Trump Signs Bill to Reopen Govt; Clintons to Testify in House Epstein Probe | NTD Newsroom (Feb. 3)

Welcome to NTD Newsroom. I'm Don Ma. The House narrowly passes a government funding package to end the four-day partial government shutdown. Most federal agencies get a full year of funding, but Homeland Security gets just two more weeks, setting up intense talks on ICE policy changes. The U.S. military shoots down an Iranian drone over the Arabian Sea, what the U.S. says about the activity of the drone. Bill and Hillary Clinton agree to testify amid a congressional investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The former president and former secretary of state initially refused to comply with the House subpoena. House lawmakers are bringing attention to the problem of Medicaid fraud around the country, Jason Blair reports. A recent poll shows the majority of Americans agree that photo ID should be required for voting. We have a panel to discuss this. This is NTD Newsroom, live from our global headquarters in New York City. Thank you for staying with us. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian drone today. It came as the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier was transiting the Arabian Sea. U.S. Central Command said an Iranian Shahid 139 drone was aggressively approaching the aircraft carrier with unclear intent. The drone continued to fly toward the ship despite de-escalatory measures taken by U.S. forces. The U.S. military said the aircraft carrier was 500 miles south of Iran's coast and in international waters. An F-35C fighter jet from the carrier shot down the Iranian drone to protect the ship and personnel on board. No U.S. service member was harmed in the process. U.S. Central Command said in a statement, Continued Iranian harassment and threats in international waters and airspace will not be tolerated. Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have agreed to testify amid a congressional investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Their decision comes after they initially refused to comply with the House subpoena. The House Oversight Committee is seeking details about the Clintons' relationship to Epstein. The disgraced financier was found dead in his jail cell in 2019 as he was awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. The Oversight Committee voted to proceed with criminal contempt of Congress charges last month after the Clintons' refusal to testify. The Clintons have criticized the probe as partisan. House Oversight Chairman James Comer said the former president and former Secretary of State will be deposed on February 26 and 27. The White House says President Trump wants congressional lawmakers to pass the SAVE Act on election integrity. Here's Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt explaining Trump's position earlier today. What the president was referring to is the SAVE Act, which is a huge common-sense piece of legislation that Republicans have supported, that President Trump is committed to signing into law during his term. And he spoke with the Speaker directly about that yesterday, about the need to get that bill on the floor for a vote because it provides very common-sense measures for voting in our country, such as voter ID. I don't think any rational person who's being honest with themselves would disagree with the idea of requiring citizens of this country to present an ID before casting a ballot in a federal election or, frankly, in any election. The funding bill faced resistance from some Republicans who objected to the absence of the SAVE Act, which would require voter ID in federal elections. Congresswoman Ana Paulina Luna initially opposed the measure, but later reversed her position, saying she had been told Senate Majority Leader John Thune would bring the bill to the floor. The press secretary also said talks with Iran will move forward. Listen. I just spoke with Special Envoy Whitkoff, and these talks, as of right now, are still scheduled. President Trump is always wanting to pursue diplomacy first, but obviously it takes two to tango. You need a willing partner to achieve diplomacy, and that's something that Special Envoy Whitkoff is intent on exploring and discussing. As always, though, of course, the president has a range of options on the table with respect to Iran as commander-in-chief. I think they learned that quite well last year with the strike in Operation Midnight Hammer, which was wildly successful and obliterated their nuclear capabilities. But those talks will continue later this week as far as we're concerned right now. Now, on the Russia-Ukraine war, the White House said Special Envoy Steve Whitkoff and Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner will be in Abu Dhabi tomorrow for another round of trilateral talks. The House of Representatives narrowly passes a major funding package to end the four-day partial government shutdown. To dive in, we welcome on our Washington correspondent, Jack Bradley. Jack, as this package heads to the president's desk, what's next? What's next is the government reopens. It puts an end to the partial shutdown that lasts four days. The vote here was 217 to 214, mostly Republicans supporting it, Democrats against. But 21 Republicans voted against it, while 21 Democrats voted for it. Now, the legislation will fully fund five sectors of the federal government for a full year, and that's the Departments of Defense, Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development. All of the other departments that I didn't mention here are now fully funded from previous votes, except for Homeland Security. Now, the bill extends funding for DHS only two weeks. That's as Democrats have demanded reforms to ICE. So, here's House Speaker Mike Johnson following the passage. Happy to report Republicans got the job done. Our majority worked together, and we got the bills over the line. So, we have now funded 11 of the 12 separate appropriations funding bills for the government for the year, and that's a big achievement, because it's a big move towards regular order. It's something we promised and committed to. The biggest move towards that in many, many years. Now, the president and the White House have engaged in good faith with Democrats in the Senate, and they've said they would negotiate on the final bill, the Homeland bill. And you might say, well, now that 96 percent of the government is funded, it's just four percent what's out there. But it's a very important four percent. Now, the bill also faced resistance from Republicans, 21 voting against it, because they objected to the absence of the SAVE Act, which President Trump has called for including in Republicans to pass. The SAVE Act requires voter ID in federal elections, but Senate Republican leadership says they are going to push for it very soon. Take a look. We will get a vote on the SAVE Act at some point, and I'm not sure exactly what that context will be. Maybe it's in the context of voting on the DHS bill, if something's agreed upon. But there will be, at some point, a vote on the SAVE Act. So what's going to dominate the news cycle over the next two weeks is funding for homeland security. That's where President Trump is going to negotiate with Senate Democrats on policy changes to ICE and the rest of the Homeland Security Department, whatever they're willing to accept, in order to fund it. Now, Democrats want to require ICE to obtain court-ordered judicial warrants to arrest illegal immigrants, rather than using the executive branch's administrative warrants to go in and arrest illegal immigrants in their homes. Now, they also want to ban ICE agents from wearing masks to protect their identity. But this seems to be an issue Republicans just simply won't allow. Take a look. Unlike your local law enforcement in your hometown, ICE agents are being doxed and targeted. We have evidence of that. Everybody knows that is happening. And if you unmask them and you put all their identifying information on their uniform, then they will obviously be targeted. They and their families, probably. So he has to be very judicious in the way he uses that. We want immigration enforcement to be smart and balanced and strategic and efficient. Now, Don, House Speaker Mike Johnson here also says that if this continuing resolution expires in two weeks before Congress passes a funding package, it won't impact ICE operations in the slightest. Rather, it would shut down things like FEMA and the TSA. Don, back to you. All right, Jack. Thank you. A poll has been making the rounds today on social media, showing that the majority of Americans say photo ID should be required for voting. The segment it was featured in was in response to rapper Nicki Minaj's call for voter ID over the weekend. Joining us to discuss is Mike Leon, lead anchor at the Legal Podcast Network and host of the Can We Please Talk podcast. And we have Tony Kinnett, national correspondent for The Daily Signal and host of the Tony Kinnett cast radio show and podcast. Good afternoon. Hey, guys. Tony, so I want to start with you today. I want you to take a quick look of this clip by CNN. Take a look here. Favorite photo ID to vote. Eighty five percent of white people favorite. Eighty two percent of Latino. Seventy six percent of black Americans favorite. So the bottom line is this. Voter ID is not controversial in this country. A photo ID to vote is not controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree with Nicki Minaj that, in fact, you should have a photo ID to be able to vote. And yeah, maybe we can put up Nicki Minaj's tweet as well on the screen that the person was talking about. So, Tony, I want to ask you, are you surprised at the findings of this poll, which was from August last year? No, no, I'm not. Good afternoon to you both. I think that, again, if there is one thing that Donald Trump has done in the last 10 to 15 years, it has made a couple of 80 20 issues, things that the vast, vast, vast majority of American people understand to be a good thing or understand to be a bad thing given on the different issues made those the forefront in an era which, during the 2010s, they were considered taboo. You weren't supposed to say them. You would be called some kind of an isht or a phobe. This is another one of those issues. Every developed country on planet Earth has voter ID. It's ridiculous that Senate Democrats think this is a winning issue to fight against in 2026. Again, if the Trump administration focused on things like these and on not particular PR foibles or nonsense is things that Micah and I have agreed on or foibles in the past, they've got a pretty good shot at turning some things around again. 80 20 issues. Good to go. There's no argument that I've heard from the left. That's a reason not to do voter ID other than things that are incredibly demeaning and despicable. So, I mean, yeah, it doesn't surprise me. Harry Anton's usually got his hand on the pulse when it comes to that kind of polling. And we'll get to some of those arguments. But in the meantime, Mike, what is your position? Are you surprised? Good afternoon, guys. Sage Steele last night, the former ESPN anchor who I used to work with when I worked at ESPN, was on Jesse Ward is a show and she said something to the effect that I'm going to paraphrase it a little bit and you can look up the clip. She said, shut up and dribble now equates to shut up and sing. And she was talking about people at the Grammys because you don't know what you're talking about. And Nicki Minaj doesn't know what she's talking about. She can't even vote. She's a permanent resident. I don't know why she's commenting on something. She can't participate in. We shouldn't be listening to Nicki Minaj for electoral advice. The fact of the matter is, is that in the state of Florida here, you have to show ID when you go to the voter registration booth. When you go to the booth to actually vote, you've got to bring an ID with you. What type of ID is what people are talking about. In the state of New York, you have to show an ID to be able to register to vote. So we already have these parameters put in place. What the SAVES Act, and I know we'll get into it, is going to do is it's going to affect a lot of people who are broke, who don't have money to get all these additional forms of ID. So it's going to encourage them to not vote, which is exactly what the other side of the aisle wants. They want people to not participate in the process. I get it. I get it to an extent. And you're trying to drive voter turnout. Sometimes you don't want to have people turn out. And that's what that act wants to do. It's not about voter ID. It's the type of ID and it's going to have added costs. But at the end of the day, I don't know why we're listening to Nicki Minaj to quote Sage Steele, who's a conservative pundit, just shut up and sing. We don't need your commentary on this. You can't even participate in this process. Okay. So Tony, can you respond to that and respond to what Mike is saying about the current election system? Is it enough to guard against fraud? Yeah. So two things. First of all, I don't need Nicki Minaj to advocate for voter ID. There are a lot of other people who are learned on this particular topic that I can go to. I don't normally cite Nicki Minaj any more than during the last election I cited Taylor Swift. But again, we're going to put that aside here for a second. Regarding the merits of the voter ID situation in general, I don't think we need to say that somebody's too poor to get a voter ID. If they are needing a voter ID to go buy liquor, they need voter ID to go participate in certain activities. They can get a voter ID to vote. The idea that you don't need a voter photo ID because, oh, wow, it's really hard to get one. No, it's not. And if there is some magical huge poll tax barrier that you're seeing, then yeah, let's make photo IDs easier to obtain via a cost metric. But the idea that someone is stranded in some middle of nowhere place and they can't get a voter ID, it's a tired old argument. It's a racist argument as well. As if Latino and Black people can't get ahold of voter IDs, that's the argument that's usually brought up on the floor of the to know that maybe, again, like every other developed country on the face of this earth, yeah, photo ID sounds like it would be a decent thing for elections. I mean, given some of the fraud that we've seen in various states over the last couple of years, California, Oregon and Washington state specifically. So, Mike, at the end of the day, do you think, for example, in the SAVE Act, would requiring proof of citizenship make elections more secure? Again, people like a Nicki Minaj can't participate in the process of voting because she's a permanent. Answer the question. I am answering the question, Tony. Give me a freaking break. So there's a perfect example of somebody who can't participate in the process because it's not that easy to vote. And unfortunately, to Tony's overall point, that's spoken like somebody that is not broke and didn't live in areas like I lived in, where people just have to work two jobs to make ends meet. They don't have time to be able to go afford some of these things. I myself can't afford some of these other things. The fact that this is racist, it's not racist. Some people can't afford some of these things, Tony. Yes. Some people truly live in the negative balance where their bank account is showing negative and they have to make money just to get it to even. Correct. Yes, that is correct. I know because I'm living that life. You are not living that life. I think the suit jacket may fool you, but I know about that struggle. I grew up in that struggle. This is a thrifted suit jacket, Mike, so thank you. No, no. I'm talking about my jacket, not yours. So that's the point. I think we're missing the point here. There's already parameters. Now, if we want to unify the system of how we vote federally, like make it a holiday that Tuesday or even that week like other countries do, if we want to do that, cool. I'm on board with that stuff. Joe Biden ran on that. He never executed that. That's fine. But in terms of this voter ID nonsensical thing, we all show forms of ID to register to vote. Or when we go to the polling precinct, depending upon the state you live in, we already do this already. We all know it. You can go to how do I vote in my state? How do I register to vote? What do I have to bring documents wise? We all do this already. When we get on a flight right now, we have to show a passport. We have to show our license that has the real ID. Prior to that, we just had to show the license. We already have these systems in place to do this, to say that there's widespread fraud happening in all of these things. And that's we need to change the system. It's just a false argument. Okay, Tony, your response. And I want to ask you, are documented cases of noncitizens voting rare? So to answer the question directly and specifically, you can't have two things at once or you can't say simultaneously, we already have it and so we don't need it. And then also no one can get ID. It's so hard and expensive to get. It's not expensive to get ID in any state. The idea that it's some unobtainable thing because, oh, someone is living paycheck to paycheck, they can never afford to get an ID. Again, I'm willing to say that states need to make measures easier cost-wise for those who are unable to afford a photo ID. Here in the state of Indiana, it costs you a whopping $15 to get a photo ID from the state of Indiana that would qualify for these. That's not going to be accepted. That's not going to be accepted to vote as part of the SAVES Act, Tony. That's not going to be accepted. That's not going to be accepted. If you talk to any lawmaker, that stupid analogy that you just gave of $15 is not going to be accepted as part of this bill. It's not going to be accepted. You just said it's easy to get an ID and I'm telling you that it's not going to be accepted. It's not going to be accepted. Hold on, hold on. Guys, guys, guys, Tony gave an example and it's perfect because it's not going to be accepted for you to vote. So cool that I can pay $15 for that ID, but it's not going to be accepted to vote. Tony, did you not read the legislation? It's not going to be accepted. So you gave an example and it's not going to be accepted. It is going to be. It's not an acceptable form of ID. A passport would be accepted. No, it's not, Tony. Talk to a lawmaker. It's not acceptable. I am talking to a lawmaker. That form of ID in the example you gave is not acceptable. Yes, it is acceptable. It has been provided in specifics before. All right. Let's move on from this particular point. What needs to be done, Tony, for more people to have more trust in election? Again, I think that baseline understandings that every other country participates in is a very good start. Making it so you have to have a photo ID to vote would calm a lot of issues and a lot of fears about certain things not being secure by standardizing certain practices in certain states so that in some places where they allow illegal immigrants to register to vote, as they do in California, that is documented, that is verified. I'm not saying it's massive waves. I'm saying that as long as you have loopholes that allow people to get around the system, there will be undermining of the trust of our institutions. So securing those up, patching some of those holes is a good way to get started. And those who continue to drag their heels, I have to wonder, why is it that you continue to drag your heels on patching very simple, easy to fix holes that would calm a lot of fears? Okay, Tony, I mean, Mike, how do we make more people trust in your election? I don't know, Dan. Campaignlegal.org. If you go there, you want all the information on what the SAVES Act would prohibit or what types of ID are proposed by lawmakers. I don't know how we unify voting. I'm on board with some of the things like national holiday. I'm on board with what I know Harry Anton personally. He's in my phone. I talk to Harry Anton once a week. I get all the data that he does and comprises for CNN. And I agree with it. We should show ID. Problem is we do show ID. And I tell you who I don't listen to about voter ID or participating in elections is a permanent resident that can't even vote, you know, who's got convicts in her family. So I don't know why we're listening to Nicki Minaj when we started this entire segment with. Shouldn't be listening to Taylor Swift, Nicki Minaj, any of them. Just shut up and sing to quote Sage Seal. And then the second part of this is, again, check your state and check the ID and the identification that you already have to present to either register to vote or to participate in the elections on November 4th. All of these things are readily available, but I encourage people to go check out these resources and see if you're actually able to to acquire an ID one and then to participate in the process. OK, so, Tony, I can't remember if you answered this question. Maybe I got it got lost in the exchange. But are documented cases of noncitizens voting rare? It depends on whether you're looking at legal, local like local level or state and federal level. I'm not one of the individuals that has suggested that there was enough, for example, voting fraud, people vying to vote illegitimately in the 2020 election to sway it. I'm not one of those individuals. I think that a lot of those claims were over exacerbated. One of the reasons that they were easily over exacerbated is because there are pathways that people can take in order to get ballots sent to their house that are then counted when they are sent filled back. This is one of issues with the the the insecure function of certain kinds of mail in and absentee voting in several states. I do believe that it is less rare. It is far more common in states that have fewer ID laws that allow noncitizens to register to vote. If you can vote in one kind of election, it's very easy to get a kind of ballot in other state and federal elections, as we have seen documented in California. We've seen documented in New Mexico. We've seen documented up in Vermont, for example, there was a case two years ago. So again, the question is to as it's as rare as a whole, I don't think that it's a national crisis. And I'll agree with Don when Nicki Minaj gets up and excuse me, I'll agree with Mike when when Nicki Minaj gets up there and says this is the biggest issue facing everyone today. Yeah, I don't take that seriously. I don't take celebrities seriously talking about things. I do believe in incremental ways to shore up systems, though, and making this rare to the point of nonexistent, not just at the federal and the state level, but also at some of the local levels, because those do track in. Yeah, that go a long way culturally and nationally. Okay, Mike, final thoughts. I don't have any campaign legal dot org. Like I said, find out all the information about the saves act. Call your representative, ask them what's actually going to be in the act. And like I said, it's very, very easy. Google's free, everybody. Just go to your state, find out what IDs you already have to present or what you would have to present if the saves act is actually enacted. But find out what you need to do. I lived in New York. I lived in Florida. We have two different systems. But at the end of the day, you have to show ID to be able to register to vote or to participate in the voting process on election. All right, let's leave it there. Thank you for coming on again, guys. Thank you very much. Take care. Thank you, guys. President Trump is now in the Oval Office signing the bill to reopen the government. Let's tune in. Steve Womack and Steve Womack. I just where's Steve? Where's Steve? Come on, Steve. He had a rough. That's a rough week or so, right? Incredible wife who passed away. But she was an incredible woman. And everybody knows that everybody up here. So we just we're with you all the way. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm glad you're here. Great. I understand. That's a rough deal. He went through a rough thing. He had a good marriage. Good marriage is better than a bad marriage. But it makes it a little bit tougher when something like that happens. Robert Adderholt out here. Thank you. Susan Collins. Hi, Susan. All right. You're doing good. Cindy Hyde-Smith. Thank you. Cindy, when you always do good, Cindy. Thank you. Bill Hagerty. Hi, Bill. Lindsey Graham was way up in the polls. Lindsey, what's going on with you? You're so high. It has a lot to do with you. Don't forget. Has the opponent dropped out yet? Has your Democrat opponent dropped out yet? You gotta stop. Get along as they're going. Mario Diaz-Balart. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mario. Katie Britt. Yes, sir. Hi, Katie. What a job you're doing. Thank you. John Barrasso. He knows more about health care than any human being on earth, I think, when I need somebody. John is a great person, too. Shelley Moore-Capito. Thank you, Shelley. Thank you, sir. Very much. Hal Duncan, Associate Director of Legislative Affairs. Thank you, Hal. Great job. And Susan Ross-Avison and Betsy McConnell. They were really instrumental, and they really worked hard. So I want to thank you all. Anybody I didn't mention? Oh, boy. It'll be nice, because it's a little embarrassing when they stick their hand up. I think they'd just be quiet. It's probably easier. But I'm glad we got you in, because you really have worked hard. This bill is a great victory for the American people. Instead of a bloated and wasteful, omnibus monstrosity full of special interest handouts, we've succeeded in passing a fiscally responsible package that actually cuts wasteful federal spending while supporting critical programs for the safety, security and prosperity of the American people. And this group of people behind me, and others, and a lot of votes, they really have done a fantastic job. Because closing the country, you know, we had a five-point, it looks like 5.6, and it could have been seven. We lost a point and a half because of a 42-day shutdown. And that's the least of it. But we would have been at seven. Can you believe it? Seven GDP. Nobody ever heard of a seven GDP. So I'm glad we got this done, because this would be another point and a half or something, or maybe worse. The bill officially ends all taxpayer subsidies for radical far-left woke programming on NPR and PBS, just a waste of money. It slashes nearly $10 billion in wasteful foreign aid spending, giving money to countries that don't need it. They have plenty of money. And we ended that. That was so important. $10 billion. Think of it. It continues the closure of USAID and creates a brand new America First Opportunity Fund. We're responsibly providing foreign assistance to nations where it actually serves American interests. So we have nations that do help us and it serves our interests, so we have something to help them out with. This bill also cuts funding to abusive and weaponized IRS programs. I was a victim of that, too. You probably read that. Did you read that recently, right? I was, I guess, the ultimate victim. That were used to harass American taxpayers. It builds on the Republican rescissions package passed last summer, which saved Americans billions and billions of dollars. It fully funds our military includes a well-deserved pay raise for all American service members and makes historic investments in the American shipbuilding industry, which is great. We're really starting to do something incredible with shipbuilding. And I don't know if you saw that the United States of America for the first time in over 30 years beat Japan. We love Japan, great country, but their power and steel making that we produce more steel this year than Japan. Think of that more steel than Japan. And Japan is a powerhouse at that. And we were pretty much dead when it came to steel. So what do you think of that? To me, when I heard that we did more than Japan, it continues to fund deportation flights that are removing dangerous illegal aliens from our country. It continues historically successful efforts to reduce crime in our nation's capital. We have a very safe city right now. We have a city that is like a different world from what it was a year and a half ago when you couldn't walk down a street without being hurt very badly. I want to say that in a nice way. Washington, D.C., is a safe city. Memphis, by the way, is that crime is down 77 percent. And in New Orleans, you heard these numbers, but in New Orleans, we started three weeks ago, four weeks ago, max. And crime is down 68 percent. It's going to be down to practically nothing within the next month. Pretty amazing. But it all helped cut the number of murders in D.C. by 80 percent. And we have numbers coming up. Newer numbers were down 97 percent in murders, a horrible thing to be talking about murders in D.C. But we were a lot of people were being killed in Washington, D.C., if you can believe it. And now we have a very safe, very I don't know if there's any such thing as crime free, but pretty, pretty close in January compared to 12 months ago. So we have close to 90, 95 percent down crime in Washington, D.C. It allows all of your people to walk to the White House instead of getting into an Uber and getting mugged even as the Uber progresses. OK, and it continues funding for the Department of Homeland Security until later in the year. And finally, I am extremely pleased to announce that this bill includes a newly designated. Oh, wow. Movie star Melania Trump forced her youth to independence initiative. So she really loves the children and she's had a tremendous success. So it's a number one documentary in 19 years. Can you believe this? What do I get out of it? Nothing out of it. Now I have so I had a top bottle. I have a top movie star. But we have a great first lady. She loves children. And she had a tremendous vote on this. And I want to just say Melania Trump forced to you to independence initiative within the Department of Housing and Urban Development, which will support America's forced to youth and provide them critical resources as they age out of the foster care system. And the first lady loves children. And she's been very much involved with children and helping them out and making them better. That's what she wants to do, wants to help them. And she wants to make them better. And she does a great job of it. She's respected. And her movie got really incredible reviews. She's she's we're all proud of her, actually. It's amazing. Not easy to do that. Not easy to do it. So I just want to thank everybody for being here. If you would have some questions, I might just ask before you do that. These are all outstanding politicians, the top, my opinion, the top in the whole world. But that's, you know, one of those things. I'd like to build it up a little bit. But they are the top politicians at the top political minds. Joining us to discuss is Santiago Vidal Calvo, policy analyst for the Manhattan Institute. So can I just start off asking you what is on the line for the US? And can you also talk to us about what is on the line for Petro? Well, thank you so much for the invitation again, Don. So essentially, this meeting is going to establish a bunch of talking points for both countries. One of the main ones is going to be the security agreement between the US and Colombia, but also the relationship between both countries. As we know now, after the terrorist incident, both Colombia was very impacted by the threats from the United States on terrorists, but also, secondly, a security agreement that is very much in place from decades ago. Decades of partnership between the United States and Colombia, where they have both cooperated on drug traffic and enforcement, but also on procedures to eliminate and reduce the production of cocaine in Colombia and in other areas. One of the issues that could also arise is the Venezuela relationship, how Petro is placed in the region to negotiate a transition in Venezuela, and of course, how do the actions of the United States and Venezuela play a role with Colombia in the coming months? Okay, so as you're aware, Colombia is still a hotbed of cocaine production, a primary source of this illegal drug, and President Trump has warned Petro before saying that he better wise up or he'll be next. But however, there seems to be a shift in tone now with President Trump saying it was an honor, great honor, in fact, to speak with Petro. What do you think about that? Well, this might be part of a diplomatic strategy, and let me just explain it to you. Under the Petro presidency in Colombia, we have never seen numbers on cocaine production like we have in Colombia right now. Both production of coca leaves, but also the production of cocaine have increased dramatically during the Petro presidency, and this is because Petro has removed a bunch of high military ranking members in Colombia that are very well positioned to do cocaine intersections or to remove cocaine fields. He has also removed a lot of security parts with the United States that were there to prevent the production of cocaine. So during these procedures that he has eliminated over the last years, we have skyrocketed cocaine production inside of Colombia. What currently is going to happen is, in this conversation, this might be a diplomatic strategy to try to appease Petro's leftist intents. Remember, Petro was in New York just a couple of months ago calling for the insurrection of the armed forces of the United States against Trump. These are two people who do not like each other, but this might be very well a meeting like what happened with Madani. Let's keep the diplomatic aspect intact while we try to negotiate a better future for both countries. Okay, so you're saying this is a strategy, perhaps by Trump, to be more friendly to Petro. What do you think are some of the plausible outcomes for this meeting? Well, hopefully both presidents leave the meeting with some concrete goals or achievements. Petro only has a couple more months in power, but he can do a lot for the next president of Colombia. And of course, the United States is going to prefer a pro-American candidate to be in the presidency of Colombia whenever that election happens. So right now, what Petro can do is set up the country well for success in the future. I think that's what the Trump administration is likely going to hammer down in this meeting. Security agreements, let's continue to ramp up the seizure of cocaine in the territory and to agree to restart a lot of the recultivation programs that were there from years ago before Petro, where they can remove a lot of the cocaine production for other viable agricultural procedures. And this meeting hopefully also leaves with the United States having a stronger trading partner in the region, but also one that is going to back them up with actions whenever they need to intervene in Venezuela, both diplomatically, but also politically now that there is a transition period on board. Okay. What is the impact of Venezuela's situation right now on Colombia? Well, right now, as I've mentioned before, Petro was an ally of the Maduro regime. He failed to reject the election that happened on 2024 and failed to stand up against Maduro. He's an open ally. There are open investigations, but also allegations that Maduro financed a lot of the Petro campaign. And we have seen this from many of his whistleblowers inside of the government that has spoken out about this rampant corruption. Right now, what this could happen is that a transition in Venezuela could leave Petro very much on the wires of major investigations with the Maduro regime. And many information could come out of the Maduro regime that supports that Petro was in fact an aide, but also a member and ally of the Cartel de Santos or adjacent organizations. So what we currently need to happen in Venezuela is that for Petro to leave this position of the presidency untouched by the Venezuelan problem, he needs to aid the United States as much as possible in a transition period, put pressure into the Dulce Rodriguez regime, and also aid at a military security that is going to happen both at the border, but also internationally with drug trade. So given what you said just now, what other tools actually that the U.S. has at its disposal that is the most influential or has the most sway over Petro? Well, the best tool that the United States has is that the day that Petro is no longer president, they can prosecute him for any charges of narcoterrorism that they deem or find in his profile. Right now, Petro was sanctioned by the OFAC a couple of months ago. He has open investigations by the United States. This is not a president that we're talking about in the same term as a normal president in Europe or in other areas of the Western world that is untouched by narcoterrorism. Petro has a lot of ties to narcoterrorism. So right now, what Petro can do is try to clean up his mess before he leaves, because the day that he loses that presidency status, he's going to fail to meet all the standards of international law and protection of amnesty for political leaders, and he could be very well in position for prosecution of the United States, just like Maduro. So what currently needs to happen is Petro needs to cooperate with the United States. He needs to find a way to clean up Colombia before he leaves and try to leave with a better face of what he's currently today. Okay, Santiago, very professional analysis today. Really appreciate your time. Thank you so much for the invitation. President Trump yesterday announced a new strategic private sector critical mineral stockpile named Project Volt. It is being seeded with $1.67 billion in private capital and a $10 billion loan from the U.S. Export-Import Bank. We're going to discuss this now with panelists, David Blackman, Energy Policy Analyst and Advisor, Senior Contributor to Forbes, and we have Armin Kurdian, Foreign Policy Analyst and National Security Analyst and retired U.S. Navy Captain. First of all, thank you both for joining us today. Good afternoon. So David, can we start with you today? How important is this creation of this critical mineral reserve to the U.S., and how does it differ from the reserves already held by the Pentagon? Well, it differs in the fact that this is intended for private business use. It's a security measure to ensure reliable sources of supply for these minerals that we are largely still dependent on imports to provide to our country. And for the private sector, you need to have a reliable access to these critical minerals if you use them in your business. Establishing this reserve on a national level will, I think, make the U.S. more competitive in the international market in trying to attract these businesses to invest in the United States. So the Pentagon has its own needs and private business has its own needs as well. And so this is a pretty smart move, I think, and one that is very minimal cost to the government. Okay, Armin. So David says that this will help the U.S. compete better internationally. Can you explain to us Beijing's critical minerals rule change previewed in 2025 and how this new stockpile gets around this rule? Certainly, Don. So critical minerals, palladium, lithium, all of these things which are required for complex, advanced manufacturing, require a lot of U.S. weapons at the same time. They also require a lot of electronics and a lot of other manufacturing in the civil sector. Being able to have these kinds of things is basically a protection against a disruption in global supply. Again, folks, you've got to remember we have a lot of these critical minerals in the United States. The problem has always been a question of the processing and the refinement and purification of these minerals, which has mostly been done overseas by China. We basically ceded that territory to them and we're trying to take it back at this point. So by having this, then the United States government can basically have a continuous supply of these minerals, these metals, which are vital for manufacturing in case there is a disruption. Because as we saw during COVID, we are very vulnerable to issues overseas. So David, how does the financing of this project work? Well, you have the seed money from private business. I think it's $1.7 billion. And then this loan from the import-export bank of $10 billion is really helpful in providing the seed money to secure these minerals and build the stockpile initially. And this is a short-term solution too. I think we need to understand this is a solution for the near term, while the overall, the bigger project of reshoring and friendshoring the supply chains for these minerals continues to move forward. And that's being pushed by the Trump administration. The Biden presidency had committed to doing that, but really didn't make a lot of progress on it. And led by Chris Wright and Doug Burgum here in the Trump administration, the current administration is moving very quickly. And the point made earlier about the refining and processing of these minerals is really the central key here. And we've seen the Pentagon take an equity interest in the one refining company we have in the United States in mid-2025 and doing a strategic deal with Australia to help in that regard. But that really remains kind of the choke point on the supplies of these minerals and the magnets and microchips that are produced with them. Okay. So Armin, I have a clip here of Secretary of Commerce Howard Ludnick speaking yesterday about the U.S. taking critical minerals back. I just want you to have a quick listen to this. Prior presidents took America for granted. They let our critical minerals only be controlled by China. They let our mining business go to hell by closing all the mines, closing our coal plants while China opened them. So Armin, looking back when this was taking place, was this an opportunistic move by China to position itself and dominate critical mineral production? Or was it a calculated move by the Chinese Communist Party to dominate this industry as part of its long game strategy? A little bit of both. They played a very long game. Really, it goes back to 40 years globalization of supply chains. There was never any real good risk assessment or risk analysis done to impact the U.S. economy. We figured as part of our plan going forward, the economy will create organizations. We're one big happy family where we're all going to trade with each other and give each other things and we're all going to develop. But that is not the case because you have your competitors in which you are trying to get a strategic or geopolitical advantage. China doesn't change its foreign policy every four to eight years. So they have a big advantage there moving forward. They have played a very long game and they've been extremely patient to where they are. And they're moving to the point now over the last few years where they were a serious threat to U.S. dominance economically and at the very least regionally as a military power in the Western Pacific. So these kinds of actions are central to U.S. national security. It's not a Republican issue. It's not a Democrat issue. It's a U.S. economy and military and basically a geopolitical issue that is necessary for basically our national survival. So David, looking forward, is Project Vault the answer to guarding against future scenarios that might lead to critical mineral shortages? Well, I think it improves our energy security in the near term. In the longer term, you really want to get these supplies, you know, because what Project Vault envisions is still acquiring these minerals on the open market. And a lot of that's going to have to come from China still because they still control 80 percent of the supply chains for these things. But in the longer term, in a few years, hopefully you're going to be able to reshore and friendshore, you know, with friendly countries like Australia, the supplies that we need are these minerals both for our military and for private business in the United States. So Project Vault is a great move in the near term to really improve our energy security. But you still have that longer term project that has to continue and hopefully succeed. Armin, in your view, what could be done more to sever the CCP's stranglehold on the world's critical mineral supply? Well, like I mentioned, it's really a good risk analysis of your entire supply chain, all of your manufacturing. There's something I like to call the infinite dollar problem, where if you had an unlimited amount of money and say, hey, I need to build as many of these devices, refrigerators, missiles, you know, refrigerators, whatever it happens to be. What is your consecutive and all along choke points or bottlenecks in your ability to make this? Is it supply? Is it raw materials? Is it labor? Is it facility? Is it compliance and regulation and something that's statutory? These kinds of things started to be done under the critical infrastructure assessment 16, and it's a critical infrastructure manufacturing is one of them in the United States. Those studies need to continue. They need to be maintained and updated because of these studies that were commissioned by the US government, things like transportation and energy, all of these aspects are necessary for national survival. By doing these assessments and continuously updating them and finding where the capability gaps and the weaknesses are, they need to be addressed in a collaborative fashion between the government and business and industry nation as a whole to provide clear directions so that the bad things don't happen in the future. All right. Great point. Thank you both for speaking with us today. Really appreciate it. Thank you. Thanks, Don. US manufacturing rebounded in January as factory output increased and business conditions improved, according to new data. Joining us to discuss is Anthony Constantino, CEO of Sticker Mule. He's also a congressional candidate competing for outgoing US Representative Elise Stefanik's New York district. So thank you so much for joining us today. And the Institute for Supply Management's measure of US manufacturing activity is at the highest level in almost four years. So what do you think, can I ask you, contributed to this? Well, I've been a big believer in bringing manufacturing back to America. That's why I built my own company here. Over a thousand people work at Sticker Mule. I built an incredible manufacturing company. It makes sense to manufacture locally now because the only reason you go overseas is to get access to lower wage labor. But due to advances in robotics and artificial intelligence, you can now build your own manufacturing processes locally and do all your manufacturing locally, which is really good for the world. I think you're going to see a lot more local manufacturing, America serving Americans and people in other parts of the world serving their own regions. So then in your perspective as a CEO of this factory, Sticker Mule, do you see this as the start of a real turnaround, would you say, or it's still hard to tell at this point? We have a tremendous amount of engineering talent in America, but it's been focused on the internet. It's all been focused on the internet and software. We have to redirect that energy a little bit towards hardware manufacturing. The problem with doing manufacturing locally is the machines don't exist to do it locally. But due to advances in robotics and AI, you can build your own machines now to bring down costs and do all manufacturing locally or a lot of manufacturing locally as long as the supply chain is local and the raw materials are accessible. But we just need to use our engineering talent in America. We've been putting it towards building websites and things like Google and Facebook. We've got to use that same engineering talent and put it towards designing machinery. My company, Sticker Mule, is powered by a lot of our own custom machines. We buy some machines from vendors, but we had to build a lot of our own machinery. Elon Musk, I think, did the same thing with Tesla and SpaceX. I'm sure he built a lot of his own machinery to build his companies and more people need to start doing that. I think you're going to see that happening as people realize that's the path forward. Okay, I think you're well-positioned to answer this question. What has been the impact of tariffs on domestic manufacturing? Well, I support the president using tariffs to negotiate effectively with other countries. And so I haven't seen an impact on my business. All I can say is I haven't seen an impact on my business whatsoever. I like when we have a level playing field. Tariffs affect all Americans equally. As long as there's a level playing field, I'm fine, but I haven't seen an impact on my business. Okay, what have you seen as some of the risks and harm, potentially, of relying on foreign suppliers, like China, for example? Sometimes the supplier just disappears. It's obviously a lot more difficult to operate across borders than it is to operate within your own country, just in terms of talking to vendors, getting to meet the vendors. You want to get to know your vendors and have close relationships. So it's great to be local. And I think this move towards local manufacturing is going to benefit the United States, but you're really going to see it benefiting the world. You might see China servicing China, Europe servicing Europe, and different parts of the world servicing its own local region because it makes sense to manufacture locally. It's just a lot easier to do it that way. Unfortunately, in the past, at times we didn't do it that way because people wanted access to low-cost labor, but robotics and AI are going to make that go away. You're going to see more automated manufacturing processes with higher wage jobs and more localized manufacturing. America is going to service America, Europe is going to service Europe, and China is going to service China, Asia is going to service Asia. More so, increasingly more so in the future. So if we have more domestic manufacturing, how's the labor pool? It's good. When raises go up, people get excited to work. So I've never had an issue, but you have to raise wages, pay people well, and give them a fun place to work. But the good thing is automation is the best way to raise wages. When you automate, you can offer people a lot more money because you're doing more with less. So manufacturers need to invest in innovation. For too long in America, it used to be this way. People said decades ago or a long time ago, manufacturers would build their own machines. But we've gotten used to buying machines from other people. Once we start investing in engineering, manufacturers are building their own processes, they'll bring costs down, they can pay workers more, and people will be excited to work in manufacturing again. The other people I tell people sort of jokingly is the modern day factory is a lot different than the factory from years gone by. We have air conditioning now. It's a much more pleasant environment. It's a fun environment. I like working in factories. People laugh, they tell jokes, and we have air conditioning now. So it's a pleasant place to work. It's more fun in the office for me, at least. Okay, well, I'm glad to hear that. But I work in an office. I don't know what to say about that. But let me ask you this. Can you address concerns, perhaps, about automation displacing jobs? Automation has been around since the beginning of time. So ever since the beginning of time, even before we had things like robotics, you had people trying to make their machines run faster. You try to get 20% gain in productivity. Automation has been around forever, and it's why we've gotten the incredible world we have today. Without automation, we'd still be in the stone age. So automation has made the world better. It raises wages, and it's never going to stop. You have to embrace it. But it's always led to making the world a better place. It brings down costs, it allows for raising wages, and it makes manufacturing a lot better. Manufacturing, due to automation, has also gotten a lot safer. Decades ago, manufacturing was not as safe as it is today, and now it's very safe because modern machines are very safe to run. They're more pleasant to run, and you can pay people more to run. So overall, it's going to make the world a lot better. Okay, just one final question, Anthony. What is your advice or perhaps tips to those companies who are still on the fence about bringing manufacturing back to the US because of whatever concern they might have? You have to stop relying on third-party vendors to design your manufacturing processes. You have to start investing in engineering and in innovation. You have to start building your own engineering teams. We have an over 100% engineering team at Sticker Mule. I'm sure Elon Musk's engineering team is a lot bigger than mine, but we built an incredible engineering team. We built a lot of our own machinery, and other people can do the same thing too, but they have to start thinking about investing in that. If you wait for third-party vendors to make your machines, they're never going to figure it out. So you have to start investing in your own machinery. Once you make the investment, you're going to find it's a lot of fun. You can do very cool things that nobody else can do, and your business is going to thrive, and life's going to be a lot better for yourself and your employees. All right, Anthony. Thank you very much. I might just try working in a factory once in a while, see how it is. Thank you so much. Maybe you guys can come through, and we'll do an interview there one day, and you'll see it's a very fun place. Yeah, yeah, sure. Sounds good. Thank you.