Newt talks with Chad Wolf, Executive Director, Chief Strategy Officer and Chair, Center for Homeland Security and Immigration, American First Policy Institute, about President Donald J. Trump's unprecedented number of executive orders signed on his first day in office, focusing on immigration and border security. Trump declared a national emergency at the US-Mexico border, emphasizing the need for a physical wall and other security measures. Wolf shares his insights on the impact of these executive orders and the challenges he faced during the transition to the Biden administration. Wolf highlights the importance of maintaining strict immigration policies, the role of the military in border security, and the necessity of cooperation with the Mexican government to combat cartels. Their discussion also covers the controversial end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, the need for federal agencies to identify non-cooperative countries, and the reinstatement of the "Remain in Mexico" policy.
On this episode of Newsworld. Shortly after President Donald J. Trump took the oath of office on Monday, he signed more executive orders in day one than any president history. He declared a national emergency on the US Mexico border as part of immigration related executive actions. He also declared in a separate order that the current situation at the southern border qualifies as an invasion. Securing the US southern border was a huge focus of his campaign, and he's already delivering on what he promised to do. Here to discuss the executive orders and what comes next, I'm really pleased to welcome my guest and my good friend, Chadwolf. Chad is the executive director, chief Strategy Officer, and chair Center for Homeland Security and Immigration at the America First Policy Institute. He previously served as Acting Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security during President Trump's first term. He is the recipient of the U S Secretary of Transportation nine eleven Medal, the US Secretary of Homeland Security Distinguished Service Medal, and the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. Chad, welcome and thank you for joining me on newts World.
Well. I appreciate it speaker. Good to be with you.
I just have to ask you find it because you've had such an extraordinary career already. Tell us briefly kind of how you got here.
It's kind of a strange world.
I was on Capitol Hill, you know, working on Capitolhill like any other staffer. On nine to eleven, we were escorted out of the building as the Pentagon was hit as jets flew overhead to intercept the flight that eventually crashed in Pennsylvania. And that day really marked, I think a defining moment in my career where I made a decision that I wanted to do something, wanted to give back, wanted to have service, and wanted to protect the homeland. And so shortly after that, I joined the Transportation Security Administration under President Bush. That was in two thousand and two. Two thousand and three started the Department of Homeland Security, so it was on the ground floor at the beginning of a new department stand up, and that was impactful. I stepped out of government service during the tenure of President Obama, and then President Trump and his team asked me to come back in seventeen. I spent all four years there during the first Trump term different positions as you indicated, including chief of staff of the department, and then an assistant secretary and under secretary and then finally an acting secretary. So have worn many different hats and have gotten to see the different elements of homeland security and the right way and the wrong way of how you protect the homeland.
President Trump was doing such a tremendous job of gradually getting the crossing the border under control. How did you kind of feel looking at all the work you all had put in for four years and gradually begun to succeed. How did you feel about what happened with Biden and the sudden explosion of people coming into the US.
Yeah, well, frustrating.
I think that's probably the most accurate term I could say, because I remember briefing Secretary of Mayorkas at that time during the transition period, and during that time I told him, I said, look, if you guys do half of what President Biden campaigned on back in twenty you're going to have a real problem. You're going to run out of money, you're going to run out of detention space, You're going to come into all of these different issues.
And that's exactly what happened.
It unfolded that way over the course of about six months, and unfortunately, the American people had to suffer because of those bad decisions, the wrong policy decisions, the wrong implementation. And so, as someone who was at the Department for four years, it was hard to sit back and watch that because I understand what border patrol agents go through each and every day, and to be under the gun in the middle of a crisis for four years, it's not fair to them. It's not fair to them that their political leadership made those decisions and put them in that place not to succeed. Unfortunately, to fail, and they became the butt of everyone's joke.
They became the.
Hore of Congressional members very upset, and so I felt for him. I felt for the Department and for those border patrol and law enforcement agents.
When you look at all that President Trump had developed a remain in Mexico policy and had gotten the Mexican government to agree to it, and had really begun to close down the southern border pretty dramatically, and Biden comes in and almost immediately throws out everything that was working. Why do you think the left was so determined to reopen the southern border.
Well, I think a couple of different ways to answer that. One is anything that had President Trump's name on it. They just wanted to get rid of it without any type of an analysis, as you indicated, without really seeing does it work and if it does work, maybe we want to retain it, maybe we call it something else, right, maybe we rebrand it. But if it works, let's keep what it works. They didn't do that, They just decided to throw it out. And then the second piece, which I think is probably the most important, is I think they have a different value set than most Americans and certainly Republicans do, which is they believe that anyone showing up at that border should be allowed in the United States, almost for any reason. And that's not immigration law. But they've been the law to allow that to occur. And that's what we saw over three and a half almost four years now. We saw an influx of individuals. We saw them not adhering to the letter of the law, not implementing the law, not enforcing the law, because they have a view of what that should be, not how the law is written, not what Congress said it should be. But they have a sort of a utopian view of what it should be and how the United States should help anyone and everyone that wants to come to this country. They believe that. They say that, And I'm a big believer that you listen to the other side because they're going to tell you exactly what they think, and you take them at face value, and you repeat that to them, and they set it over and over again that they believe the United States is a beacon shining light on the hill and that we should help anyone in everyone coming into the United States. And that's fine, but that's not how US immigration law is conceived, and it's not how it works well.
And you know, Gallup Swirled poll asked the other year how many people would like to come to the US, and one hundred and sixty five million said yes. No, I mean, there's no way you can sustain that scale. So if you did, with the left wanted and had a truly open border, I mean, it would be basically the destruction of the American system.
Yeah, I think that's right.
I just got off of a separate interview with a UK outlet who was very upset that President Trump just here in the last couple of days suspended the refugee admissions program here in the United States, and I had to remind them we've had ten million refugees come into this country over the past four years. How much do you expect the United States to sustain year after year after year. And they just couldn't understand why we would suspend that. And you've got to put it in the context of what's occurred over these four years, what the American people have been saddled with that they didn't sign up for, and so it's absolutely prudent to put a pause on it to assess where we are as a country, to see what more that we can do.
I don't think I knew this until we were researching for this podcast. You played a critical role in developing the Transportation Security Administration after nine to eleven. What was that experience?
Like, what was a startup as well? DHS was a startup.
TSA was a startup, and after nine to eleven, if you recall airports before nine to eleven, you could walk through some minimal amount of security. None of your bags were really checked or x rayed. All the bags that went in the belly of the aircraft were never examined, and so to stand up TSA. To go from an agency of zero to about sixty thousand. It's not the best case and conservative ideology because you're growing government. But at that point in time, right after nine to eleven, there were serious aviation threats facing the homeland, and so to stand up that agency and make sure that you're screening everyone, you're protecting folks, and you allow the aviation system to continue as it was shut down on nine to eleven. It was a difficult task over twenty years, perhaps into something that we didn't realize it would, as government programs an agency often do. I think it's probably a good time right now to take a look at it, to see how it can be reformed and scaled back a little bit.
I mean, I'm one of those people who stands in line over and over, but my sense is that it did, in fact eliminate the airborne problems that have been developing and made it possible for US to continue to have a remarkably open system.
I think that's exactly right.
A lot of threats have been thwarted, not only by US government intelligence agencies, but some of those threats have been captured right there at those security checkpoints that you all travel through each and every day, and I think a big testament to TSA and the larger intel community is there hasn't been really a big aviation security incident over these last twenty years, and I think because of a lot of the measures that have put in place at TSA, but also the information sharing and kind of the resurgence of the intelligence community post nine to eleven as well.
Let me ask you a serious of executive order. I'd like to start to go through one by one and just have you comment and put it in context. First executive order to establish a physical wall and other barriers, monitored and supported by adequate personnel and technology. Seeing to me, this was the core of how President Trump was going to genuinely seal off the southern border, and the left just went all out to try to stop it. How do you see this new special Order?
Yeah, they did go all out.
So at the end of the first Trump we had built about four hundred and fifty miles a little over than that, and we had another two hundred to two hundred and fifty ready to go. We had pre purchased a lot of that material and a lot of that material set on the desert floor over these last four years, and in fact, the Biden administration started selling a lot of those panels off for pennies on the dollar. So instead of just allowing border patrol and the corp of engineers to put that physical infrastructure up that the border patrol agents desperately want in need, they didn't.
Do it because of political reasons.
So if you ever thought that the Biden administration played politics with national security, this is a prime example. They paid more money to have those panels watched and overseen and then sold off. Had they just put them up, we would actually save American taxpayers money and we would have had that physical infrastructure up.
So that's neither here nor there. Where we are today is we need.
Physical infrastructure in certain parts of that border. Certain areas are very difficult to patrol, and so we need lights, cameras, roads. We need the wall so that you can amplify and that you can supplement border patrol agents time and resources. We simply don't have enough agents for that entire border. It needs to be a mix of both physical infrastructure and technology. And that's why I continue to talk about this as a border wall system, because it's more than just that physical eighteen to thirty foot high wall, but it's all the technology that comes with it. It allows Border Patrol to have more capabilities than they've ever had before.
Are you pretty confident that President Trump will succeeding getting it done this time?
I do.
I mean, again, he doesn't nearly have just as many miles as we did the last term.
I think there's a lot of muscle memory left.
I think the CBP can do this quite quickly, and I think they have some funding over these last several years that they have not utilized that they can expend pretty quickly.
One of the more controversial executive orders was the and birthright citizenship for future children born to mothers who are in the US unlawfully or temporarily unless the child's father is here legally and permanently. That's clearly gonna be one of the most controversial fights. I'm curious how you analyze it.
Yeah, I think so obviously. I think there's already been lawsuits on this one. This will ultimately be decided in the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court. I think President Trump and his team, I think they did this carefully right. They could have made a sweeping order that said, anyone applies to this. What they really said is any illegal alien coming to the United States. So anyone that decides, as their first act to their new country they want to break the law and then have a child, that it shouldn't apply to this. I think it's important to remember this was set in motion in the eighteen fifties during the Civil War, so it had a very different purpose then as it's being utilized now. For and I think there's often a term in there that a lot of people hang their hat on subject to the jurisdiction thereof, And the question is are illegal alien subject to US jurisdiction? And if they're not, then perhaps this doesn't apply to them. And so I think there is some difference of opinion upon legal scholars on how this is carefully crafted, this order from the President, But I think the entire objective of the Trump team was to get this into the court system so that it could be adjudicated and it could have some finality once and for all.
Interestingly, one of the executive orders says that federal agencies should identify countries that do not provide sufficient information on their nationals and would bar those nationals automatically. For interesting that I say, is that really a big problem? Do we have countries that just refuse to cooperate and identifying the people coming.
Across Unfortunately, we do. We did this during the first Trump administration. Some people called it the travel ban. I think that was an inaccurate way to describe it. It was actually travel restrictions. And so what we asked every country to do, and hopefully they're repeating this process now, is we asked every country to provide about thirty different data sets to the United States government, things like do you report lost and stolen passports to Interpol, things, so that we understand that you have a good system to determine who you're issuing visas to. And what we found is that there was about six or seven countries at that time now this is going all the way back to two thousand nineteen that simply didn't provide any of that to the United States government, had no interest into it and basically told us to go pound sand And so we put travel restrictions on the type of visitors, the type of business leaders that could come to the United States. As soon as you do that, you get their attention pretty quickly because they don't believe that the United States is actually going to back up their words with actions. But what we saw under President Trump, he's ready to do just that. And so my guess is that a lot of these countries are paying attention now that that new order came out and they know what he did last time. Of course, the Biden administration dropped all of that on day one, but this is the idea of how do you protect Americans and so making sure that countries that maybe don't have as good as visa issuance and qualifications are stepping up their requirements because we're requiring them to We're requiring them to do more because this is about the security and safety of Americans.
Well, in a number of cases, from Venezuela, Mexico and Ol Salvador, for example, we're having criminals just flood Yeah, and if we knew that they'd been in jail back home, we would understand why we were sending them back home immediately and not letting them stay here. One of his decisive actions was the executive order to send the military to the border by declaring a national emergency. And your judgment, do we actually need a military backup for the border patrol in the current environment.
I think we do in the current environment because you've got to think about who operates along that border, and those are the cartels, which, as you know, have more power and influence in arms and money and support down there, and so that's what border patrol agents are often outgunned and outmatched as they work along that border. So to have some Department of Defense support down there, now the National Guard has been down there for some time, you're likely to see some more active duty folks down there. And I think that does a couple of different things. One, it's a little bit of a show of force. Is sends a signal to the cartels that we're serious about changing the dynamics along that border. I think if we continue just to do what we've always done and just how border patrol do what they can, they continue to be outmatched and overwhelmed by the cartels. So declaring the national emergency, freeing up DoD resources, you can do that a variety of different ways. You can do that through assets, through technology, or through manpower. And my guess is the Trump team they're going to do all three of those things. It sends a signal to Mexico. It sends a signal to around the world that we're not going to treat that border the way that we have been over these last four years. And then of course they can scale that as they need that, they can surge them in and then scale it back over time, and then surge it back if they need to.
Relating to that is this whole question that the President has signed and executive order designating the cartels and migrant gangs like the Salvadore and MS thirteen and the Venezuela and Train the Aragua as far in terrorist organizations. How will we deal with them differently now that we're defining them as terrorist organizations.
Yeah, So that designation gets you more authorities. It gets you more authorities to arrest, to detain, and to prosecute.
These individuals. You can go after.
I'm outside of the US, you can go after what I would say are middlemen, right, these are folks that maybe do business.
With the cartels.
Gives you more ability to go after and prosecute those individuals. It also gives you, which is an interesting byproduct, It gives you more grounds on end admissibility of individuals and illegal aliens coming into the US, because if they are paying the cartels, they are now supporting a foreign terrorist organization, and it gives the United States government more of the ability to say, no, you can't come into the United States. If you're supporting by paying an entry fee to the cartels to come into the United States, then you're supporting a foreign terrorist organization, and that's problematic as well. So it provides a number of different authorities. My guess is that it's also changing the political dynamic. Mexico doesn't want this designation, right. They don't want it for a variety of reasons to it, not the least of which tourism is a big part of their economy. And if you have an FTO designation, that's problematic for you.
Don't we somehow have to find a way to have an alliance with the Mexican government to decisively and totally destroy the cartels. They're virtually on alternative government.
Yeah, I think you do, and we saw this.
We were able to effectively partner with the Colombian authorities in the eighties against the cartels there and others. The key there is that the Colombian government wanted our help, asked us to come in, right now we don't have a partner in the Mexican government, but I think if anyone can change their mind, that's going to be President Trump. He's going to put restrictions, He's going to make it uncomfortable for them. We've already hearing about potential tariffs if they don't stop some of the fentanyl and the human trafficking coming across that border. So I think the Mexican government has got its challenges. They're compromised in many ways on this issue, but they can be doing a lot more. And the question is how far are we willing to push? How far is our new Secretary of State willing to push them to do more?
On behalf of the American people.
That's going to be the key, and I think, frankly on bad for the Mexican people.
It's a good point as well.
Yep, some of these groups are really terrible. I did notice that the President also I indicated that he's going to halt all refugee status until the policies were rethought and realigned. I mean, haven't Biden just grotesquely misused refugee status.
Yeah, we just have to look at the people coming across that border. We call them asylum seekers. But we're almost the only country in the world that differentiates refugees and assils.
They're the same.
They're showing up, they're asking for the same protections under US law, and so they should be treated the same. And so when you have ten million refugees coming into your country over these last.
Four years, that's astronomically high.
Now, the Biden administration not only did that, but also administered a refugee admissions program from overseas as well, and so you had more and more individuals coming into the country.
If you remember, after the.
Fall of Kabul, we allowed six hundred thousand Afghans to come into the country who weren't vetted, who didn't go through that refugee admissions program. Instead, we just brought them in and say, oh, we'll vet them after they get here.
And then, of course we've ran into problems.
And so what the president and his team are saying is, let's pause the program, Let's try to shut down the border, Let's try to get a sense of who's come into the border, where they are, and how do we remove them.
We're going to pause that.
He's going to get a report from his DHS secretary his Secretary of State on some recommendations in about sixty or ninety days on should they restart the program and if they should, what are the restrictions that they should have on it.
One things I was fascinated by is the people on the hard left who want to turn cities into sanctuaries or in one or two cases actually states, which has always struck me a as crazy because they have enough crime in their city that they should kind of like to have extra criminals. My sense is that the president's initial step, which is to restrict federal funds from sanctuary cities, I heard the head of the program on immigration say, conceivably you go after them legally for a construction of justice. When you think about how much these cities rely on the federal government for money, isn't that probably going to be a decisive impact that will force them to back down?
Well, it should be. You're exactly right.
A lot of these cities, blue cities with blue mayors and blue governors, receive an astronomically high amount of money and resources from the federal government DHS alone, right, a lot of these cities get home land security grants, get transit grants. Then you go over to the Department of Justice and they'll give them grants as well. And while at the same time, these cities and states are saying, no, we won't cooperate with ice law enforcement officers, Well, that's crazy. We should condition some of this money on that cooperation. And if it's not allowed under your current law, well then President Trump luckily has a Republican Congress to work with to change some of those grant programs to say that you can put some conditions on that. We're not asking them to save the world. We're simply asking them to cooperate with federal law enforcement. They can't take money. And at the same time say we're not going to help you do a job that Congress has told you to do. Congress has directed you to remove individuals from the country. But you know what, we just don't like that. So we're going to tell our law enforcement not to help you, but please keep sending us grant money. It just doesn't make any sense. So I think the team's going to take a hard look at that.
I think that's really good, and I think frankly, the virtue all going to back down. One of the things that I didn't really know about this, and it's interesting. It's the presidential and executive order that will require immigrants unlawfully the United States to register and be finger printed. I guess that hadn't occurred to me. Don't we automatically, for example, if we pick somebody up who's illegal, don't we automatically fingerprint them?
Well, we do.
What we've seen over these last four years is a lot of those corners were cut, so a lot of the fingerprints probably weren't taken. And so I think what this order is trying to do to say, regardless of the amount of people, regardless of the amount of folks coming into the country, the first step, like the basic step, is to fingerprint these folks and make sure that we understand who they are. Now, the question becomes, when you take that fingerprint and you start vetting them, what are you vetting them against? And I think you alluded to this earlier. It's hard to vet someone if they're from Venezuela. It's hard to vet someone if they're from Tajikistan. It's hard to vet someone if their home countries aren't providing information in which to peing them off of, in which to vet their information off of.
So your vetting is only as good as the information that you're vetting against.
In most cases, we're able to do that because we have great agreements with a variety of different countries. But there are some where it's very difficult to determine if this individual is a threat or not. And so I think that's the genesis of this order. They want to collect more information and they want to make sure that they understand who's coming into the country.
So it just.
Strusts me in the modern era that you can use a lot of technology to regain control of your own country from people who shouldn't be here. One of his executive orders ends the CBP one program. What is the CBP one program.
This is something that the Biden administration came up with about two years ago, and they said, we're really tired of thousands and millions of individuals coming across that border illegally. The numbers are out of control, the press is out of control. Everyone thinks for doing a terrible job. So they said, well, let's come up with a program that someone can get on their smartphone. They can get on an app that we created, they can register to come through a port of entry, and then we'll release them into the country, and we'll call that a legal pathway. We won't ask them if they're seeking asylum because we don't care. We're just going to parole them into the country. They can seek asylum later, that matter does, but at least we get them into the country quote unquote, I'm using air quotes. Legally, it's all a farce. It's been a farce for two years now. And what the incoming team said is, no, that's ridiculous. We've never done this. We've never allowed people to register on an app that's hackable, that you can clearly manipulate, and allow them to come into the country with very little vetting. You're supposed to have people that sponsor you into the country. Of course, what we're seeing from a Inspector general's report is there's one address.
You sponsoring fifty people. Right.
So it's been badly abused and so the Trump administration did the right thing. They ended that I think at twelve oh one pm, a minute into their tenure, and it was the right thing to do.
As you know, there's been a lot of talk about the first big wave being raised in Chicago. Do you think that's real and is that going to be an effective device for going after criminals.
We call them targeted enforcement actions. They're not raids.
Raids I think conjure up images that ICE is going to go neighborhood by neighborhooding down doors looking for illegal aliens. That's not how they actually apprehend individuals. They target criminal aliens that are in communities and they will go and they will pick them up. Tom Homan, I think, just today said that those enforcement operations are happening all over the country, as.
They should be.
This is what ICE does day in and day out. They target, they apprehend, and they remove individuals. And so I think what they haven't been doing, though, over the last four years, has been doing that, right, They've just been sitting on their hands sort of handcuffed, i should say, by policies of the Biden administration. So essentially what Tom Homan and President Trump and others are doing is just let them do their job. And just by letting them do their job, you're going to see more enforcement. You're going to see more deportations or removals, and you're going to see more actions across the country. The best enforcement actions are the ones that you never hear about, or at least the ones you don't hear about until.
After it occurs.
Is for the protection of the law enforcement officer and the alien as well.
We've seen all sorts of use of money, both local and federal money, for example, putting illegal immigrants up in hotels. Given the president's executive order to cut off payment for legal immigrants, do you think that will also apply to cutting off payment for the city governments and their various programs.
Well, it certainly could be.
I think some of that is federal money, a lot of that is state and local funding as well. But the argument that I hear lately is it is going to be so expensive to remove these individuals from American communities. And my response to that is, we've paid probably fifty billion with a B or more over these last four years to facilitate the largest influx of illegal aliens into our country, to house them, to bust them, to fly them around the country. Now, I think the American people spoke on November fifth to say we've had enough of that. We actually want them removed from the country. We want criminal aliens removed from our communities. So if we use that funding or a fraction of that funding to actually remove criminal aliens. I think that's what the American people want. It's also very difficult to put a price on protecting your communities so that people like Rachel Morin, Nungerray and others are not brutally murdered and taken away from their families. I think that's what the American people want. The federal government to spend money on. Some of these local governments, the Blue States, Blue cities.
They're going to have to come around to that. They're still not on board.
They still want to be that sanctuary, and I think they're going to find that their citizens are going to get tired of having local ice removal officers and others come into their communities. Instead, you should have ice officers going into their jails and picking up criminals and deporting them and making it very seamless.
They would never know they're there.
But instead they're having to go into communities, and that's unfortunately the way it's got to be now.
I do notice that the President has signed an executive order to deny public benefits to unauthorized immigrants. That will be a very dramatic change if they can implement it.
I think so we did it during the first Trump administration. It was a variety of different things, but the biggest one probably the most noticeable one, who's a public health charge or public charge rule that said, you know, you don't get access to certain public benefits if you can't sustain yourself, or if you don't have a sponsor that is obviously sponsoring you and can sustain you. So the whole idea is, we don't want to let people in that just become a burden to the American people and that are obviously have to go on welfare and taxpayer money. So we want to make sure that those that are coming in do not become a public charge. And I think the incoming team has some history with it during the first term, so I think they've got some ideas on how to do that.
Lastly, President is reinstating the Remain in Mexico policy. Do you have any doubt about his ability to convince the new Mexican president that she really wants to do this?
Yeah, I have little doubt. The question is just how quickly is it going to happen. This is such a good program for a variety of reasons. What it essentially tries to do is you know eighty five percent of folks claiming asylum will never receive a asylum protections because they never qualify for it. And so the idea of this program is, let's get that fifteen percent of protections they need under US law quickly, not five years from now, but maybe five weeks from now. And what it does is it weeds out all the fraud and the abuse in the program. Because if you want to come to the US and you know that you're just using the asylum system to get in, but I'm going to make you wait in Mexico only for you to be denied asylum five six weeks later, you have no interest in doing that. That's not your end goal, right, And so we call their bluff a little bit. Now, if you truly need asylum protections, if your government is truly persecuting you, you have no problem waiting, right because you know that your claim is valid. You've been told by an NGO it's valid. Right, it's been validated. You're going to wait and you're going to get the protections that you need. So I think it's a great program.
Listen, First of all, let me say how impressed I am that I could throw every question at you, and you actually understood it, and it shows that your years of effort, your years of work, more than paid off. I want to thank you for joining me. Your experience at Homeland Security, the team that you currently lead at America First Policy Institute are very helpful to President Trump. I think one of the biggest differences between the first and second Trump term is the work that the America First Policy Institute did over four years to really create the opportunity to have this kind of extraordinarily fast effort, which is frankly amazing. You're a big part of that, and you're a big part of making the America First Policy Institute so successful. Our listeners can learn more about AFPI than the work you and others are doing by visiting your website at America Firstpolicy dot com. And I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to us well.
I appreciate it. Thanks for having me on.
It's always great to see you, and I appreciate the shout out at America First Policy.
We're very excited.
We're very proud of the work that we've done over these last three and a half years, but we're also very excited about what we're going to do over these next four years with an America First administration and power.
Look, I think AFPI will become even more important. You know, when we solve one set of challenges, there'll be a new set.
That's right, that's exactly right.
The world doesn't end in the first one hundred days. But thank you, very very much, thank you to my guest Chad Wolf. You can learn more about America First Policy Institute on our show page at newtsworld dot com. News World is produced by gingersh three sixty and iHeartMedia. Our executive producer is Guernsey Sloan. Our researcher is Rachel Peterson. The artwork for the show was created by Steve Penley. Special thanks to the team at Gingrish three sixty. If you've been enjoying Newtsworld, I hope you'll go to Apple Podcast and both rate us with five stars and give us a review so others can learn what it's all about. Right now, listeners of Newtsworld consign up for my three free weekly columns at gingrishtree sixty dot com slash newsletter. I'm newt Gingrish. This is Newtsworld