The Legal Basis for Retaking the Panama Canal, plus No Taxes on Tips is Happening
en
January 29, 2025

In this thought-provoking podcast episode, hosts Senator Ted Cruz and Ben Ferguson dive into the intricate issues surrounding the Panama Canal, including recent Senate hearings on its controversial management by Panama. They also discuss the ongoing efforts to eliminate taxes on tips, a significant campaign promise from Donald Trump.
Key Points Discussed in the Episode:
The Panama Canal Dispute
Historical Context: The Panama Canal, a monumental achievement undertaken by the United States, cost over $15 billion (in today’s dollars) and resulted in the loss of 30,000 lives during its construction. Despite its strategic importance, the U.S. ceded control to Panama under President Jimmy Carter's administration, causing widespread backlash.
Treaty Violations: Senator Cruz chaired a hearing examining allegations that Panama is violating its neutrality treaty, which was meant to ensure fair treatment and access for U.S. vessels. According to expert testimonies:
- Chinese Influence: There are claims that China has gained significant control over the canal operations and related ports, posing risks to U.S. national security.
- Exorbitant Fees: Panama has been accused of charging U.S. ships excessive transit fees, directly contradicting the terms of the treaty.
Bipartisan Concerns: Interestingly, Cruz mentions that even Democrats at the hearing expressed concern over China's growing control of the canal and acknowledged the problem of excessive fees imposed on American businesses.
The Path Forward for U.S. Control
Options for Recovery: While complete reclaiming of the canal seems unrealistic, there are discussions on negotiating lower transit fees and diminishing Chinese influence. The treaty arguments presented during the hearing may bolster the case for more significant U.S. intervention or renegotiation of the treaty terms.
The Risks of Inaction: The conversation also highlighted the danger of allowing Panama to act beyond treaty obligations, especially as Chinese companies build infrastructure that could threaten U.S. shipping and military operations.
Moving Toward Tax-Free Tips
Legislation Initiatives: Senator Cruz is actively pushing for legislation to eliminate taxes on tips, a topic that has garnered bipartisan support since its inception.
- Campaign Origins: Cruz recounts a moment where Trump, inspired by a waitress’s plight, proposed the idea at a rally, which resonated well with the audience.
- Bipartisan Backing: Key senators from Nevada, where a large portion of the workforce relies on tips, have co-sponsored the bill.
Political Strategy: Cruz believes that passing this bill is not only crucial for the working class but also strategically beneficial for the Republican Party, as it aligns them closely with blue-collar workers. He envisions it being passed with bipartisan support, emphasizing the importance of contacting representatives to voice support for this initiative.
Conclusion
This episode encapsulates pivotal discussions around significant national issues— the future of the Panama Canal under potential treaty violations and the urgent need for tax reform impacting millions of American workers. Cruz’s insights inform listeners about the complexities at play and the avenues available for legislative action. Stay engaged with these discussions to understand better the implications for U.S. commerce and everyday workers' lives.
Was this summary helpful?
welcome in his verdict with senator ted cruis Ben Ferguson with you and senator i never thought i'd say there was a whole lot of action today in the senate when it comes to the Panama Canal but that is exactly what happened is we're learning a lot more about the corruption there that should shock a lot of americans
Well, today I chaired a hearing in the Senate Commerce Committee on the Panama Canal. And listen, Donald Trump has raised this issue. It is a very significant issue. I got to say, when he raised it, a lot of people in the media, a lot of Democrats dismissed it, thought it was crazy talk.
But I actually think it is a very serious point. We've talked about this before on the podcast, but today I chaired a hearing on the Panama Canal and in particular on the conduct that Panama has committed, potentially in violation of the treaty. So the United States built that canal. Over 30,000 lives were lost in the construction of that canal.
over fifteen billion dollars in today's dollars were spent by america by american taxpayers in building that canal and jimmy carter sadly gave it away gave it to panama it was indefensible i remember i was little kid you were not even been a sparkle in your daddy's eyeball when this happened
But I remember it well, and I remember being pissed, and by the way, this was one of the major issues that got Ronald Reagan elected in 1980, because Jimmy Carter gave this away.
Donald Trump has rightly raised this. And in particular, when Jimmy Carter gave it away, Panama agreed to a very specific treaty, a treaty to keep the Panama Canal neutral and to charge America fair and equitable rates. And the hearing we had today was testimony from numerous experts.
that Panama is in violation of that treaty, that number one, that they have ceded enormous control to China over the canal. And this is the point President Trump has made that is really quite powerful. And number two, that they are charging exorbitant rates to American shippers, to commercial shippers, and to the US Navy.
And so that hearing we're going to break down today, we also, we saw this weekend President Trump went and did a major event, pressing his policy for no taxes on tips. This is a policy we're going to get enacted. I am the author of the legislation in the Senate to get this done. And I believe we're going to get this done this year. We're going to break that down as well.
I want to take a moment real quick and talk to you about January the 27th. You may not have realized, but the 27th was International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day to remember the great evil of the Holocaust when millions of Jews were slaughtered during the Nazis' reign of terror. Today, unfortunately, the rise in global anti-Semitism and the constant attacks on Israel are showing us that it's more important than ever to remember the atrocities of the Holocaust to ensure
that it never happens again. And that's why I'm proud to stand with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. They do incredible work by providing food, shelter, and safety to Jews in Israel and around the world, including those remaining Holocaust survivors.
Your donation today will help provide food, water, medicine, and not only basic necessities of the Jewish community, but also things like bomb shelters and armored ambulances that they need in Israel right now. And through your gift, you will stand with the Jewish people and against this growing anti-Semitism and hatred.
So to give, to show your support to the Jewish people, you can visit supportifcj.org. That's one word, supportifcj.org. You can also call and give them a donation, 888-488-IFCJ. That's 888-488-488-IFCJ. 888-488-4325 or supportifcj.org.
All right, so, Senator, let's go back in history and really dive into how all this got started. And you mentioned in the intro there, America built Panama Canal and then it was given away. So let's talk about the building, let's talk about the price, let's talk about the cost, and including people that literally gave their lives building this incredible thing, why it was built, and then let's get to why we gave it away.
Listen, it was a massive investment from the United States. It was an extraordinary endeavor. Teddy Roosevelt had the vision to build the Panama Canal. Look, it used to be that's a traverse from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. You had to go all the way south
below South America and that took enormous time. It was enormously costly. And America said, we can construct a canal through Panama. We can cut that journey dramatically shorter. It was a major investment. And as I said, over 30,000 lives were lost building that canal. It was not a small investment, $15 billion. And listen, before we get started, I want to just take
a musical moment to reflect, so give a listen. That's what we're talking about today.
So I love that you played the song there and you guys actually talked about possibly playing that today in Congress, which made me laugh at the hearing as well. Well, that's true. And so let's start. So we open the hearing. And by the way,
the Senate Commerce Committee, which I'm chairman, has explicit jurisdiction over the Panama Canal because it is enormously important for American commerce. And so that's why we started with this major hearing. So give a listen, this is my opening statement as we open the hearing. We're here today to examine a monument to American ingenuity, the Panama Canal.
Senator Moreno down there suggested we open the hearing by playing Van Halen and Panama. We may not do that, but between the American construction of the Panama Canal, the French effort to build an SMS canal, and America's triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across Panama cost more than 35,000 lives.
For the final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United States spent nearly $400 million equivalent to more than $15 billion today. The Panama Canal proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and many outraged. With the passage of time,
Many have lost sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and to the U.S. economy, not President Trump. When he demanded fair treatment for American ships and goods, many in the media scoffed. But the Panama Canal was not just given away. President Carter struck a bargain he made a treaty.
And President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that that treaty is being violated right now. This committee has jurisdiction under the Senate rules over the Panama Canal, and today we will examine evidence of potential violations. President Trump has highlighted two key issues. Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage through the canal. And number two, the exorbitant costs for transit.
Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the canal at a slow pace so as to take nearly a decade. And Chinese companies control container ports at either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability to block the canal without warning. And the ports give China ready observation posts to take to time that action. This situation, I believe, poses acute risks
to U.S. national security. Meanwhile, the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans, because U.S. cargo accounts for nearly three-quarters of canal transits. U.S. Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to warships. Canal profits regularly exceed $3 billion. This money comes from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher costs for goods.
American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees Panama chooses to levy for canal transits. And they have paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in Panama as a result of government-granted monopoly. Panama's government relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly one-tenth of its budget is paid for with canal profit.
As those fees cascade through the American economy in the federal fisk, the Chinese Communist Party advances its global economic contest against the United States and takes a militaristic interest in the canal. While President Trump has rightly focused on these key issues, there are additional problems. In the last two years, the canal authority generated record revenue even while transits were depressed by drought conditions.
And the only comfort to delay and overcharge ships is that Panama may invest in more freshwater reserves in the future. Even as it takes advantage of the global maritime system, Panama has emerged as a bad actor. Panama has for years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost fleet, which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil profits to fund terror across the world.
and Chinese companies have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous Belt and Road Initiative has come to Panama. China often engages in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion. In Panama, it also seems to have exploited simple corruption.
So, Senator, you look at these warnings and they're like multiple red flags here. Iran and China and this bridge and basically the highest bidder can get whatever the hell they want no matter how shady they are from Panama and the Panama Canal. Am I wrong?
You're not, and there were several striking things in the hearing. Number one, we had a series of witnesses from the Federal Maritime Commission, and we had an international law professor who testified about the neutrality treaty. And they testified about a number of things. Number one, there's a treaty that governs this. So this is not simply Donald Trump raising an issue. Gosh, we want the Panama Canal. Panama made a commitment when Jimmy Carter gave this away.
And they made a commitment, number one, that the Panama Canal would remain neutral, that it would not allow another foreign power to have control over it, to have military access to it. And number two, they made a commitment in treaty that they would charge fair and equitable fees. Now, on the first point, we heard an enormous amount of testimony that Panama has made a massive pivot towards China.
Listen, China is engaged in something called the Belt and Road Initiative, where they're investing in ports and infrastructure all over the world, and they're spending billions and billions of dollars trying to gain power over the United States. And the Panama Canal is critical to US national security and to our economy.
So on both ends of the Panama Canal, on the Pacific side and on the Atlantic side, China controls Chinese corporations control massive ports that are right there that give them access and give them the ability to observe
all traffic going through the canal, and potentially to shut down all traffic going through the canal. As I mentioned also in my opening, they are building a bridge across the canal. They are spending over a decade building that bridge. That bridge gives them the capacity of number one to engage in surveillance.
of every ship going through the canal. But number two, if, listen, we get to a time in the future where we're in serious conflict with China. Let's say a military conflict. Let's say they invade Taiwan, and we are suddenly at risk of a shooting war.
China has the capacity to shut down the Panama Canal, to use that bridge, to use the ports on both ends, to say, we will allow no transit through that canal. That would be enormously harmful to the United States, and the point that was made in the hearing, that is directly contrary to the treaty Panama signed. Secondly,
Panama makes roughly $3 billion in fees from transit across the Panama Canal. 75% of those transits are American ships. So they are either American cargo ships, commercial ships going across, or they're American military ships, the US Navy going across. But either way, Panama is making billions
And the testimony we heard in the hearing today is that on both of those grounds, there is a strong argument that Panama is in violation of the treaty. Now what's interesting, Ben, I asked the international law professor who was testifying. I said, okay, if Panama is in violation of the treaty, number one, how is that determined? And number two, what is the remedy?
On the question of how is that determined, the testimony we got today is the professor said, well, under the terms of the treaty, each party determines unilaterally whether the other is in violation, which means the United States has the ability to determine President Trump and this administration can determine Panama is in violation.
That is decisive. And then secondly, the remedy. Initially, when I asked the remedy, what the professor testified is that the remedy contemplated in the treaty was direct military action by the United States to reassert its control. I also asked, okay, if they're in violation of the treaty, is there a potential to assert that the treaty is null and void and the United States will reassert control?
on that question, he went back and forth, but I will say that testimony, I think, gave enormous heft to the points President Trump has been making. So you look at this and you say, all right, what are the options now for President Trump and then for Congress because we can't get it back, right? I've seen a lot of you like, would we just take this thing back? We built it. I don't think it's that simple. Is that a fair point to make starting off?
You know, it's interesting. You and I did a podcast early on when President Trump was talking about Canada, Panama, and Greenland, and I put them on a spectrum. I said, Canada, it ain't going to become the 51st state. There, President Trump is just trolling Canada. He's messing with Trudeau. And by the way, his trolling of Trudeau probably cost him being prime minister.
I mean, it was perhaps the most epic troll in history.
Greenland, on the other hand, as we discussed at length on this podcast, I think there's a very serious argument that it is in the United States' interest to try to acquire Greenland, to try to acquire it, number one, for national security reasons, because Greenland has a critical geographic location in the Arctic. If, God forbid, we had a military conflict with Russia or China,
any ICBMs and any military attack would likely come over the Arctic. Greenland is precisely situated to be able to intercept and combat that.
But also Greenland has vast natural resources, in particular rare earth minerals and critical minerals. And so I think it is very much in our interest to pursue Greenland. Now, I will say a little over a week ago, I had a long conversation with the Danish ambassador. So Greenland is controlled by Denmark.
and the Danish ambassador was quite distressed because I've been very vocal, including on this podcast. And so I got a call from the Danish ambassador, what are you saying on verdict? Which is interesting. Did your response was, do you go listen to it? It's up there. I did have a good laugh. And the Danish ambassador is like, why are you attacking us? And I said, listen, let me be clear.
your friend, you're an ally. I'm not remotely proposing military action against Denmark or Greenland, but friends and allies can have real conversations. And I think it is very much in our interest to acquire Greenland. And the ambassador said, it's not for sale. I said, well, everything's for sale.
And we're at least going to have a conversation because I think it is both in our interest and your interest to have that conversation. And so that, we had a very direct, I think a very positive conversations. And I expect over the next four years, the Trump administration is gonna press that discussion. Now, at the time, you and I did that podcast, I viewed the Panama Canal as somewhere in the middle. I said at the time, I said, we're not gonna get it back.
but i think the president is negotiating over price negotiating to lower the prices of transit now i think that's still true i think the worst case outcome of this discussion
is we end up with a very significant reduction in the cost, the price for American ships to transit the Panama Canal, both commercial ships and US Navy ships. That's a very good outcome. I also think it is very likely we will see a significant diminution in China's control and influence over the Panama Canal. That is a massive benefit.
But, but I got to say after this hearing today, I moved, I actually think the treaty arguments here are quite serious. And, and I get Panama would be horrified to give up the canal because they were given a gigantic gift from Jimmy Carter at the expense of the United States of America.
But I think the arguments that Panama is violating the treaty and has forfeited its right to the canal. I think those arguments are very serious, and I expect the administration to pursue them seriously.
Let's talk about also the contraband in essence that's going through there. I ran in China really getting a grand deal, but also the idea that we don't know what's going through there on those ships. How concerned are you about that? And could this also bring that into perspective where Panama says, hey, we can't do this right now. We're under too much of a spotlight.
Well, look, that is a very real problem. So, for example, Panama has flagged multiple ships from Iran from their ghost fleet, the ghost fleet that they're using to transit oil. And Iran has... Let's give a definition, by the way, of a ghost fleet for people that don't understand what that means.
So, there were in law massive sanctions on Iran selling oil. Under Joe Biden, he essentially refused to enforce those sanctions. And so, Iran used a ghost fleet to get around those sanctions. It was ships that were operating under foreign flags that were basically hiding from the sanctions regime. By the way, I think that's one of the most significant things
the Trump administration is going to do is re-impose those sanctions on Iran and cut off their revenue. Joe Biden, the Democrats basically gave $100 billion to the Ayatollah, who's chanting death to America and death to Israel. And I believe that that has ended on January 20th and it should end.
Panama was complicit in that. They were part of that endeavor. And by the way, Panama also made it made a very deliberate decision to pivot towards China. So for example, several years ago, Panama severed diplomatic relationships with Taiwan.
and instead embraced China, and they did so at the same time that China was making massive investments in the ports on both ends of the canal. And understand, the way China does this, the Chinese government
subsidizes those investments so that no American company can outbid them because the Chinese government is essentially subsidizing them. They're not doing it for economic purposes. They're not doing it because it makes business sense. They're doing it for strategic purposes because China wants to control the Panama Canal. Now, I get why the Chinese Communist government wants to do that.
but Panama letting them do that is, I believe, in direct violation of the treaty and that's what the hearing was about today. Final question on this. Moving forward, how quick will there be movement on this issue?
Look, I don't know. I think this hearing was important today. And I'll tell you what I thought was most significant. So I called the hearing, and as Chairman, I can call a hearing on any topic I want. I didn't know how the Democrats would react. I didn't know if the Democrats would show up at the hearing and begin screaming and saying, Trump is a lunatic and how dare he do this. I didn't know what they would say.
The most interesting thing about the hearing today is the Democrats, almost every Democrat, echoed the points that you and I have been making, that China has far too much influence over the Panama Canal and also the Panama Canal is charging excessive fees. I'm not sure what that means, but it surprised me. We did not have, I sort of anticipated some long Democrat speeches about how Trump is a crazy man.
We didn't get any of that. And I think that was a very interesting particularly the Chinese influence on the Panama Canal. There was very significant bipartisan agreement. I think that's a very promising sign.
All right. Well, then we got to use that bipartisan sign to move into topic number two. And that is Donald Trump was a big proponent of taxes going away on tips. Now, this is a very big issue in the campaign. He got a lot of traction with a lot of Americans that work hard, part of their salaries, tips, not having taxes on those tips would be huge for American workers and also our economy.
So this is something that has come back up again where Donald Trump's trying to pay off on this. The question is, what's going to happen with Congress on that? And before I get to that, I want to tell you about our friends over at Patriot Mobile.
Well, we may have won this election. The fight to restore our great nation is only beginning. And now is the time to take a stand, especially when it comes to the dollars you spend. Well, that's why I want you to know about Patriot Mobile, because they are America's only Christian conservative wireless provider. Patriot Mobile offers a way to vote with your wallet without compromising on quality or convenience.
And Patriot Mobile isn't just about providing exceptional cell phone service, it's a call to action to defend our rights and freedoms. With Patriot Mobile, not only do you get outstanding nationwide coverage, because they operate on all three major networks, so you get the coverage you want every day. But you get it without the woke agenda of Big Mobile.
Patriot Mobile has a coverage guarantee and here's the best part. Every time you make a call and every dollar you spend you support the first and the second amendments, the sanctity of life, our veterans, our first responders, and our wounded warriors. And switching has never been easier. You keep your same number you've got now, keep your same phone or upgrade to a new one.
Right now, go to PatriotMobile.com slash Verdict or call them 972 Patriot and get a free month of service with a promo code Verdict. Switch to Patriot Mobile today and defend freedom with every call and every text you make that's PatriotMobile.com slash Verdict or call them 972 Patriot.
All right, so taxes, tips, it was clearly a big campaign issue. It brought in a lot of voters. A lot of people came to Donald Trump and said this couldn't have a huge impact. Now it's paying off on it. Is there a real chance?
So yes, and I believe this will happen. This will happen by the end of the year. So let's rewind in the middle of the presidential campaign. Donald Trump was in Las Vegas, Nevada. And he actually told us a story. So he came by in the middle of the campaign. He had lunch with all the Republican senators. And he said, listen, I was in Vegas. I had a rally that night. And he said, I was having lunch.
And he said there was a waitress who came. It was, you know, serving me my meal. And he said she began like complaining about the enormous burden that the Biden administration had put on recording her tips on paying taxes on tips. And he said, I pulled out a piece of paper and I got out of pen and I just wrote no taxes on tips.
They said it's just an idea that popped in my head, and he said, look, some people, they focus group things, they do white papers. He said, I didn't do any of that. I just wrote it down from the conversation I had with the waitress over lunch, and he said, I had that rally later the day, and I had thousands of people there, and he said, I just threw it out there.
No taxes on tips. And he said, and they went crazy. They went absolutely crazy. And I got to say, there are times when Trump, I just think has an instinct that is a very good gut instinct. And I think this policy makes enormous sense. And so when he announced it,
He's right. The crowd went crazy. I looked at it and I said, this is a great idea. I immediately went to my team and I said, let's draft the legislation to make this happen. So the next week, I filed federal legislation of no taxes on tips. Now, what's interesting, Ben, is when I filed this, it immediately became bipartisan.
Both senators from Nevada, Jackie Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto, both of them immediately co-sponsored it. One of them said to me, she said, look, in Nevada, 25% of the employees in the entire state are tipped workers.
And so it was bipartisan. And then shortly thereafter, Kamala Harris endorsed it. And she said, this is a great idea. So it became, there was enormous bipartisan support. Now, obviously Trump is one. We have a Republican Senate, Republican House. I've refiled my legislation. Here's what I'm pressing to happen. So Trump just was back in Nevada, in Las Vegas, just made a huge push to pass this.
I am pressing for Congress to pass the legislation right now. It doesn't have to be part of budget reconciliation. Now for any tax bill.
Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives has to originate. So if that's a provision of the Constitution, the Senate cannot start a tax bill. A tax bill has to originate with the House. So I am merging the Speaker of the House. I'm merging the majority leader. Take up my legislation. No taxes on tips. Just pass it. We have the votes in the House. Republicans can pass it. If it passes and goes over to the Senate,
i believe we can pass it in the senate and i think we'll get sixty votes so we don't have to wait for reconciliation reconciliation it is is the process that gets around the filibuster lets us pass something with just fifty votes i don't think we need that for no taxes on tips if the house passes it what i'm urging john thune the senate majority leaders put it on the senate floor i think we'll get sixty votes and that means we could pass it it would be a big bipartisan win
And we'll put it on President Trump's desk. He can sign it into law as a huge victory. And by the way, it's a win-win, man. If we put it on the floor.
And Democrats decide to be partisan. They decide, okay, we're going to oppose it because we just oppose any tax cut. We oppose anything Trump wants. Okay, that's not the end of the day. If Democrats defeat it in the Senate because we can't get to 60, that's fine. Then we'll stick it in budget reconciliation. We can get it done with 50, but it's a win win.
Because every Democrat senator who votes no, that is an ugly issue in two years to go face the voters and say, Hey, I voted against no taxes on tips, even though every waiter, every waitress, every bartender, every taxi driver, every Uber driver, every barber, every hairstylist, every nail salon person, everyone who is relying on tips
cares a lot about this so if the democrats all want to vote against it look i think this policy
is an incredible embodiment of the most important political transformation of the last decade, which is that Republicans have become a blue color party. We are the party of waiters and waitresses and working men and women. And so Democrats can decide where they're stand, but I think we ought to get this passed. And one way or another, my prediction is this will get done before the end of 2025.
is this one of those issues where people should call their congressmen their centers when we talk about this yes yes yes yes and what do you say i i this is good for my state this is good for my city this is good for hourly workers with the best argument just passed no taxes on tips so so look one of the things to understand when you call your congressman when you call your your senator if you make a detailed subtle argument that doesn't get through
So every member of Congress gets what I get every day, which is I get an email. So let me find my email from today. Call totals. So 12825. Today, there were 1,372 calls to my office. There were 754 to DC. There were 618 to Texas.
There were 482 live calls, so we had interns and staff assistants who answered 482 calls today. There were 890 calls that went to voicemails.
Of those calls, 1,322 Texans called, 50 non Texans called. So overwhelmingly, the calls were Texans. So let's break it down. Case work. So that's, I've got an issue with Social Security. I've got an issue with the VA. I've got an issue with the government. 45 of those calls were casework. And I've got a whole team that works to help Texans deal with the government every day.
24 dealt with the academy, so young men and women, high school students that want to go to service academy, so 24 of them. Eight concerned the campaign, I don't know what they concerned. 91 concerned scheduling, so people calling and saying, hey, can you come and do this event or this other event. Now, of the breakdown, 18 called in support of me.
twenty eight called in opposition to me so people called and said i can't stand cruises terrible okay that that gets recorded
10 people called in support of President Trump, 79 people called in opposition to President Trump. Now, nominations. 75 people called in support of President Trump's nominees. 70 people called in opposition to President Trump's nominees. Now it's interesting, RFK Jr. got a bunch of calls. 187 people, this is yesterday, called in support of RFK Jr. for HHS Secretary.
93 people called in opposition to RFK Jr. So about two to one Bobby Kennedy the calls were coming in. 19 people called in support of Cash Patel for FBI Director.
432 people called in opposition to Cash Patel as FBI director. And I think there probably were some liberal groups stirring up calls because that number is big enough. I would just say, when you see days like that, you've got to be thinking somebody went on an email campaign or a call blitz campaign and said,
Target this member today specifically because if it doesn't match the day before the day after that's when that's kind of the tell right and that happens there are groups that will focus and say make these calls and I think those calls the 432 that's a big enough number that's where that probably came from now in addition 48 people called in support of Tulsi Gabbard 22 people called in opposition to Tulsi Gabbard
on legislative issues, 13 people called in support of border security, two people called in opposition to border security. And interestingly enough, 474 people called in opposition to the OMB pause of federally appropriated funds.
So, look, that's the sort of report. I get that report every day and I read it every day. Now, look, we get over the course of the year, hundreds of thousands of calls. So, I can't listen to every voicemail that comes in. I could literally spend all day long doing nothing but listening to voicemails and not do any hearings, not do any legislation, and I still wouldn't have enough time. So, the way I consume that data is through a report like that. I just read you the report that came today.
Every other member consumes it the same way. What I'm saying is if you want Congress to pass no taxes on tips, you don't need to present a long detailed subtle argument as to all of the pros and cons. Just pick up the phone and call your member and say, pass no taxes on tips.
if you say that sentence it will get recorded in a report just like that to the house member of the senator your calling that's how the information gets consumed
That's encouraging, by the way. You said everybody looks at their call list like the same way you do. I hope so. I don't know that. There may be some people that don't give a damn. I look at it every day. I can't promise that all 535 members of Congress do, but I certainly look at it every day because I worked for 31 million Texans. And so I want to see what issues people are engaged on and what they care about.
It's incredible. Don't forget, call your congressman, call your senator. It can make a huge difference, especially during confirmations and on issues like taxes on tips going away. We do the show Monday was a Friday to give you this exact type of information. So make sure that that subscribe button, auto download button,
and share it on social media. A lot of people right now are looking for answers with all the changes in Washington. And it makes a massive difference when you guys share this podcast on social media and also when you write us a five-star review. And the senator and I will see you back here Friday morning.
Was this transcript helpful?
Recent Episodes
Inside the Investigation into the Tragic DC Airline Crash, plus Trump Confirmations Accelerate

Verdict with Ted Cruz
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
January 31, 2025
Trump pushes Hiring Reforms After Plane Crash amid Confirmation Hearing Fireworks

Verdict with Ted Cruz
Trump discusses D.C. plane crash and government reform plans, testifies during confirmation hearing, and announces 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico.
January 31, 2025
Trump Declares Gitmo OPEN for Illegal Alien Criminals

Verdict with Ted Cruz
Trump suggests housing undocumented criminal immigrants at Guantanamo Bay, USDA Inspector General is escorted from office for non-compliance with Trump's firing, and Trump issues orders targeting Critical Race Theory and Antisemitism on college campuses.
January 30, 2025
Trump Moves to Save Americans Billions in Tax Dollars

Verdict with Ted Cruz
Trump renews call for tax-free tips and social security; issues executive order banning gender-affirming care for minors; White House pauses federal grants and loans.
January 29, 2025

Ask this episodeAI Anything

Hi! You're chatting with Verdict with Ted Cruz AI.
I can answer your questions from this episode and play episode clips relevant to your question.
You can ask a direct question or get started with below questions -
What was the main topic of the podcast episode?
Summarise the key points discussed in the episode?
Were there any notable quotes or insights from the speakers?
Which popular books were mentioned in this episode?
Were there any points particularly controversial or thought-provoking discussed in the episode?
Were any current events or trending topics addressed in the episode?
Sign In to save message history