In a devastating ruling by the Supreme Court that 'shocked' Justice Alito, two GOP judges sided with the Democrats to undo President Trump's executive order, which froze $2 billion in USAID funding. This is what's at stake here: $2 billion of YOUR tax dollars potentially funding anti-American agendas or worse, with no accountability thanks to the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act diluting responsibility. This raises the question—who truly controls government? Congress as the chef, the President as manager, or an overreaching Supreme Court as food inspector? President Trump MUST continue to fight back with the DOJ while eyeing a Scalia-like justice to fix a possibly rigged system. ENOUGH with these wishy-washy judges, Glenn argues. We need a BULLDOG.

Transcript

Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: All right. I want to dive into the US Supreme Court decision on restoring USA funding. I think this is grotesque. But it's a conversation we need to have. And it doesn't end with, we're not going to listen to the Supreme Court. It leads right to, please, Donald Trump, make sure you're finding a Scalia, as our next Supreme Court justice, if you get to appoint one.

The question is: Who really holds the reins of our government? Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruling came out, and they really didn't -- because it was a quick turnaround, it's not a full reading of what everybody was saying.

And I want to know exactly how they made this decision. But we saw justice Amy Coney Barrett side with John Roberts, and the court's liberal ring, what a surprise there, and it was against the -- Trump's administration to push to freeze $2 billion. $2 billion. You and everyone you know, maybe everyone you've ever met, everybody that lives in the same town as you, will never pay $2 billion in income tax.

So $2 billion in foreign aid.

And the dissent came from conservative justices like Clarence Thomas. Samuel Alito. Gorsuch. Brent Kavanaugh.

Now, this was -- I mean, Scalia talked a lot about this.

And let me -- let me break it down, in this way.

The federal government is like a giant kitchen.

Congress is the head chef. Okay? They write the recipes, and then order all of the raw ingredients, laws, and the budgets. Got it?

The President is the kitchen and manager of the chef, and all of the kitchen.

He decides, how do we execute this?

How do we do this?

And the Supreme Court is really, the food inspector, who is called in, when there's, you know, worry about food poisoning.

You know, botulism. Something really bad, that the restaurant was never supposed to put out. That's what it's supposed to be. In this case, President Trump on his first day back in office, he signed an executive order, to freeze $2 billion in USA funding. Okay. Why?

Because he suspects deep corruption. So the money Congress had already earmarked for foreign aid, which is their job. It gets blown out of the water. Now, his team said, let's look for waste, fraud, and abuse.

Now, that comes right from his campaign promises. That's what he was elected to do. He was very career about DOGE.

The nonprofit groups, sued. And a lower court judge ordered the funds to be unblocked. And in the Supreme Court, yesterday, 5-4 split. They upheld that order.

Now, what? The ruling said, basically, you can't just hit pause on Congress.

Okay?

They've come up with a recipe. They've ordered all the goods. Unless the law explicitly lets you, the president. Now, I think it does.

Really, so does Thomas and Alito and Kavanaugh.

They said, he's the administrator. He's the one.

He's the one who said, no, no, no, no.

Wait. I think there may be some sort of botulism in some of these ingredients.

I'm not putting them into the food. The administrator, does he have leeway to manage the funds and root out corruption? Especially, since the executive branch is tasked with, quote, faithfully executing the laws. Faithfully executing the laws.

Amy Coney Barrett, Trump appointee from last time, surprised a lot of people. Me, not so much.

She didn't write a separate opinion here, but her vote suggests a real narrow view of executive power, that I don't think the Founders ever really saw this, as.

Scalia worry alive might have dissented and gone the way of Alito and Gorsuch, because he always railed against judicial overreach. There was a court case back in the '80s. Morrison versus Olsen. He warned, letting courts micromanage executive discretion.

I'm quoting! Enfeebles the President's Constitutional role. What does that mean?

The -- the President oversees his domain.
Congress oversees their domain. And there can't be any judicial meddling in this, unless the Constitution or Congress clearly says so. Okay.

Congress allocated the funds.

And no law gave Trump the unilateral freeze button.

That's what she said!

Here's it -- here's the problem.

Here's how I think of it now. How I think you should think of it.

Think of your family.

You are running a family budget. You and your spouse, that's Congress, agree to spend $500 at a kid's summer camp. Okay?

But you and your wife, for some reason, are really busy. And so you hand the $500 over to your brother. The president.

And you're like, I want you to pay the camp director.

And send him to summer camp. And then you're out.

And then you find out, that the brother is holding on to that $500. Of course! You're like, wait a minute. I gave you the $500 to send our kid to summer camp.

And your brother says, wait a minute!

The camp is way overcharging.

Or worse, it's a scam!

Or even worse, they actually stand against everything your family, you, your son. Everything you tried to teach him.

Everything you want!

I couldn't in good conscience, give this $500 to them. Because it's corrupt!

Are you cool, or are you mad that your -- I told you, it had to be spent on this!

Are you going, thank God, or do you say, you have no right to do that!

I want my money going to that corrupt camp. Even if they're abusing my child. Of course not!

That's the oversight of the administrator! That's this case, in a nutshell. That's what Trump is arguing. And that's what Trump should be giving. The problem is, it's not a family of three or four or five. It's a family of 330 million people. And the cash is yours!

Do you want it to go to anti-American or changing mice, you know, one sex to the other? Do you want that?

Because I, as a family member, and 330 million people, I'm kind of pissed of that. Maybe you're not. I am.

STU: Glenn, at any point, the mom and dad can send that money directly to the camp.

GLENN: Yes.

STU: All they have to do is instead of doing this BS thing that they're doing.

Which is like, here's a big pile of money. And we want generally, this thing to happen.

They can just write in the laws, that they passed. Exactly where the money needs to go. And what needs to go there. That is complete.

They have the power. The Congress has all of this ability.

GLENN: As according to the Constitution. But the progressives, the progressives have changed all of that!

STU: Uh-huh.

GLENN: They passed in 1946, the Administrative Procedure Act. I don't know what that is. You ever heard of that?

Really, super important. It creates a fourth branch of government that's neither executive or legislative. It's just kind of out there in limbo. Why?

Because it dilutes the power of president. And it takes Congress out of the hot seat. They don't want to be blamed by you for something.

They -- is anyone taking responsibility for the cash that we know is being funneled into, you know, nefarious purposes?

Nobody in Congress is being held responsible for it.

Why? Because they did exactly what Stu said!

I was just giving to that agency. I don't have anything to say about the agency. I said, we should send it over there, because I thought they were doing this.

And then if the president doesn't have the power to say, wait a minute, you're not spending that money. Then you can't even blame him. Who do you blame?

Who is responsible for earmarking that money to go to those specifics groups?

Somebody you've never met. Somebody whose name you have never seen. Somebody who will never go to jail or be held responsible, even if they're funneling it to nefarious camps.

That's what this is really all about.
And when the people truly understand that, and realize, there is no check on the judicial branch. The judicial branch is supposed to just make the decisions. No, that's not in the Constitution.

But instead, we've changed all of these things, through law. That are -- those laws are unconstitutional.

Because they -- they destroy the checks and balances of the three branches.

But what are we going to do? Are we going to be like the Democrat?

Nope! Just do it anyway!

We say to the president of the United States right now, you let the DOJ, if they force you to spend this money. You sic the DOJ on them, and you track every dollar. You find anybody who is wasting our money. Anybody who is doing anything nefarious.

And you march them out in orange jumpsuit in shackles, and you throw their ass in jail. And then you wait for one of these people, in the Supreme Court, to die of natural causes!

Did you hear that, lefties? To die of natural causes.

And then you find the biggest constitutional pit bull. And you put them on the court!

That's the way Americans handle it.