president wants to monetize some of our balance sheet.

So his view with Intel was: we've given this grant.

Why do we do that?

But Biden had given the grant.

Biden had given the grant.

Why shouldn't the American public, the American taxpayer get part of the upside?

So I think there are early stage talks for

the two government-controlled mortgage companies, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, then that could be a windfall for the American taxpayer.

That perhaps a sale of TikTok, then the government, some of that value could accrue to the American taxpayer.

But I think what's important here is, unlike the past,

I guess we'd have to go all the way way back to,

I don't know how far.

President Trump wants to create assets for the American people, not debt.

So he wants to pay down the debt with the tariffs, tariff money, and the CBO came out on Friday, and all of a sudden they had an aha moment.

There could be $4 trillion

comes from tariff income, $3.3 trillion from tariffs, $700 billion.

The number keeps going up, too.

Exactly.

Everyone had very low expectations.

Frankly, even some of your estimates were lower than it seems like now.

Well, it's like I like to tell the president.

And Wall Street is called a beat and a raise.

So

you keep expectations low, you beat, then you can raise it.

The president likes to start out

at the raise, but he's been right.

He's been right.

So

we had a big increase in tariff income July over August.

My guess is we're going to see a big increase August over September.

Then we'll get into a natural cadence that

$400,

$500 billion.

And again, the way for your viewers to think about that is every $300 billion is 1% of GDP.

So

if we could get, make it easy on me, if we could get to $450,

then we will narrow the budget deficit by one and a half percent of gdp so the mess that the biden team left us they left us at six and a half percent deficit gdp the highest when we weren't at war what weren't in a recession if we could get it down to something with a five or a four in front of it at the same time with the one big beautiful bill that it's front-loaded as the companies are building factories and buying new equipment, then they get an automatic depreciation.

So that hits in the early years, but it's like coiling a spring.

It's productive capacity, and then that production comes online and generates more jobs, tax income.

So if the tariff income actually

prevents

the front loading, then

this is fantastic.

Right, right.

And this is what the president kept saying in the cabinet meeting.

He said, you think it's good now?

Wait for two years, wait for three years when this capacity is really online.

Well, I do think we're going to see the acceleration

fourth quarter of this year, beginning of next year, and I think 2026 could be a great year.

Mr.

Secretary, any fun plans on Labor Day?

I actually am going to, for Labor Day itself, I'm going to be out.

One of my favorite parts of the One Big Beautiful bill is the no-tax and tips.

I got my first, I actually had two jobs when I was nine years old.

One was working on the beach, putting out beach chairs and umbrellas.

The other was working in a restaurant.

So I've been getting tip income since I was nine years old.

So I'm going to visit a series of

family restaurants and diners.

probably not cracker barrel on the uh on monday and talk to the employees there about the the difference that no tax on tips is making in their lives because the

these are hardworking people.

They're going to get to keep more of their income.

And

I can tell you, because of no tax on tips, when I walk into a restaurant, I'm the most popular person there.

Of course.

And I like the strategy, the mom and pops.

That's great.

And holding out on Cracker Barrel until they bring back Uncle Herschel.

That's called the art of the deal, I think, Mr.

Secretary.

That is good.

And they put more rockers out on the front porch.

Thank you, sir.

Happy Labor Day.

Good to see you.

One thing I notice every time I sit down with Scott Besson is that he looks like a basketball player.

A little bit whiter than most basketball players, but he's very, very tall.

I think he's a descendant of the Nephilim.

Anyway, after I spoke to Secretary Besson, I then moved from the basketball player to the...

to the football player, a former professional football player, who now happens to be the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development at a time when housing is on everyone's mind.

Young people can't afford houses.

And I asked him how they're going to do it.

That would be HUD Secretary, Scott Turner.

Hold on one second before we get to any more very, very important stuff.

You must go to hillsdale.edu slash Knowles.

You ever hear the phrase, that's unconstitutional?

People toss that phrase around like confetti at a political rally.

You hear it pretty much anywhere.

People gather to debate the issues of the day.

But here's the thing.

When someone drops that phrase, do you just nod along and take their word for it?

Or have you ever actually cracked open the Constitution yourself to see what all the fuss is about?

I think you should.

And that is one of the many reasons that I'm thrilled about Hillsdale College's brand new free online course called The Federalist.

You know, those Federalist papers everyone references, but few have actually read?

They were penned by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, and don't forget John Jay, to explain how our Constitution creates a government strong enough to protect our rights, yet safe enough to trust with power.

Brilliant stuff.

More relevant today than ever.

Hillsdale breaks it down into 10 digestible 30-minute lectures that you can tackle whenever you want.

No deadlines, no costs, no catch.

Here's the bonus.

They got over 40 other free courses waiting for you from C.S.

Lewis to ancient Rome to early church history.

It's like having a world-class education at your fingertips.

It is having a world-class education at your fingertips completely free.

I love it.

Hillsdale is one of the absolute top learning institutions in the entire country and their courses are just magnificent.

The Federalist, I highly recommend.

Course on C.S.

Lewis, I highly recommend.

Right now, go to hillsdale.edu slash Knowles to enroll.

No cost, easy to get started.

Go to hillsdale.edu slash Knowles.

Young people can't afford housing.

A lot of people actually can't afford housing.

And our cities are falling into disrepair.

So who better to talk to than the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Scott Turner?

Mr.

Secretary, sir.

Thank you for stopping by.

I guess really I'm stopping by you because we're at the White House right now.

So Mr.

Secretary, you and I were just in the cabinet meeting for what was apparently 100,000 hours.

It covered a lot of stuff.

One point that stuck out to me was President Trump Trump going after the Fed chairman, Jay Powell, and saying that because of his policies, housing is not exploding in the way that it should.

And I know this is an issue that is on a lot of, especially young Americans' minds.

They cannot afford housing.

Why is that and what is being done to fix it?

Well, Michael, it's great to be with you.

Thank you for being in the cabinet meeting.

Yeah, it was my honor.

It was my honor.

As you can see, the president is very transparent.

And as he said, in the cabinet, we have nothing to hide.

Every cabinet member had an opportunity to speak about what's going on in their prospective agencies.

And so the American people appreciate that.

I hear from people all the time, thank you, you know, that we get to hear what's going on in education and labor and defense and state and HUD.

And so I'm grateful for the president doing that.

It is a long journey.

But he did bring up housing.

And currently housing, the median price

for a house, single-family house in America right now is $435,000 as of July 2025.

That's insane.

That's insane.

It's unsustainable.

And you mentioned the interest rates and Mr.

Powell.

We have all been encouraging him strongly to bring down interest rates.

Interest rates obviously impact mortgage rates.

You have the younger generation.

I have a son, 24 years old, and he asked, How am I ever going to be able to afford to buy a house?

I hear that from young people across the country because it's not affordable.

$435,000 is a lot of money for grown people like you and I.

And so, what we've been very intentional about at HUD is to bring down burdensome regulations.

Regulations cripple development from a federal standpoint, state, and local standpoint.

We took down a rule, Michael, called affirmatively furthering fair housing.

This was

one of those government-sounding euphemisms.

Affirmatively furthering fair housing.

Yes.

What does that mean in English?

Basically, it made HUD a national zoning board where HUD would essentially tell localities how they should zone their neighborhoods.

Every neighborhood in our country, rural, tribal, and urban, has unique needs.

Washington doesn't know the needs of Nashville, Tennessee, or Plano, Texas, or Dubuque, Iowa, or Trenton, New Jersey, and so on and so forth.

And so we took this rule down.

The president was very supportive of it.

Dr.

Ben Carson did it in the first administration, and then it was put back up through the Obama and Biden era.

And so taking this rule down restores flexibility back to the localities, it unleashes the ability for developers to develop and builders to build.

That's one thing.

Another thing is to form public-private partnerships.

I've traveled all around our country and have seen some great examples as it pertains to affordable housing, single-family, multifamily.

And manufactured housing is also a big deal when it comes to affordable housing.

But when private entities partner with public entities, public-private partnerships, and they work together to identify the issue and then come up with a strategy for long-term sustainability and execute that strategy, I've seen that over and over again.

The federal government is not the answer.

The federal government HUD is a facilitator and a great convener.

But when you start bringing in the private sector, when you start bringing in the nonprofits and the faith-based entities that are doing the work on the ground every day, that's how you build more affordable housing.

But it has to start with regulation, and we need the interest rates to come down, period.

Now, the other aspect of the last two weeks of the news that's really touched on you is President Trump is threatening to invade all these cities,

notably Washington, D.C., which is obviously the federal district anyway.

So the notion that the president could take over Washington is kind of absurd on its face.

But he said, and we're going to look at Baltimore, and we're going to look at Oakland, and we're going to look at Chicago.

In the cabinet meeting, he seemed to to couch that a little bit and say, look, I'd rather go in there by invitation.

I want to help these people out.

24 out of 25 times, they're Democrats and they don't want to admit that they need my help, but these cities are falling apart.

From the federal standpoint, what do you think that

the government can do to improve these cities that in some cases, I'm only being slightly hyperbolic.

I take the Amtrak past Baltimore.

I feel like I'm looking at Fallujah or something.

I mean, some of these places look really, really run down.

Well, there's been a lack of leadership.

Let's just start right there.

You have to care about the people that you serve, Democrat and Republican.

In this instance, most of these cities that have gone down, quote unquote, are ran by Democrat leadership.

And see, to me, HUD, housing, poverty is not a political issue.

Safety is not a political.

Everybody wants to be safe, whether they say it or whether they don't say it.

Democrats and Republican men and women want to be safe.

And when you look here in Washington, D.C., our beautiful capital, and you see homelessness, you see tents and encampments and crime and people being murdered.

There was a young lady, you heard her today.

Yes, yeah.

She was a reporter with one of the local outlets.

That's the Epoch Times.

Epoch Times.

Her name was Iris.

And Iris told a story how she was mugged at gunpoint, a gun to her head.

She refused to give her items away and then the guy pistol whipped her thank god he only pistol whipped her thank god and thank god she survived well that should not be the case and so president trump as you know said we're going to take over washington dc we're going to send a national guard we're going to send our troops to make sure that the streets of our capital city are safe so that women that take the amtrak women that take the train the bus men small children that walk on the streets in our city don't have to be terrified that they're going to get mugged that they're going to get axed that they're going to get shot and this is baltimore another one chicago l a all around our country we have problems with crime why because of lack of leadership remember the defund the police movement yeah yeah well we're seeing the the results of that kind of paradigm the results of that kind of culture we have to support our law enforcement we have to support our military these men and women wake up every single day with the mindset, I'm going to do my job.

My job is to keep the people of this said city, this state, safe.

And so I think that's what you see going on.

And I agree with President Trump.

You want to be invited.

You want leaders to lead.

Yes.

And part of leadership is saying, you know what?

We have an issue here.

Well, you know, something else the president said in the meeting on crime is he said, he said, it's almost like a trap for the Democrats.

I didn't mean it to be, but it's this trap.

They're defending crime.

I mean, it's kind of like when they were defending a guy going into a little girl's bathroom.

I mean, you think, what, what political malpractice to take the side of what's an 80-20 issue, more like a 97-3 issue.

So you see that on crime, you saw that on the flag-burning executive order.

Democrats are now openly the party of burning the American flag.

It seems like political malpractice.

But when it comes to the cities, I think you're right.

Safety should not be a partisan issue.

No.

And these issues that you bring up,

one mistake that we've made.

here recently in America is we've put politics over principle.

Yeah.

Period.

Politics should never trump principle.

And I believe what you're seeing now with the president, with this cabinet, with leaders in this administration, we're getting back to principles.

We're getting back to the foundational principles that make America great, that make America safe, that make America prosperous, that make America welcoming, that make America a place where hardworking, everyday men and women raising their families feel proud to live.

And I think returning to that principle mindset is what you're seeing.

And everybody doesn't like that that because politics keep people in power.

Politics keep people elected.

I don't give two cents about power or being elected.

I don't care about position or title.

It's about principle and purpose.

And I think that's what you're seeing.

And when the people do give you power, it's good to wield it to benefit them and for the common good.

You know, that's the least we could do.

Yes, sir.

Mr.

Secretary, hope you have a very good Labor Day and good to see you.

Thanks for coming by.

God bless you.

September 10th, we celebrate the 10-year anniversary of the Daily Wire:

10 years of leftist tears.

New shows, big moves, bigger targets.

And first up is our newest show, Friendly Fire.

We're on the show.

This is it.

No safe words, no moderator.

My original proposal had been that Noel should be moderator.

We all agree on that.

We're celebrating our first decade and kicking off the next 10 years by doing what we do best.

It's really true.

Picking arguments, starting fights, and filming the whole thing.

This is enough small talk, I think.

I'm going a little hungry.

I hope that your wife made you that, Sandway.

Oh, my God.

I think we do need a moderator, just a programming note.

September 10th on Daily Wire.

Before you go, make sure that you like and subscribe to this channel, and you will get many, many more videos.

See you next time.