Transcript (en)

I don't believe so. The Supreme Court has already upheld our ability to use a pocket rescission at the end of the fiscal year. And that's aimed at these programs, Will, that you're like, we don't want to spend this money, we don't want to have these programs that exist, and we haven't been able to get Congress to act. This allows us at the end of the fiscal year is a provision of the Impoundment Control Act that Congress passed in the 1970s that allows us to send something up as basically as a notification. And then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year. And the Supreme Court has already upheld it last year. You know, to bring this full circle, Director, the conversation over illegal immigration is too often divorced from the economic impacts of illegal immigration. And I think it would be fair to say we're seeing here with both housing and this pocket rescission is the economic impact of illegal immigration. Absolutely. This is something that I think was fairly obvious to people for the last 10, 20 years until President Trump came into office, that illegal immigration costs communities money, higher rents. It crowds out local school districts. IT HAS A HOST OF ECONOMIC IMPACTS. WHEN WE SAY THAT WE'RE GOING AND TRYING TO FURTHER THIS LARGEST DEPORTATION IN HISTORY, IT IS TO LOWER THE COST OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IN ADDITION TO HAVING A BETTER RULE OF LAW AND HAVING SAFE COMMUNITIES. ALL RIGHT.