WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.580 Welcome to the Deep Dive. Today we're looking 00:00:02.580 --> 00:00:06.839 at two really significant areas. First, the legal 00:00:06.839 --> 00:00:08.859 and political heat around immigration policy 00:00:08.859 --> 00:00:12.259 right now. And second, this proposed big, beautiful 00:00:12.259 --> 00:00:15.759 bill and what it might mean for the, well, the 00:00:15.759 --> 00:00:17.940 national debt. Yeah, the sources we have give 00:00:17.940 --> 00:00:20.980 us a real window into the current landscape politically 00:00:20.980 --> 00:00:24.140 and economically. Definitely. It's complex stuff, 00:00:24.239 --> 00:00:26.039 but we'll aim to bring some clarity, pull out 00:00:26.039 --> 00:00:28.420 the key insights for you. Exactly. Our goal is 00:00:28.420 --> 00:00:30.539 to sort of look past the headlines, understand 00:00:30.539 --> 00:00:33.219 what's really going on beneath the surface. OK, 00:00:33.240 --> 00:00:35.920 let's get started then. Part one, immigration. 00:00:36.679 --> 00:00:39.719 We have to talk about these pretty dramatic events 00:00:39.719 --> 00:00:42.259 in New Jersey recently. Right. The arrest of 00:00:42.259 --> 00:00:45.990 Newark Mayor Ross Baraka. That was May 9th outside 00:00:45.990 --> 00:00:48.729 an ICE detention center, Delaney Hall. And he 00:00:48.729 --> 00:00:50.289 wasn't alone, was he? He was there with members 00:00:50.289 --> 00:00:52.590 of Congress. That's right. Bonnie Watson Coleman, 00:00:52.869 --> 00:00:55.109 LaMonica MacGyver, and Rob Menendez. They were 00:00:55.109 --> 00:00:57.189 quite open about why they were there. To inspect 00:00:57.189 --> 00:00:59.890 the facility, issue some zoning citations, things 00:00:59.890 --> 00:01:02.289 like that. And what's interesting, initially, 00:01:03.100 --> 00:01:05.459 ICE agents actually let them through the gates. 00:01:05.920 --> 00:01:09.099 They were inside waiting for further access when 00:01:09.099 --> 00:01:11.280 Baraka was apparently asked to leave and wait 00:01:11.280 --> 00:01:13.400 outside. Which he did. Yeah, he went onto the 00:01:13.400 --> 00:01:15.840 public sidewalk. The members of Congress then 00:01:15.840 --> 00:01:17.739 joined him out there. Okay, so they're on the 00:01:17.739 --> 00:01:20.180 public sidewalk. Then what happens? Well, this 00:01:20.180 --> 00:01:22.939 is where things really seem to escalate. Several 00:01:22.939 --> 00:01:26.340 ICE agents came out, some reportedly masked. 00:01:26.859 --> 00:01:29.599 Masked. Yeah, and according to reports, they 00:01:29.599 --> 00:01:32.299 started pushing the female representatives before 00:01:32.299 --> 00:01:35.079 arresting Mayor Baraka right there on the sidewalk. 00:01:35.260 --> 00:01:38.340 Wow. That's quite a scene. Pushing members of 00:01:38.340 --> 00:01:40.620 Congress. It paints a vivid picture, definitely. 00:01:41.340 --> 00:01:44.819 And then the timeline gets even more, let's say, 00:01:45.099 --> 00:01:47.540 curious. Oh, so. Because after Baraka is arrested 00:01:47.540 --> 00:01:49.439 on the sidewalk, the members of Congress were 00:01:49.439 --> 00:01:51.819 then actually given a tour of the facility. Right. 00:01:51.959 --> 00:01:54.500 after the arrest and the alleged pushing? That's 00:01:54.500 --> 00:01:56.579 the sequence reported, which, you know, makes 00:01:56.579 --> 00:01:58.799 it hard to square with any idea that they were 00:01:58.799 --> 00:02:01.219 trying to storm the place or get in improperly. 00:02:01.500 --> 00:02:04.659 Right. That detail seems key. So the initial 00:02:04.659 --> 00:02:07.359 charge was trespassing. What's the deal with 00:02:07.359 --> 00:02:09.939 that legally in New Jersey? Well, trespassing 00:02:09.939 --> 00:02:12.659 is a misdemeanor there. Potential fines, maybe 00:02:12.659 --> 00:02:16.439 even some jaw time. But a key part of proving 00:02:16.439 --> 00:02:19.580 trespassing is showing the person knew they didn't 00:02:19.580 --> 00:02:22.189 have permission. or shouldn't have reasonably 00:02:22.189 --> 00:02:24.629 believed they had permission. And given that 00:02:24.629 --> 00:02:27.430 ICE let them in at first. Exactly. That seems 00:02:27.430 --> 00:02:29.270 like a pretty strong argument that they had a 00:02:29.270 --> 00:02:31.650 reasonable belief of permission, at least initially. 00:02:31.949 --> 00:02:34.129 Which might explain why the charges against Mayor 00:02:34.129 --> 00:02:36.490 Baraka were dropped pretty quickly Monday night. 00:02:36.770 --> 00:02:40.250 It could. One source sort of speculates maybe 00:02:40.250 --> 00:02:43.090 they got the headlines they wanted and didn't 00:02:43.090 --> 00:02:45.469 want the hassle of a tricky legal fight. It's 00:02:45.469 --> 00:02:48.750 not over. Because now Representative McIver is 00:02:48.750 --> 00:02:51.169 facing charges. Yes. New charges filed against 00:02:51.169 --> 00:02:53.610 her. Assault and obstruction of law enforcement. 00:02:53.849 --> 00:02:55.789 Which, again, seems hard to reconcile with the 00:02:55.789 --> 00:02:58.110 fact they were then given a tour after the alleged 00:02:58.110 --> 00:03:00.610 incident. It does raise questions, doesn't it, 00:03:00.729 --> 00:03:03.270 about the motivation. Is it straightforward law 00:03:03.270 --> 00:03:06.090 enforcement or something else, maybe retaliatory? 00:03:06.289 --> 00:03:09.610 And the timing with Pam Bondi's proposal. That 00:03:09.610 --> 00:03:12.689 adds another layer. Right. Her idea to get rid 00:03:12.689 --> 00:03:14.849 of the public integrity unit sign -off needed 00:03:14.849 --> 00:03:17.530 to indict public officials. If that went through, 00:03:17.830 --> 00:03:20.469 it would remove a check, potentially make it 00:03:20.469 --> 00:03:22.689 easier to bring charges like these against officials, 00:03:22.949 --> 00:03:25.310 maybe for political reasons. That's the concern 00:03:25.310 --> 00:03:27.810 some might raise, yeah. Eliminating that layer 00:03:27.810 --> 00:03:30.650 of independent review before indictment. And 00:03:30.650 --> 00:03:32.389 these aren't isolated incidents, apparently. 00:03:32.610 --> 00:03:35.250 The source mentions other things, like IC agents 00:03:35.250 --> 00:03:38.389 allegedly shoving a teenager. Yes, a 16 -year 00:03:38.389 --> 00:03:41.770 -old girl. If these reports hold up, The agents 00:03:41.770 --> 00:03:44.750 involved could be looking at serious legal trouble. 00:03:45.030 --> 00:03:47.629 Load what? Excessive force claims, civil rights 00:03:47.629 --> 00:03:51.270 violations. Plus, there are DHS regulations about 00:03:51.270 --> 00:03:54.349 agents identifying themselves. The reported masks 00:03:54.349 --> 00:03:56.629 could be an issue there, too. So there are limits 00:03:56.629 --> 00:03:59.449 on ICE authority. Absolutely. The Library of 00:03:59.449 --> 00:04:02.229 Congress has a primer on this. Actions like excessive 00:04:02.229 --> 00:04:05.189 force, failure to identify, they likely fall 00:04:05.189 --> 00:04:08.250 outside those legal boundaries. So bottom line, 00:04:08.469 --> 00:04:11.139 what's likely to happen next here? Lawsuits seem 00:04:11.139 --> 00:04:13.840 very probable. Given the high profile nature, 00:04:14.379 --> 00:04:16.819 the charges against MacGyver, the excessive force 00:04:16.819 --> 00:04:20.300 allegations, I'd expect substantial damages claims 00:04:20.300 --> 00:04:22.620 against the officers, maybe the agency itself. 00:04:22.879 --> 00:04:25.839 Okay. Let's shift states, but stay in the legal 00:04:25.839 --> 00:04:29.079 arena, Wisconsin. Judge Hannah Duggan. Right. 00:04:29.540 --> 00:04:32.680 She's pleaded not guilty. The charges are obstructing 00:04:32.680 --> 00:04:34.779 an official proceeding and concealing someone 00:04:34.779 --> 00:04:37.360 from arrest. What's the prosecution saying she 00:04:37.360 --> 00:04:39.620 did? They claim she helped a defendant avoid 00:04:39.620 --> 00:04:42.639 being arrested by ICE agents right there at the 00:04:42.639 --> 00:04:45.120 courthouse, let him and his lawyer slip out a 00:04:45.120 --> 00:04:47.199 side door near her chambers. But he was arrested 00:04:47.199 --> 00:04:49.139 eventually. Yes, he was picked up outside the 00:04:49.139 --> 00:04:52.319 courthouse later on. Did we see a similar case 00:04:52.319 --> 00:04:54.740 involving a judge during the Trump administration? 00:04:55.459 --> 00:04:57.420 Charges were eventually dropped, I think. You're 00:04:57.420 --> 00:04:58.980 right. There was a case in Massachusetts with 00:04:58.980 --> 00:05:00.980 some parallels, and those charges were indeed 00:05:00.980 --> 00:05:03.100 dropped. OK, but here's the really interesting 00:05:03.100 --> 00:05:06.910 part in Judge Dugan's case. Her defense. Ah, 00:05:06.910 --> 00:05:09.829 yes. The motion to dismiss based on official 00:05:09.829 --> 00:05:13.170 acts immunity. Using the precedent from Trump 00:05:13.170 --> 00:05:16.089 v. US, the very case dealing with presidential 00:05:16.089 --> 00:05:18.870 immunity. Exactly. Her lawyers are arguing her 00:05:18.870 --> 00:05:21.529 actions fell within her judicial duties, her 00:05:21.529 --> 00:05:24.009 official acts, and so she should be immune from 00:05:24.009 --> 00:05:26.949 prosecution under that standard. The potential 00:05:26.949 --> 00:05:29.490 irony there is pretty thick, isn't it? Using 00:05:29.490 --> 00:05:31.709 a Trump -related immunity argument in a case 00:05:31.709 --> 00:05:34.269 like this. It's certainly a notable legal strategy. 00:05:34.550 --> 00:05:36.529 We'll have to see how the court responds. Okay, 00:05:36.610 --> 00:05:38.689 one more perspective on immigration before we 00:05:38.689 --> 00:05:42.689 move on. Conservative lawyer John Yoo. Yes. Known 00:05:42.689 --> 00:05:45.550 for authoring the so -called torture memo during 00:05:45.550 --> 00:05:47.930 the Bush administration. And he's raising concerns 00:05:47.930 --> 00:05:49.910 about the current administration's immigration 00:05:49.910 --> 00:05:53.170 policies. He is. Quite strongly, actually. He's 00:05:53.170 --> 00:05:55.709 quoted as saying they've gone too far. Specifically 00:05:55.709 --> 00:05:58.290 regarding what? Primarily their use of the Alien 00:05:58.290 --> 00:06:01.379 Enemies Act. Yu argues Congress hasn't ratified 00:06:01.379 --> 00:06:03.800 its use in this way. And crucially, he says, 00:06:04.160 --> 00:06:06.939 there's no recognized act of war to justify invoking 00:06:06.939 --> 00:06:09.839 it now. He connects that to the Trendy Aragon 00:06:09.839 --> 00:06:12.720 Gang. Yes, he points to that declassified memo 00:06:12.720 --> 00:06:14.899 saying the gang isn't actually an arm of the 00:06:14.899 --> 00:06:17.899 Venezuelan government, which undermines the whole 00:06:17.899 --> 00:06:21.480 invasion rationale for using the AEA against 00:06:21.480 --> 00:06:24.060 Venezuelans or others associated with the gang. 00:06:24.259 --> 00:06:26.759 And he contrasts the current situation with post 00:06:26.759 --> 00:06:29.470 9 -11 detentions. Right. He makes the point that 00:06:29.470 --> 00:06:31.850 even back then, people detained within the US 00:06:31.850 --> 00:06:34.889 under the Alien Enemies Act still received due 00:06:34.889 --> 00:06:37.509 process. He suggests that's not happening now. 00:06:37.790 --> 00:06:39.529 So a difference in treatment for those detained 00:06:39.529 --> 00:06:42.709 inside the US versus, say, captured abroad. Precisely. 00:06:42.730 --> 00:06:45.149 He emphasizes that distinction. And his strongest 00:06:45.149 --> 00:06:47.889 statement, perhaps, is that any attempt to suspend 00:06:47.889 --> 00:06:50.750 habeas corpus? Yes. He says that would absolutely 00:06:50.750 --> 00:06:53.069 be grounds for impeachment. Coming from him, 00:06:53.069 --> 00:06:55.209 that's quite significant. Definitely a viewpoint 00:06:55.209 --> 00:06:57.110 worth noting from that side of the legal spectrum. 00:06:57.259 --> 00:06:59.319 Okay, let's pivot now. We need to talk about 00:06:59.319 --> 00:07:02.300 the economy, specifically the national debt and 00:07:02.300 --> 00:07:04.939 this big, beautiful bill. Right. First, some 00:07:04.939 --> 00:07:07.980 context is probably helpful. The U .S. debt to 00:07:07.980 --> 00:07:10.879 GDP ratio. Where does that stand now? As of May 00:07:10.879 --> 00:07:14.759 2025, it's sitting at 122%, which is high. How 00:07:14.759 --> 00:07:17.000 high compared to history? We're talking levels 00:07:17.000 --> 00:07:19.459 not seen consistently since the aftermath of 00:07:19.459 --> 00:07:23.660 World War II. It peaked at 106 % in 1946. So 00:07:23.660 --> 00:07:25.420 we brought that down significantly after the 00:07:25.420 --> 00:07:27.740 war, right? We did. Got it down to about 32 % 00:07:27.740 --> 00:07:31.120 by the mid -70s. That was driven by strong economic 00:07:31.120 --> 00:07:34.220 growth, some fiscal discipline, even with Cold 00:07:34.220 --> 00:07:36.180 War spending. But the situation now is different. 00:07:36.319 --> 00:07:39.620 Well, yeah. The post -war U .S. had huge manufacturing 00:07:39.620 --> 00:07:42.740 advantages, rapid population growth, factors 00:07:42.740 --> 00:07:45.019 that aren't quite the same today. Relying just 00:07:45.019 --> 00:07:47.060 on growth to shrink the debt might be harder 00:07:47.060 --> 00:07:49.300 now. And we've seen the debt ratio climb more 00:07:49.300 --> 00:07:51.819 recently. Oh yeah. The Reagan era saw increases, 00:07:52.040 --> 00:07:54.220 then the 2008 financial crisis pushed it up. 00:07:54.439 --> 00:07:56.579 And of course, the COVID -19 pandemic response 00:07:56.579 --> 00:07:58.939 sent it spiking to the highest level ever in 00:07:58.939 --> 00:08:01.279 U .S. history. So against that backdrop, enter 00:08:01.279 --> 00:08:04.220 the Big, beautiful bill proposed by President 00:08:04.220 --> 00:08:07.699 Trump, price tag around $3 .34 trillion. What's 00:08:07.699 --> 00:08:09.899 actually in it? OK, the biggest piece is making 00:08:09.899 --> 00:08:12.839 the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent. That alone 00:08:12.839 --> 00:08:16.160 is estimated at about $4 .5 trillion over 10 00:08:16.160 --> 00:08:18.220 years added to the debt. Wow. OK, what else? 00:08:18.459 --> 00:08:21.339 It also proposes eliminating income tax on tips 00:08:21.339 --> 00:08:24.160 and overtime pay. And there's funding for border 00:08:24.160 --> 00:08:28.100 security about $20 billion for ICE and wall construction. 00:08:28.560 --> 00:08:31.500 Are there any proposed offsets? Ways to pay for 00:08:31.500 --> 00:08:34.259 this. The bill suggests some cuts to Medicaid 00:08:34.259 --> 00:08:37.019 and rolling back certain green energy subsidies. 00:08:37.279 --> 00:08:39.960 Okay, so the administration is likely saying 00:08:39.960 --> 00:08:43.039 this pays for itself or even saves money. That 00:08:43.039 --> 00:08:45.320 seems to be the claim, yeah. Projecting $1 .6 00:08:45.320 --> 00:08:48.440 trillion in savings, but... But independent analyses 00:08:48.440 --> 00:08:51.669 disagree. starkly. The Penn -Warton budget model, 00:08:51.669 --> 00:08:54.169 for instance, projects it would add about $3 00:08:54.169 --> 00:08:57.309 .3 trillion to deficits over the decade, not 00:08:57.309 --> 00:08:59.070 save money. That's a huge difference. Almost 00:08:59.070 --> 00:09:01.090 $5 trillion swing between those projections. 00:09:01.509 --> 00:09:04.230 It is. And that analysis also points to increased 00:09:04.230 --> 00:09:06.129 interest costs on the debt because of the extra 00:09:06.129 --> 00:09:09.129 borrowing may be another $1 .4 trillion by 2032. 00:09:09.350 --> 00:09:11.690 So politically, where does this stand? What are 00:09:11.690 --> 00:09:13.899 the odds it actually passes? Well, it squeaked 00:09:13.899 --> 00:09:15.860 through the House Budget Committee. Very narrow 00:09:15.860 --> 00:09:18.600 vote, 17 -16. Only after concessions. Right, 00:09:18.820 --> 00:09:20.659 concessions on Medicaid work requirements to 00:09:20.659 --> 00:09:23.080 bring some fiscal conservatives on board. But 00:09:23.080 --> 00:09:25.830 big fights remain. Like what? Disputes over the 00:09:25.830 --> 00:09:28.649 SALT deduction state and local taxes and more 00:09:28.649 --> 00:09:31.710 arguments over Medicaid reforms. So passage odds 00:09:31.710 --> 00:09:34.129 are seen as moderate, but definitely fragile. 00:09:34.590 --> 00:09:36.970 Speaker Johnson wants votes soon. Aiming for 00:09:36.970 --> 00:09:39.889 before Memorial Day in the House. But the Republican 00:09:39.889 --> 00:09:43.590 majority is razor thin, like 220, 213. They can 00:09:43.590 --> 00:09:46.490 only afford maybe three defections. And the Freedom 00:09:46.490 --> 00:09:49.710 Caucus. They're pushing for even deeper spending 00:09:49.710 --> 00:09:52.190 cuts, which complicates things further. And even 00:09:52.190 --> 00:09:54.429 if it passes the House, the Senate is another 00:09:54.429 --> 00:09:56.809 hurdle. Absolutely. Potential for Republican 00:09:56.809 --> 00:09:58.730 amendments there, which could delay it, water 00:09:58.730 --> 00:10:01.129 it down, maybe even kill it. And public opinion. 00:10:01.370 --> 00:10:03.549 That's a factor too. You're hearing criticism 00:10:03.549 --> 00:10:05.769 already about the tax cuts favoring the wealthy 00:10:05.769 --> 00:10:08.509 and the potential impact of Medicaid cuts could 00:10:08.509 --> 00:10:11.429 worry moderate voters. So we mentioned that high 00:10:11.429 --> 00:10:13.629 debt ratios historically tend to happen during 00:10:13.629 --> 00:10:17.370 emergencies, like wars, and are followed by austerity 00:10:17.370 --> 00:10:20.110 or growth. How does this bill fit that pattern? 00:10:20.360 --> 00:10:23.480 It really tests it, doesn't it? Proposing big, 00:10:23.480 --> 00:10:26.840 deficit -funded tax cuts plus controversial spending 00:10:26.840 --> 00:10:29.460 cuts when we're not in a declared national emergency 00:10:29.460 --> 00:10:32.899 like WWII and the debt is already very high. 00:10:33.879 --> 00:10:36.639 That's unusual territory. Its feet really hangs 00:10:36.639 --> 00:10:39.820 on GOP unity in Congress, then. Pretty much. 00:10:40.059 --> 00:10:42.399 In such a narrowly divided Congress, they need 00:10:42.399 --> 00:10:44.539 almost everyone on board. Okay, let's bring this 00:10:44.539 --> 00:10:47.570 down to a really concrete example. Tariffs. We 00:10:47.570 --> 00:10:49.970 got some numbers from a listener, M .M., in Bloomington, 00:10:50.029 --> 00:10:52.629 Illinois, about Walmart. Yeah, this really puts 00:10:52.629 --> 00:10:55.169 a spotlight on the potential real -world impact 00:10:55.169 --> 00:10:57.409 of these broader trade policies. Walk us through 00:10:57.409 --> 00:10:59.769 the numbers M .M. shared. OK, so Walmart's annual 00:10:59.769 --> 00:11:03.909 cost of goods sold, code GS, is huge, $463 billion. 00:11:04.350 --> 00:11:06.350 And a lot of that comes from China. Estimates 00:11:06.350 --> 00:11:10.929 about 60%. So maybe $278 billion worth of goods 00:11:10.929 --> 00:11:13.950 imported from China each year. Now, apply a potential 00:11:13.950 --> 00:11:17.029 30 % tariff, as has been discussed. A 30 % tariff 00:11:17.029 --> 00:11:20.710 on $278 billion. That's an extra $83 billion, 00:11:21.230 --> 00:11:23.809 roughly, in added cost for Walmart. $83 billion. 00:11:23.850 --> 00:11:26.039 How does that compare to their profit? Well, 00:11:26.120 --> 00:11:29.759 Walmart's net income in 2024 was about $16 .3 00:11:29.759 --> 00:11:33.399 billion. So if Walmart had to absorb that entire 00:11:33.399 --> 00:11:36.659 $83 billion tariff cost. They'd be deep in the 00:11:36.659 --> 00:11:38.980 red. Yeah, looking at a potential loss of around 00:11:38.980 --> 00:11:42.419 $67 billion based on those numbers. And MM notes 00:11:42.419 --> 00:11:44.820 this doesn't even factor in earlier tariff threats. 00:11:44.980 --> 00:11:48.139 That's just staggering. for one company. It is. 00:11:48.279 --> 00:11:51.620 And remember, Walmart has 4 ,600 U .S. stores, 00:11:52.019 --> 00:11:55.440 1 .6 million U .S. employees. They're a massive 00:11:55.440 --> 00:11:57.559 part of the retail landscape, especially groceries. 00:11:57.940 --> 00:12:00.059 So the implication is they probably can't absorb 00:12:00.059 --> 00:12:02.019 that cost. It seems unlikely they could absorb 00:12:02.019 --> 00:12:04.639 all of it, which means those costs or a large 00:12:04.639 --> 00:12:06.480 chunk of them would almost certainly get passed 00:12:06.480 --> 00:12:09.120 on to consumers. higher prices on everyday stuff. 00:12:09.360 --> 00:12:11.679 That's the likely outcome. So a policy aimed 00:12:11.679 --> 00:12:13.799 at, say, boosting domestic industry could end 00:12:13.799 --> 00:12:15.940 up hitting the wallets of American shoppers, 00:12:16.179 --> 00:12:17.919 potentially including the very people who supported 00:12:17.919 --> 00:12:20.519 the policy, hoping for lower costs. And Walmart's 00:12:20.519 --> 00:12:22.980 just one example, right? Many retailers rely 00:12:22.980 --> 00:12:26.779 heavily on imports. Exactly. This potential Walmart 00:12:26.779 --> 00:12:29.600 problem could be a much wider economic issue, 00:12:29.759 --> 00:12:32.299 impacting lots of businesses and consumers if 00:12:32.299 --> 00:12:34.899 such tariffs were broadly applied. It really 00:12:34.899 --> 00:12:37.759 shows how interconnected things are. Wow. Okay. 00:12:38.240 --> 00:12:40.799 So we've covered a lot of ground today, a real 00:12:40.799 --> 00:12:43.200 deep dive. We certainly have, from courtroom 00:12:43.200 --> 00:12:45.740 battles and constitutional questions around immigration. 00:12:46.059 --> 00:12:49.980 to multi -crillion dollar budget proposals and 00:12:49.980 --> 00:12:52.519 the nitty -gritty impact of tariffs on your shopping 00:12:52.519 --> 00:12:55.600 bill. It's a lot to process. It is. So to wrap 00:12:55.600 --> 00:12:58.039 up, we've seen these legal fights over immigration, 00:12:58.460 --> 00:13:00.379 raising questions about executive power, due 00:13:00.379 --> 00:13:02.879 process, the treatment of individuals. And we've 00:13:02.879 --> 00:13:05.279 looked at this huge proposed economic shift, 00:13:05.440 --> 00:13:08.320 the big, beautiful bill, with its potential impacts 00:13:08.320 --> 00:13:10.940 on the national debt, contrasted with the very 00:13:10.940 --> 00:13:13.320 tangible effects of trade policy shown by the 00:13:13.320 --> 00:13:15.519 Walmart example. Which brings us to a final thought. 00:13:15.440 --> 00:13:17.379 maybe something for you to chew on. How do these 00:13:17.379 --> 00:13:19.919 two seemingly separate things, the legal battles 00:13:19.919 --> 00:13:22.259 over who belongs and how they're treated, and 00:13:22.259 --> 00:13:24.600 the big economic plans for taxes and spending, 00:13:24.820 --> 00:13:27.919 how do they connect? What broader vision do they 00:13:27.919 --> 00:13:30.399 reflect about the government's role, about individual 00:13:30.399 --> 00:13:32.399 rights, about the kind of country we're building? 00:13:32.720 --> 00:13:35.259 And looking ahead, what long -term consequences, 00:13:35.620 --> 00:13:38.639 intended or unintended, might you anticipate 00:13:38.639 --> 00:13:41.279 seeing from these developments? It's worth thinking 00:13:41.279 --> 00:13:44.580 about how these big currents legal and economic 00:13:44.580 --> 00:13:47.299 really intertwine and shape the future. Thanks 00:13:47.299 --> 00:13:48.580 for joining us on this deep dive.