Hello everybody. I've got time for just a few questions.
Can you give us an update on the travel bans, please Stephen?
Do you want to start? I don't have any specific update on the travel bans. But, um, as you know, the president issued an executive order on his first day in office asking for the State Department to assess travel conditions, safety issues, national security issues around the globe. And then under that -- or under that requirement, they were asked to send a report, uh, which we should be receiving soon to the White House that will provide those recommendations.
And we eagerly look forward to receiving it.
Stephen, can you give us an update on the actions that Mexico has taken on the border? Do you think -- what do you think of them, and is the president considering lifting those fentanyl related tariffs in a couple of weeks or when that pause runs out?
I don't have an update to provide right now on that. Obviously because of President Trump's diplomacy and leadership, Mexico, since inauguration, has significantly increased the presence of troops on the border, has taken numerous actions that the US government has asked them to take with respect to immigration enforcement and border security.
The two most significant issues, of course, that imperil our safety and security right now are fentanyl and the cartels, and obviously the president expects the government of Mexico to take a lot more action urgently in those two areas. And when we have a progress report to give you on that, we will.
Is it possible that we could see both the reciprocal tariffs, Stephen, and the fentanyl tariffs remain in place on Mexico or both on the table right now?
I don't want to provide any updates right now on that, except to say when we have more information on the fentanyl and cartel piece, we will provide it to you.
[Crosstalk]
Stephen, the White House has sent videos and images of these alleged gang members who were detained and deported, why not release their names?
Well, they are actually foreign terrorists and alien enemies of the United States. And everything that we do is for operational security reasons. We are dealing with one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations on planet Earth. They inflict pain for the sport of it. They relish in torture and murder, they relish in inflicting maximum physical suffering on their targets and victims.
They're even more ruthless and violent than MS-13, and so operational security and public safety and national security are always going to guide any decisions that are made in this regard.
Stephen, I'm from Australia. I'm from Australia, there's a lot of interest back home in why the president ultimately decided not to give Australia an exemption to the steel tariffs after saying that he would greatly consider it. And secondly, should -- Australia exports a lot of beef to the US, billions of dollars?
worth, should we now expect tariffs on beef to come in the next round?
Well, no updates to give on that except to say that the health of our -- and the strength of our steel and aluminum industries is an essential for our national security and our defense industrial base. You were about to ask a question.
If things go your way in court this afternoon regarding the Enemies Act, how many more flights do you anticipate would head towards El Salvador in the coming days?
Well, I'm not going to reveal details of the president's full plan and the administration's full plan with respect to the dismantlement and eradication of TDA. But a few points on this, one is that the president reserves the right to exercise all necessary authorities to secure the homeland and to repel any invasion or incursion.
Um, the -- the judge, which is truly beyond comprehension and belief issued his unlawful order without even receiving any information on this terrorist organization, on the diplomacy that had been conducted internationally by the Secretary of State. Um, any briefing from the intelligence community, um, any information at all.
Um, let alone the fact that, um, he's trying to issue the movement of aircraft that are operating outside the United States, the legal equivalent of directing troop movements overseas or moving around an aircraft carrier, uh, on matters of essential national security. Uh, it is certainly, I would think without question, the most unlawful order that any district court judge has issued in our lifetimes without even a close second.
And it put the lives in danger of the homeland security personnel on those aircraft and it jeopardized, uh, enormous, uh, massive diplomatic and security issues across the entirety of the Western Hemisphere. A fundamental level, a district court judge has no authority to direct the national security operations of the executive branch.
The president is operating at the apex of his authority when you are dealing with questions of invasion, uh, and questions of alien enemy infiltration as well as the expulsion of terrorists illegal aliens from the country. That's the president operating at the absolute apex of his constitutional authority, and the founding generation that wrote this law, very clearly, these are the same people who wrote the Constitution, very clearly wanted to ensure the president had the broadest range of authority to remove from the nation non-citizens who are part of an alien enemy force.
And that's the authority that the president has. And in the coming days, you will see the full suite of presidential authorities used to extirpate this gang, this terrorist organization, from our soil.
[Crosstalk]
Should Americans be concerned they'll be deported without due process?
Well, you used the word Americans. We're talking about illegal alien foreign terrorists. So, illegal alien foreign terrorists should be concerned that they will be deported from the country because they will be deported from the country. Yes?
Is the president set on the 200 percent tariffs on European wines and spirits and what can people do to end these tariffs?
Yeah, I won't be making any further announcement on tariffs today. The president has made his statements on tariffs and the whole world is on notice that we are going to be treated fairly in this country economically. We're going to bring back our manufacturing base. We're going to bring back our jobs. President Trump's not going to let anyone take advantage of us anymore.
[Crosstalk]
You said the judge's order was illegal. Is it because the TRO was illegal that the planes didn't turn around for the oral order from the judge?
The -- the -- the actions of the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security and Defense were not in conflict with the judge's order. But at the same time, it is also true that the judge's order was paddling unlawful, beyond unlawful, it was an outrageous assault on the Constitution, an outrageous assault on the sovereignty of the nation and on democracy itself.
The American people elected a president on an explicit promise -- By the way, if you -- for those of you who followed the campaign, how many times has the Alien Enemies Act discussed in the campaign, right? Is one of you unaware of this? Not one of you is, right? This was discussed extensively in the campaign, going back even to the -- even to the -- to the primary, right?
On Agenda 47, walking through the use of the Alien Enemies Act. The American people voted for this specific action to occur and that has occurred and it is occurring and it will continue to occur. And the idea that a single district court judge has the authority to direct as though they were the president, the movement of airplanes around the globe, is -- Again, it is -- it is the -- it is the most outrageous thing I've seen from a district court judge in my lifetime, but frankly going back multiple lifetimes.
[Crosstalk]
To that point --
Yes?
The president believes that he needs the Enemies Act to successfully remove these individuals?
We -- the president has a -- has a vast array of authorities to remove illegal aliens. The Alien Enemies Act provides the particular -- it provides the particular and additional authorities to achieve these removals as quickly and as expeditiously as possible. But most importantly, it allows it to -- to occur in a way that ensures the lowest level of risk for the American people.
The least possibility of individuals absconding, escaping or otherwise, frustrated in their removal.
Stephen, we heard President Trump mention in Colombia and mentioning when he -- when the president of Colombia didn't want to accept those deportation flights as an example of what they shouldn't do, is that relationship with Colombia back to its -- to its a good place again after death?
My understanding -- my understanding is that we have, um, we have full unrestricted cooperation on migration with Colombia.
[Crosstalk]
Stephen, so the president last night said that President Biden's pardons of those involved in the January 6 committee are void. Does it mean that he might have plans to further investigate either January 6 or the 2020 election?
Well, I mean the president said since, this is an important point by the way, it's not just that the -- the pardons were signed with an autopen, it's that clearly the Former President, Joe Biden, had absolutely no awareness of or any clue about what was being signed in his name when he's on a beach in Delaware or doing God knows what.
In other words, you have all these instances where you can show that something was signed by an autopen when Joe Biden was not even physically present, anywhere, around at all. And so, the accumulation of evidence makes clear that Joe Biden had no awareness, no knowledge, no participation and frankly, in the administration of government for four years, but in particular, in this case with respect to these pardons, which then means of course the Department of Justice has its own authorities to pursue as it sees fit.
Any other questions?
Stephen, on the same note, are you aware of any investigations that the president has called for into any of the people who were on the January 6 Committee?
Well, I mean the president has been clear publicly for a long time about his view about the misconduct that has occurred. For example, the erasure of all of the records. What can only be described as one of the most preposterous cover ups that we've ever seen. And again, the Department of Justice has its own authorities and is able to pursue those.
Um, under the direction of the attorney general, any other questions?
I have a question about legal immigration. Are you thinking of changing the rules for lottery system, [Inaudible]
Well, no, no update on that today, although we did get a question earlier about the -- the travel ban and the national security issues that will be coming to the fore soon. Yes?
I had a question on that. Can you give us a sense of the scope you're considering with the potential travel ban, and then for a country like Afghanistan, are there any considerations being made?
Well, I'm not able to get into -- I'm not able to get into details or countries or anything. This is all, all, very premature. Uh, and for those of you who are familiar with this from the previous administration, it's a -- it's a security assessment that's been made on a wide variety of factors. Uh, do they -- do they accept their deportees?
Do they share security information? Do they have good biometrics? Do they have control over their own territory? Do they engage in intelligence, sharing? There's a wide variety of assessments that go into the -- into the determination? Any other questions? Let me take -- let me take.
[Crosstalk]
-- these guys heads on and televise it, or videotape it?
Well, they're in the -- they're in the custody of a foreign government now. So, those questions would be best directed to a foreign government that has agreed to accept custody of deported aliens, which is one of many important features of our system of international law, is that when you have a country that has, um, uh, issues with the United States, um, as for example, Venezuela does, that other countries can accept third-party nationals.
Yes?
Just to clarify on that, did Venezuela say they would not take them back?
I have no update to provide on the US foreign policy with respect to Venezuela. But again, the United States, when it's conducting removals, has always had the ability, if you're here illegally, to be sent to a willing country to accept you. Then that country has its own processes and procedures, consistent with its own international and legal obligations with respect to custody.
Any other questions to Venezuela?
[Crosstalk]
In regards to Venezuela, are they going to continue, like paid for by Maduro?
It's our expectation that we will be receiving -- the president, put out a post, um, a short time ago saying that he did -- he felt the flights to Venezuela were not fast enough. And we hope that we'll have an update on that soon. And that we'll -- we'll obtain, uh, full cooperation. Any further questions?
-- on the difference between the written order and a verbal order? Karoline was asked about this in the briefing and she sort of suggested that maybe the administration doesn't necessarily view these as having the same weight. Is it the administration's understanding that you would comply with the verbal order?
Well, the -- I mean, again, the whole -- the whole thing is just preposterous. So, as the Department of Justice has said in writing, nothing that the administration did conflicted with the court order, but there's a bigger issue here, which is the court order is patently unlawful. And if we got into a place in this country where district court judges could, for example, help, help is the wrong word, could interfere and direct specific targeting or non-targeting in say, who to control territory, could direct, which general on the battlefield is going to be in charge of making which decisions.
Could direct, for example, we can send this military asset to this country, but not this country, could direct what intelligence we could share with Israel versus with Saudi Arabia. If a -- if a district court judge can be involved in the conduct of our foreign policy, under no definition do we have a democracy in this country.
I mean, you know, not to get too philosophical, but for a long time in this country, his power has been concentrated principally in, um, two areas. The unelected bureaucracy and the unelected judiciary, and power has been increasingly concentrated in these two areas. And in the case of, um, the hard left, um the -- the judiciary takes steps to protect the bureaucracy and that further -- it shrinks the circle in which democracy is occurring.
So, take an example just like firing recalcitrant bureaucrats, so bureaucrats serve at the pleasure of the president, the president is elected by the American people. So, you have -- you have unelected judges protecting the jobs of unelected bureaucrats to pursue their own policy preferences. So, when Americans vote for big shifts in policy, they're voting for the president.
So, we tend to think about executive power as this, um -- well it should be, and we ought to, think about it as being unified power. But what it's become increasingly is severed power and more and more of it has been accumulated in the bureaucracy. And then when unelected judges empower the bureaucracy -- So, for example, there's a large section of our bureaucracy that doesn't want to deport any of these aliens, right?
And they collude with the ACLU and the judiciary to try to keep them here in this country. So, this is really about the restoration of democracy and saying that the person that's elected by the whole American people can implement these big policy shifts. Otherwise, what you have, which is unfortunately afflicted a lot of the Western world, is a situation where voters can't vote for the change that they want.
And so, this is really fundamentally about democracy. The American people said to get these terrorist gangs the hell out of our country, the president has plenary authority under the Constitution, under the Alien Enemies Act, under the INA, under core Article II powers, to achieve that. And no district court judge who presides over just some small, like little geography of the whole country, could possibly presume to have the authority to direct the expulsion of terrorists from our soil.
Who, by the way, are also here illegally. Thank you everybody.
Stephen? Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Stephen. Thank you.