Tucker Carlson Reacts to Trump Ceasefire Deal and Unloads on "Buffoons" Levin and Cruz, and Michelle Obama's Barack Insult

Summary

After Party with Emily Jashinsky – Detailed Episode Summary

Title: Tucker Carlson Reacts to Trump Ceasefire Deal and Unloads on "Buffoons" Levin and Cruz, and Michelle Obama's Barack Insult
Host: Emily Jashinsky
Guests: Tucker Carlson, Inez Stepman (Innovative Women's Forum), Rachel Bovard (Conservative Partnership Institute)
Release Date: June 24, 2025

---

Introduction

In the inaugural episode of After Party with Emily Jashinsky, host Emily Jashinsky sets the stage for a compelling blend of politics, culture, and news with a focus on big-picture conversations. Emily extends gratitude to Megan Kelly and her team from MK Media for their support in launching the new show, scheduled to air every Monday and Wednesday at 10 PM Eastern.

Notable Quote:
[00:47] Emily Jashinsky: "After Party is a combination of politics and culture and news, and we want to do a little bit of politics and a little bit of late night, and we just want to have fun doing it."

Interview with Tucker Carlson

Emily welcomes her first guest, Tucker Carlson, the renowned host of The Tucker Carlson Show. The primary focus of their discussion revolves around former President Donald Trump's recent announcement of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran.

Trump’s Ceasefire Announcement

Trump announced on Truth Social that "Israel and Iran will enter a complete and total ceasefire" around midnight Eastern Time. This development comes after Tucker Carlson previously warned that a war with Iran could result in thousands of American casualties and economic turmoil due to surging oil prices.

Notable Quotes:
[04:05] Tucker Carlson: "I think we should be grateful to him. I think we should be grateful to God. I think we should understand how close we came."
[25:07] Tucker Carlson: "We just showed restraint. Trump forced a ceasefire between people who hate each other after strike. That is restraint."

Criticism of Mark Levin and Ted Cruz

Carlson vehemently criticizes conservative figures Mark Levin and Ted Cruz, labeling them as individuals who disregard American interests for their agendas. He accuses them of being "buffoons" who prioritize foreign policies that could jeopardize the United States.

Notable Quotes:
[05:30] Tucker Carlson: "Mark Levin is a repulsive ghoul whose entire sex life consists of watching other people get blown up."
[14:14] Tucker Carlson: "If people like that are able to take over a political movement whose stated goal is to serve the United States, first and foremost, America first, make America great again... it's really dangerous for the country."

Views on Identity Politics and Conservatism

Throughout the interview, Carlson expresses strong opposition to identity politics, condemning both left and right-wing tactics that promote division and hysteria. He underscores the importance of focusing on universal American values over group-specific agendas.

Notable Quotes:
[36:08] Tucker Carlson: "I'm an American. I am guaranteed by the Bill of Rights... to express my opinions whether you like them or not."
[36:59] Emily Jashinsky: "Is that because a lot of people might look at that and say, Tucker, they probably think they do care about America. Do you think that's an interesting Distinction."
[36:59] Tucker Carlson: "If you're passing hate speech laws... tell me how that's different from Sharia."

Remarks on Foreign Policy and Iran

Carlson praises Trump's handling of the Iran ceasefire, highlighting Trump's unique aversion to nuclear conflict and his ability to navigate complex international dynamics. He contrasts Trump's approach with that of other conservative leaders, emphasizing Trump's focus on national interests.

Notable Quotes:
[07:55] Tucker Carlson: "Donald Trump has a unique among world leaders, an instinctive aversion to killing millions of people in seconds."
[27:14] Tucker Carlson: "If you are telling me that our interests are identical, then you're lying to me. And I don't like lying actually and at all, especially about things that matter."

Reactions with Inez Stepman and Rachel Bovard

Following the interview, Emily introduces Inez Stepman of Innovative Women's Forum and Rachel Bovard of the Conservative Partnership Institute to discuss their perspectives on Carlson's remarks and broader political implications.

Analyzing Carlson's Take

Inez and Rachel delve into the complexities of Trump's foreign policy, acknowledging his direct and honest approach. They discuss the challenges posed by neoconservative influences within the Republican Party and the potential long-term effects on U.S. foreign relations.

Notable Quote:
[40:28] Inez Stepman: "Donald Trump's foreign policy is neither one of those [isolationist or neoconservative]. He has advisors on both sides of that equation."

Discussion on Trump's Foreign Policy

Rachel highlights Trump's unpredictable yet consistent focus on national interest, contrasting it with the historically ideological approaches of previous administrations. She praises Trump's ability to resist the "pull of inevitability" towards war, suggesting that his leadership has steered the nation away from potential conflicts.

Notable Quote:
[43:45] Rachel Bovard: "Donald Trump is actually very predictable in foreign policy, which I think is the most unpredictable thing of all."

Views on Democratic Party and Identity Politics

The conversation shifts to the Democratic Party's struggle with identity politics and its impact on voter demographics, particularly men. Inez and Rachel express concern over the party's alienation of male voters and the broader implications for political polarization and electoral relevance.

Notable Quotes:
[50:46] Rachel Bovard: "What do you expect? It's not just a political question at this point. It's the psyche of the men who are raised in this environment to hate themselves."
[55:03] Inez Stepman: "The collapse of friendship, of in real life, hanging out... It’s a product of the modern culture that we've created about what it means to be a man."

Conclusion

Emily wraps up the episode by reflecting on the intense and unfiltered nature of the live format, emphasizing the value of transparency and real-time engagement with current events. She acknowledges the mixed reactions from listeners, highlighting the significance of open dialogue in navigating tumultuous political landscapes.

Notable Quote:
[64:49] Emily Jashinsky: "One of the takeaways from my interview with Tucker is that the probability of catastrophe was always significant. The question is whether it was intolerably high or worth the risk."

---

Key Takeaways:

• Tucker Carlson's Insights: Emphasizes Trump's successful mediation in preventing a potential war with Iran, while critically dissecting the roles of conservative figures like Mark Levin and Ted Cruz.

• Critique of Identity Politics: Both during the interview and in reactions, there's a strong condemnation of identity politics and its divisive impact on American unity.

• Democratic Party's Challenges: Inez Stepman and Rachel Bovard discuss the Democratic Party's alienation of male voters and the broader consequences for political balance and electoral success.

• Emphasis on National Interest: Throughout the episode, the importance of prioritizing national interests over ideological or group-specific agendas is a recurring theme.

This episode of After Party with Emily Jashinsky offers a robust discussion on pressing political issues, blending insightful interviews with incisive commentary from featured guests. Listeners are provided with a multifaceted perspective on current events, enriched by firsthand reactions and expert analyses.

Transcript

[Tucker Carlson]

The scariest sound to hear in a factory floor is silence that means something somewhere broke. And now you're paying the team to wait. Maintain X is the asset and maintenance management app that brings your unplanned downtime to zero. Maintain X helps you build preventative maintenance schedules and manage work orders in real time. Try for [e-mail] that's maintained in the letter x.com.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Welcome to Afterparty, everyone, our inaugural edition of the show. Thank you so very much for joining. I want to also thank, of course, Megan Kelly, the wonderful Megan Kelly, who is so supportive and so brilliant and her entire team. Megan's team matches her brilliance, if you can believe it. So I'm very grateful to them to be joining all of you here on our new show with MK Media afterparty. We are going to be here Mondays and Wednesdays at 10pm Eastern. Make sure to subscribe. Subscribe on YouTube. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And you can head over to afterparty emily.com for more information. Now, it's been an incredibly busy news day. We are joined by Tucker Carlson. We will then be joined by Rachel Bovard and Inez Stepman to react a little bit to the conversation that I have with Tucker. Before we get to Tucker, who I know everybody is eagerly waiting to hear from, I just want to say what we're doing a little bit with this show, so bear with me for a moment. I want to put the Gallup trust in media numbers on the screen and just say, if you haven't heard me explain media this way before, I want to just tell you I see it as the difference between Johnny Carson and Stephen Colbert. Now, Gallup tracks trust in media every year since about the mid-1970s, and you will be shocked to learn that it's at a record low. But what's really interesting about this is that it's tied for a record low right now. As of last fall, Gallup's numbers of trusted media is tied for the record low that it hit in 2017. What's interesting about that? Well, the entire media basically said we are going to get better after 2017. They basically said we are going to do it differently. We are finally committing ourselves to figuring out why the trust is broken. Because guess what? The host of Celebrity Apprentice defeated the former secretary of state in a presidential election and nobody said it could happen. Now, Johnny Carson was the top rated host in late night despite being the least political or I should say the least partisan and the least partisan and the most funny. All right, that's just my perspective. Maybe disagree, but Stephen Colbert during the Trump administration, Trump 1.0 was the top rated host in late night, despite being the most partisan and the least funny. It was like least dedicated to the actual craft of comedy. He was doing lectures on a show every night. Why is that? Well, it's because monoculture is dead. There used to be a few options. There used to be three. So advertisers watching Johnny Carson wanted a show that could unify the country, that could get the most number of Americans to tune in so that they weren't tuning in to the other two networks, the other three networks, or reading a book, whatever it is. Now, what you have to do, you can win late night if you're Stephen Colbert by cornering a niche of the American public. In his case, it was resistance wine moms who tuned in night after night for the wonderful stylings of quote, unquote con comedy that Stephen Colbert offered them during Trump 1.0, which, as it turns out, was basically a big joke because he was telling everyone that Trump had colluded with Vladimir Putin to steal the presidency. So that's the way that I look at these things. And after party is a combination of politics and culture and news, and we want to do a little bit of politics and a little bit of late night, and we just want to have fun doing it. So on that note, thank you all for tuning in. And I am beyond excited right now on this very busy news day to bring in the one and only Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson is obviously the host of the Tucker Carlson Show. He joins us. So, Tucker Carlson, thank you for being our very first guest on this new show.

[Tucker Carlson]

Oh, I'm grateful. And I, I loved what you said about Megyn Kelly. There are very few people who don't need to go out of their way to help others. And Megyn Kelly went out of her way to help me at Fox. I've never figured out why. I've never stopped being grateful for it. She's that kind of person. I don't know if that comes through. I don't know if people know that, but it's an absolute fact. So it was just nice to hear you say that.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Well, people should know that because it does make a big difference. When you start watching the output of journalists, when you know that they're good people, it does make a big difference. And she is.

[Tucker Carlson]

There aren't many, Emily. Nope, nope, nope.

[Emily Jashinsky]

But we have one of them joining us now, and that is you, Tucker. So I'm going to start with A question that everyone, I'm sure, has on their mind right now. Now, Donald Trump posted on truth social at 6:02pm that about 2 hours from actually right now. So around midnight, east coast time, Israel and Iran will enter a, quote, complete and total ceasefire. Now, Tucker, you recently predicted, and people are, of course, recirculating now, quote, the first week of a war with Iran could easily kill thousands of Americans. It could also collapse our economy as surging oil prices trigger unmanageable inflation. Consider the effects of 30 gasoline. But the second week of the war could be even worse, end quote. Now, Ted Cruz is already taking a victory lap. He says, quote, it turns out that Tucker was wrong. I just want to get your thoughts on this, Tucker. Did Trump prove you and all of us who doubted the wisdom of this strike wrong tonight?

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, you could ask Trump. I mean, was this fraught with, like, existential peril? Of course. I'm so grateful that he brought it in for a landing. I mean, I think we should be grateful to him. I think we should be grateful to God. I think we should understand how close we came. But I also think we should step back and ponder what we've learned. And what we've learned is, who cares about the fortunes of the United States? And who doesn't? And Ted Cruz doesn't, Obviously, the people who acknowledge no risk at all because they were so focused on helping another country, like Ted Cruz, or like, you know, the many people who revealed themselves in the last two weeks, Mark Levin chief among them. Like, those people should not have any access to power at all. Those people rolled the dice with your life and with the lives of your children. It's disgusting. And so, I mean, just ask yourself, is, is Mark Levin concerned at all about the United States? Like, at all? And the answer is no. Mark Levin is a repulsive ghoul whose entire sex life consists of watching other people get blown up. He was upset that there was a ceasefire and said so. How could you be upset with a ceasefire? How could you be upset that people are no longer dying? By the way, I think the ceasefire is real. We have no idea where anything goes in life. That's up to God. But as of right now, it's absolutely real and we should be thankful for it. And so if your first instinct is this is bad, then you've just told us who you are. And look, that's between Mark Levin and God. And I think it's going to be a tough conversation. But for our purposes, you know, Mark Levin should not have access to power I mean, he almost pushed the President of the United States into a path that would have destroyed the presidency and the United States and a lot of other countries too. So like a victory lap really? No, he was thwarted. John Podharas was thwarted. All the people who are thrilled by the direction this was going, Bill, you know, Bill Kristol, you know, people who are avowed enemies of Donald Trump and are not at all interested in the United States, like they were stopped before getting what they wanted, which was regime changed, military occupation of Iran. So like, you know, they can spend their professional liars. So of course they're lying, but the facts tell a very different story. They didn't get what they wanted and thank God they didn't.

[Emily Jashinsky]

So why do you think the Mark Levins of the world didn't get what they wanted in this case, at least as of right now? Because the President, just because Trump doesn't want nuclear war.

[Tucker Carlson]

I mean, as he said a million times, he doesn't want Iran to have the bomb because he doesn't want more bombs. Cuz he's afraid of nuclear war because he understands what it is. I've talked to him about this on and off camera many times and he has unique among world leaders, like an instinctive aversion to killing millions of people in seconds. And so he's worried about nuclear war. It's the reason Tulsi Gabbard support him is the reason they hate Tulsi Gabbard now because she raises the actual, the very real specter of mass annihilation. And people like Mark Levin just don't care. They're nihilists, but they're hardly conservative. Conservative about rolling the dice on your country, starting a voluntary war. It's like freaking insane. And so, you know, kudos, gratitude and more to Donald Trump for stopping that. But it's not because he was following the advice of Mark Levin or Ted Cruz. I mean, these people are buffoons who again revealed their priorities. And those priorities have nothing to do with the United States. They were absolutely willing to, to destroy the United States and including Donald Trump for an objective that had nothing to do with the United States. And I think every honest person knows that. I mean, that's what we just learned. Like under stress, you reveal who you really are, you show your real priorities. And they did. And like again, that's between them and God. But I think going forward, people like that cannot be allowed to steal the mantle of America first when America's interests are not first on their list of concerns, like not even close So I.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Think you're the first person to ever use the words Mark Levin and sex life in the same sentence.

[Tucker Carlson]

No, but I'm not being mean, I don't, I. Look, it's clear that there are certain people, for whatever reason, it's connected to age, that's obvious. All the people who are most excited about killing seem to be old. I don't know any 35 year olds were really excited when people die. When their videos of dead people on the Internet, they don't get off on that. They're like, you know, they, because they are living their lives, they are in the truest sense, pro life. But there is something about some older people, and I've always had great admiration and respect for older people. I was raised that way. I revered my father, for example, who lived to 84. But there is a category of older people that would include Rupert Murdoch, it would include Lindsey Graham, would turn 70 next month. It would definitely include Mark Levin for whom like killing obviously provides some sort of deep emotional charge. And I don't mean to be glib and say it's sexual, I'm not like the Freudian here, but I mean, clearly you watch Mark Levin talk about killing people and it's really dark and it's certainly not something that any Christian can be comfortable with because Christians are not for killing people. Just period. Just, just to remind you, and I know that there are a lot of evangelicals who are like very excited to kill people. You know, check yourself for a second. Is Jesus's message, we need to drop more bombs on people? Is that what you, is that you're arguing? I mean, I'm sorry to bring it to that, but, but I, I feel that I can say that as a deeply imperfect, flawed, ignorant Christian who's trying to understand the message of the religion, but I'm pretty certain it's not. Let's drop more bombs on people. And to see pastors saying that, you know, that the neocons, many of whom are Jewish, get all the attack, all the hate or whatever, but it's boy, it's not just them. There are a lot of evangelical ministers who are worse than Mark Levin in my opinion. So I just want to say that because it's true.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Yeah.

[Tucker Carlson]

And I think they should measure what they're saying against the gospel. And it's like, is there alignment there? There's not, there's no alignment there.

[Emily Jashinsky]

What Mark Levin is already talking about Iran needing to be pushed to sign a document of unconditional surrender. And I wanted to ask you about our friend Dave Smith's reaction to today's news as it was unfolding. He said, quote, even if the strikes, quote, destroy a lot of equipment, the Iranians can rebuild and the regime will remain in power now more incentivized than ever to get nuclear weapons. So, two part question for you here, Tucker. First, do you agree with Dave? I think I agree with Dave. And second point is, if that is true, then is Mark Levin not pushing us into a much more dangerous situation, and will that have swaying the goal in the beginning?

[Tucker Carlson]

And all this stuff about Iran can't have nukes? I mean, Donald Trump believed that for sure. He's been saying it for a decade. But I don't think a lot of the people who were pushing Donald Trump to further engage in a war with Iran were concerned about that. All what they want is regime change. They said it, by the way they're saying it now. I mean, let's take them at their word. They want regime change. Well, what does that mean? You know, you don't change a regime by bombing it there. No track record of success there. You change the regime by killing the people who run it. And in the end, it's only kind of possible to steer that country in the direction you want by occupying it with people, which is to say troops. So they're arguing for a ground war with a country of 90 million people. And I know it's not interesting, the population of Iran to Ted Cruz, because the details don't matter because he doesn't care about the United States, obviously. But if you do care about the United States, you have to ask, like, okay, regime change, what does that mean exactly? What does that mean for us? How do we do that? Like, how do you affect that? And the answer is by destroying your own country. So, like, let's start with, no, we're not doing that. Let's do everything we can short of that to get the result that we want. But Levin, again, doesn't care about the United States. And they're all wearing the Trump skin suit right now because they think it suits their purposes. These are people who hated Trump. They're anti Trump. They're never Trump. And that would include a lot of people on Fox News who I worked with for 15 years. I know what their political views are. They're my colleagues. They hate Trump. They hate him personally. They hate his agenda. They hate his economic views, and they really hate his foreign policy views, which in private they describe as insane and isolationist. He's a Nazi and all this stuff. I mean, they really have contempt for him. They kept him off the air at Fox News while I was there against my protests. So that's just, that's all true. And it's very frustrating as a literal person who cares about what's true to see people jumping up. Mark Levin or Laura Loomer, that's world's creepiest human. I don't even know where she came from or who she is exactly, but she's running around. I'm Donald Trump's defender. It's bizarre.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Champion.

[Tucker Carlson]

Champion. And I'm the arbiter of what it means to be for America, someone who, again, has no interest in the United States, demonstrated no interest. So I think it's just important. It's not a matter of score settling. And I don't, I don't care what Mark Levin does in his private life. I don't care what his opinions are. And Laura Loomer, I'm not even really sure who she is. However, if people like that are able to take over a political movement whose stated goal is to serve the United States, first and foremost, America first, make America great again. If those people can take control of that political movement, first of all, it's an offense against reality and truth. But second, it's really dangerous for the country. I mean, they washed out of the Democratic Party, the same people, and now they're trying to take over the Republican Party. How about no unbroken track record of failure, unbroken track record of ideas that hurt the United States in measurable ways, impoverished the United States, put us in unpayable debt, killed a ton of people, destabilized the world, caused a refugee crisis in Europe, Destroyed Europe. That's a lot of destruction for one group of, of people. And one set of really bad ideas, the John Bolton's, the Bill Kristol's. Can they be allowed to take over the Trump White House? No. How about no? Just as an American? I mean, I don't, you know, I don't really care what people think of me at this point. I'm 56. You were wrong. Well, yeah, I've been wrong many, many times. I'll be wrong many, many more times. But the one thing I am is sincere. I really mean it. I don't care about the effect on me. I just, I don't want to relive Iraq. And I know the people who did it. I lived among them. I defended it. I repeated their talking point, not doing that again. And we came really close to doing that again because of Mark Levin and Laura Loomer and The rest of these morons who've never even left New Jersey, like, they don't know anything about the world. That's the other thing. They're dumb. They don't know. They don't. Not only they don't know the population of Iran, they don't know anything. They don't know the nations that border it. They just don't know anything. And I'm not making an argument for expertise or having been there, but I am making an argument for being responsible when you demand that the US Military do certain things. Okay, then tell me what happens next. They can't, because again, they don't care. No, it's like we're playing enough of them.

[Emily Jashinsky]

It's like we're playing Tucker's enemies Bingo. Like, we're just, we're.

[Tucker Carlson]

I'm sorry to be that way. And it's not. I mean, I never, I've never attacked Mark Levin. I've never attacked that crazy person whose name I just used a couple of times, probably shouldn't have. But I. All I'm saying is this is really sinister. It's really bad. And because we were just in a crisis for a week, we saw who people are, we saw what they cared about. And I've got nothing against Ted Cruz. Personally, I feel sorry for Ted Cruz, obviously a totally hollow person, taking instructions. But I do think we learned this is not someone who should be influencing wars because he just doesn't know anything. He doesn't care, and he's not putting America's interests anywhere near the top of his priorities. And that's, you know, that. Like, we saw that it's on tape, and it's kind of hard to unsee it. So this is the moment to just draw a line and say we can have all kinds of disagreements, and I'm sure that we will over all kinds of things, including wars. But if you've shown that you just don't care what happens to the United States, if you're one of the people who said, you know, the people in Gaza are so dangerous that they have to be expelled from Gaza, and by the way, maybe we should move them to the U.S. people said that. I think Ben Shapiro said that. If you are telling me that the people who live in Gaza are so evil that they can't live where they were born, they have to move somewhere else, and, oh, by the way, they should move to my country. What are you saying? You're saying that your country is a trash can into which we can throw a refuse, and that's Their attitude. And as an American, I'm a genuine. I mean, I was born here, I'm going to die here. I just want to raise my voice and say, no, you can't treat my country with that level of contempt.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Have you spoken to the President since last week?

[Tucker Carlson]

Yeah, I have, actually.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Okay, and on that note, is that, are you afraid going forward that there's still significant room for. We keep using Mark Levin. I'm really using it as a stand in for a group of people that include Lindsey Graham, that include John Bolton, for that wing of the Republican Party, the broader conservative movement, to still have significant input over policy in the Middle east, but particularly Iran.

[Tucker Carlson]

Am I concerned that like normal people will have input or am I. I mean, the normal people won, right? Again, it's not even ideological. I've got all kinds of theories about all kinds of things. Some of them are stupid, probably, but it's not even about, like, what your worldview is. It's just super simple. I live here, my four kids live here, I hope to have grandchildren here. The country's got a ton of problems. I think the government should focus on those problems first and foremost, not other people's problems. Doesn't mean I'm not an isolationist. I shouldn't ignore the world. I've been all around, though. I've been to like every country in the world practically. I've been everywhere. I'm really interested in the world. I don't hardly want to be isolated. Of course, Mark Levin never gets out of his studio. You're an isolationist, okay? No, I'm not an isolationist. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that as a father treats his family, a president and a government should treat their country, which is put the country first. That's it. Your first concern doesn't mean I don't care about my neighbor's kids. I do. I love my neighbor's kids. But I love my kids most because they're my kids. That's all I'm saying. And show that you mean it by acting that way. And so you should be a lot more upset with the Mexican drug cartels which kill people I know in my town, including recently, than you are with the mullahs in Iran. That's not a defense of the mullahs in Iran. I'm not pro mullah at all. But, but like, from my perspective as an American, I'm a lot more afraid of the drug cartels than I am of the mullahs. And that doesn't make me a Bigot. And by the way, if you say that it does, you've just disqualified yourself. Like, that's. That's just. I just want to think. I'm just kind of sick of identity politics. I really am. I voted against it, actually, November, when I voted for Donald Trump. I'm just sick of it. I'm sick of laws that single out one group for protection or punishment. I think we should be treated as citizens, regardless of what group we're from. I just don't like the whole group thing. They would always say you're a white supremacist. No, I'm not. I'm mad at a lot of white people, actually, mostly, if you want to know the truth. But I don't. I don't want to think of people in terms of the group they were born into. I just don't like that kind of thinking. I don't like the left because it is institutionalized, that kind of thinking. And so when I see members of Congress passing laws that apply to, like, a small percentage of Americans, I'm like, wait a second, I voted against this. I'm not against those Americans at all. I just think that all laws should apply to all Americans equally. Your concern should be for people on the basis of their citizenship, not their racial, ethnic, or religious group on their citizenship. The US Government should care about US Citizens, not some. All, including the ones you disagree with and don't like. All because we're all citizens. That's a unifying message, and that's being lost. And Republicans in the Congress don't seem too. They're all totally into identity politics all of a sudden. I thought we hated that. I think my memory is too good to live in this country because, like, things change and people like, oh, no, it's always been this way. No, it's not. Mark Levin was not a leading host on Fox. He was a joke. Mark Levin's not a foreign policy expert. He's a guy with a, like, weird personal life and like, a love of killing. No, we're not for identity politics. We're against that. I remember this anyway. I think it's important to be the guy who remembers, and I want to be that guy.

[Emily Jashinsky]

So saying. Because you just used the word unifying, and it turned out to be a perfect segue to a question I wanted to ask, saying that Mark Levin, Ted Cruz don't care about America.

[Tucker Carlson]

Yeah.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Is that because a lot of people might look at that and say, tucker, they probably think they do care about America. Do you think that's an interesting Distinction.

[Tucker Carlson]

Show me how they just rolled the dice up to. Right up to a global conflict. I'm not speculating. Okay.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Yeah.

[Tucker Carlson]

And one of the reasons we're not. I mean, Donald Trump didn't want a global conflict. He said that. I think he handled this. You know, if. If what was announced today holds, I think we can say that was pretty amazing. Pretty amazing. Brinksmanship there scared the crap out of me, I'll tell you that. Why wouldn't I be afraid? Anyone who's like, oh, you were afraid. Really? Yeah. I care about America. You know, been here a long time, plan to stay. Like, why wouldn't I be afraid? It's a threat to my country. It's not. So I'm a for being afraid. Okay, I'm a pussy. But I was. Why wouldn't I be? I have children. I'm actually not that worried about dying at this stage. I'm pretty old, but I am worried about people I love dying. So, yeah, I was afraid. And I think anyone. In the same way you'd be afraid if you had a home invasion, you'd be afraid for your wife and kids. You're the dad. Like, it's your job to defend them. And maybe you're a little bit paranoid about it or something. That's okay. Paranoia in the defense of your loved ones is no vice. And so people who are like, oh, some. I see these creepy foreigners online being, like, telling me what America first is. It's like, you're like, go away. I don't know what you're doing here. Weighing it on my country's politics, but it's one of the things. Last thing I'll say is I'm not reading. I. You know, I'm getting offline for a while because I think part of the gig is to get in your head to, like, put someone like Mark Levin, who's so reckless and stupid and crazy and vicious, or that lunatic girl who's running around who's equally or more so, and the point is to make you crazy. Kind of like, you see that and you're like, are you kidding? Mark Levin, the Never Trumper, is lecturing me about what it is to, like, Trump, who I campaigned for Trump. And I think it's kind of an OP or something. It's, like, designed to make you into a babbling, crazy person, which, unfortunately, I've become a little bit tonight because I have such a mixture of emotions. So I'm sorry to inflict that on you. You're such a sweet person, Emily. I'm sorry But I think it's good to step away from that a little bit and have some silence in your life. And maybe the joke is on me that I'm all of a sudden paying attention to Mark Levin because I do feel like he was such a dangerous influence on this, on the course of this country. But I'm gonna really studiously just ignore that for the same reason I don't have a tv. I don't want that crap in my house. There's nothing you're telling me that I didn't know. There's nothing you're telling me that's true. I just don't want it. In the same way I don't, like, stream porn into my kitchen. Like, I don't want that. I think I'm gonna pull back from the Internet a little bit and I think I'll be a wiser person for doing so.

[Emily Jashinsky]

You know, on that note, people will wonder if you believe that the last, I don't know, 48 hours, 24 hours, actually 12 hours since Trump made this announcement proves that your worldview is in some way wrong. That, you know, your, your restraint in foreign entanglements based on showdowns.

[Tucker Carlson]

We just showed restraint. Trump forced a ceasefire between people who hate each other after strike. That is, that is restraint. Right, But I'm, I mean, the level of risk was really high for me. I'll just say that I am, I am like genuinely conservative because I, I care. I don't, I don't even know if Mark Levin has, has biological children. I don't know that he. I have no idea. I don't want to. I'll stop attacking Mark Levin. I'm just saying I see everything through the lens of my family. And why wouldn't I? I'm the head of my family and that's my obligation, that's my, that's my duty, to see everything through the lens of their well being. And is this good for them? Tell me how exactly. So, yeah, I mean, I felt really threatened by that. And I think that, you know, all's well that ends well. It looks like we're. And I think it's. Again, I'm not just speculating, you know, I think this is real for now and I pray that it remains real. And I think it totally could. I think interests are aligned, actually. I think it's a very clever arrangement they've come up with and I'm grateful for it. But I can't unsee what I saw, which is the behavior of people who claim to be conservative, who are identity Politics, lunatics who are totally reckless and who just don't care about our country at all. So I can't unsee it. And I just. I'm pretty determined to say what I've been saying for the last 20 years, 22 years since I left Iraq, which is the neocons are really destructive and they can't have power. Oh, shut up. You can't call us neocons. Okay? I'm over it. I'm over the mind games, that worldview. Colonize the world, destroy your own country. I mean, the verdict is in. That did not work. It didn't improve the rest of the world, I can tell you, having been. And it definitely didn't improve my country. This country's in way worse shape than it was in August of 2001, flat out. I mean, it's just a fact. And by every measure, every single measure, including life expectancy. So you can't tell me this worked. It didn't work. And so I just want to keep saying that, well, would.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Would Iran have come to the table? I mean, would an agreement like this have been possible without the strikes, in your estimation? Because that's the argument we're going to hear going forward.

[Tucker Carlson]

Well, I mean, I don't know. You know, this happened on a Friday. And Steve Witkoff, who I consider one of the really decent people in government, who's serving at his own expense with the sole purpose not to, you know, aggrandize in any way or get rich or anything. He's only doing it because he thinks it helps Trump and America. And those are good motives, in my opinion. I really think a lot of Steve Wyckoff, he's just a wonderful man, and he was set to go to Amman on Sunday when this broke out last Friday. And so there was a process in place that was thwarted by another country. It just sort of ignored our process and decided like, oh, we're in charge of your foreign policy. And, you know, that's a huge. That's a huge problem. That's not hate for Israel. I certainly don't hate Israel. As a relatively frequent visitor to Israel and a great enjoyer of Israel, and as a Christian who loves Jerusalem and a friend of a number of Israelis, I'm not anti Israel, but that's ridiculous behavior. And we're also intimidated to say that. I don't know why. Why are we afraid to say that that's not good. Trump had a plan. He said so. Wyckoff said so. There's been a lot of lying about how that worked.

[Emily Jashinsky]

He was going to say that the reporting is that Trump was watching Fox News. He was really impressed with the Israeli strike. He wanted to project strikes.

[Tucker Carlson]

My understanding that is true. But the strike was, you know, not something that we called for at all. Like Trump was trying to solve this diplomatically and the whole thing got derailed by another country deciding, we don't care what your diplomatic efforts are, we don't care what Trump thinks. We're doing this. That's a fact. And you know, that's okay. I mean, each country acts in its own interest. But don't tell me our interests are identical. They're not identical. No two countries interests are identical. Our interests in Sweden's interests aren't identical. Like that's a lie. And if you're telling me that, then you're lying to me. And I don't like lying actually and at all, especially about things that matter. So that's just a fact that happened now. You know, a lot happened since then. A lot. And it's quite complicated and, but, but the bottom line is that we are, I think, in a really good place. Trump forced restraint on the parties. Did the bombing campaign help the dropping bunker busters on two of the sites? Yeah, seems like it. No. Americans were killed on the Iranian strike in Qatar. And let me just say one other thing that I resent simply because it's an offense against the truth. The constant attacks on Qatar. Whose prime minister is, you know, one of Donald Trump's like most trusted interlocutors. One of the people he, he trusts and one of the people who really helped bring this to a peaceful conclusion. You know, and Qatar doesn't want a war because they share a gas field with Iran and they're right across the Gulf from Iran. Of course it does not in their interest. But you know, Qatar spends a lot of time and a lot of money. I know this kind of trying to broker peace between different countries. You know, they are sort of a new Switzerland. Switzerland was for, you know, generations was non aligned and now it's aligned. It's effectively part of NATO. Not officially, but effectively it is. And so Switzerland is not a good faith, you know, mediator between any two countries at all. So. But you need one, you need like a real un a place where warring countries can come together and try and come to terms like it's really important to have that. And so there are a couple countries in the Gulf that serve that role now. One is uae, Saudi to some extent, and Qatar, and that helps the United States. And by the way, Qatar has Done a lot for Israel. Just a fact. A fact. Qatar has done a lot for Israel. In fact, its air base, which was just struck by Iran, the fact they have that air base is very provocative to Iran. Why do they have that air base? Why do we have so many bases in the Gulf? Well, a couple of reasons, but one of those reasons is to protect Israel. So for people who are like defenders of Israel to be attacking Qatar, like as a terror state. What liars. I guess they seem like they, they believe they get something out of that or making some compelling point or whatever, but it's just a lie. It just bugs me. I've never taken a dime from Qatar. I've been there one time. I'm hardly like a Qatar partisan. You know, I live in Maine. I mean, come on. I've got nothing to do with Qatar. But I just hate the lying. It really bugs me. And by the way, it's a little much to be called, you know, a tool of a foreign power by people who actually, like legit are tools of foreign powers like they are. I know them. I know that they're reading talking points written by a foreign government on behalf of foreign government and they're like everyone else is a tool of Qatar. Qatar. It's like, what? It's so nuts that I kind of ignored it at first because why would you be a tool of Qatar, a country of 300, 000 people? No, you took money from Qatar. I don't need any money from Qatar. I haven't taken any money. It actually makes me want to take money from Qatar and just announce it. By the way, we're gonna take it.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Money even.

[Tucker Carlson]

Yeah, but I'll just say I know people. I happen to know people who live in that country and who make decisions in that country. And what a, what a nice group of people. I don't agree with everything, the every Qatari national objective. Of course, I'm a non Arabic speaker, you know, who doesn't, whatever. It's not my world, but my experience has been these are generally kind of good faith people. I know Donald Trump feels that way. And so I wish. Of all the dumb talking points that have been trotted out recently. The Qatari agent of influence and they're controlling our universities. They're not controlling our universities. Like, are you joking? It's such a mirror of Russiagate. It just kind of freaks me out that so many people on the right are, are kind of running exactly the same playbook as people on the left ran five years ago. It's like all of their. Everyone they disagree with is a tool of a foreign power. Okay? Everything is about identity politics. Gin up hysteria and fear to control people. It's like, I hate all of those things. I voted for Trump because I hate those things. I hated them when they happened. After George Floyd died, when he OD'd on fentanyl, we all had to pretend he was murdered by a cop and some cop went to prison for it. It's like the whole thing was like bewildering to me. I hated it. I said so. And now I see the Mark Levins of the world doing exactly the same thing. It's identity politics, it's fear, it's irrational, it's hysteria, and it is immediately going to motive. No one can possibly have a good faith disagreement with me. Everyone who disagrees with me is either a bigot or a tool of a foreign power. It's like, wow, man. If there's one thing I dislike about the left, it's behavior like that. And there are a lot of people on the so called right who are behaving in exactly the same way. Exactly. It's almost like a, it's like a costume party. It's like, are you kidding? I can't believe you're doing that. If there's one less of the last five years. It's like, we believe in free speech. We believe in hearing people when they speak, assessing arguments on the basis of, like, reason rather than emotion, rather than appeals to group interests. Are you joking? That's identity politics. We hate that. Well, I hate that. I'll always hate that. And I don't care if somebody stands up and says, I speak for all 56 year old, mildly overweight white Episcopalians from the Northeast. I'm not gonna be like, yeah, that's right. I just don't. I believe in America. I believe in citizenship. I don't believe in that. And now we know who does believe in that. And there are a lot of them on the right, unfortunately. I will never believe in that.

[Emily Jashinsky]

I love you as a spokesman for the Episcopalian community. I mean, that's.

[Tucker Carlson]

They're not many, by the way. I think they've kicked me out of the church, but whatever, I don't care. I'm just saying, even if it's my, my interest or my people's interest or whatever, I hate that style of politics. You will have a civil war if you keep talking like that. You have to appeal to citizenship and to universal principles that apply to everyone. Everyone to, you know, left wing black ladies in Gary, Indiana. And right wing white guys in Maine or whatever, and everyone in between, because we're all Americans. And if you don't start talking like that, you will break up. And. And I. It's not all Levin's fault, but it's like half the people I know. I'm conservative. I hate the liberals. Well, then why are you talking like one? Why are you talking. Why you. Why are you taking their worst ticks and making them your own? Why are you accusing other people on the base of no evidence of being disloyal Americans? Are you kidding? Fuck you. By the way, how dare you call me a disloyal American? I mean, like, it's unbelievable. I hated it when the left did it. I hated even more when National Review does it, which is endlessly. And why are they still around, by the way? Do you have any idea?

[Emily Jashinsky]

Someone has to keep the gates. Someone has to tend to the well.

[Tucker Carlson]

But it's like such a. It's such a Sisyphean task. Like, it's impossible. That rock cannot be pushed to the top of the mountain. You cannot keep the gates with the Internet. So they're going to try and shut down the Internet. Obviously. That's what all of this is about, is curtailing free speech. It's why DeSantis and a bunch of other governors signed hate speech laws. Republican governor signing hate speech laws. Texas, Florida. Are you joking? Oh, they're not hate speech laws. They certainly are. They certainly are. You're against Sharia law, but you are against criminalizing indecent opinions. Tell me how that's different from Sharia. Exactly. I'm an American. I am guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, Guaranteed a right that God gave me, which is to express my opinions whether you like them or not, in this country, that is America. And if you're passing hate speech laws, you know who. Who's the disloyal American? It's not me.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Tucker Carlson, host of the Tucker Carlson Show. So fortunate to get a slice of your time in this very, very busy day. Thank you.

[Tucker Carlson]

So spun up. Emily, I'm sorry for inflicting on you, but I really do mean every word. Thank you.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Appreciate it, Tucker. Thank you so much. All right. All right, everyone. Well, we have Inez, Stepman and Rachel Bovard coming in after the break. But before they get here, I want to tell you a story about a guy, Leo Grillo. While on a road trip, Leo came across a Doberman. And the dog was severely underweight and clearly in trouble. Leo rescued that Doberman. Doberman and named him. Delta. So cute. Sadly, Delta was just one of many animals that needed help and that inspired Leo to start Delta Rescue, which is the largest no kill, care for life animal sanctuary in the world. They've rescued thousands of dogs, cats and horses from the wilderness and they provide their animals with shelter, love, safety and a home. This dedication and everlasting love to animals is Leo's mission and legacy. Delta Rescue relies solely on contributions from people like us. And if you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak with your estate planner. Because there are tax saving estate planning benefits too. You can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. Check out the estate planning tab on their website to learn more and speak with an advisor. Or we call Dog Man's best friend for a reason so you can help those who need it most. Go ahead. Please visit Deltarescue.org today to learn more. That's Deltarescue.org hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile.

[Tucker Carlson]

Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mint mobile.com Switch upfront.

[Inez Stepman]

Payment of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees, extra seam and.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Mobile.Com I'm so happy to be joined now by two of my friends. That's something that I get to do on this show and I'm so happy for it. Two people who absolutely hate animals, by the way, they hate dogs. I just opened a beer here. Inez, Stepman of Innovative Women's Forum and Rachel Bovard of the Conservative Partnership Institute. Inez and Rachel, thank you both for being here.

[Inez Stepman]

I like how you're starting your new show by spreading disinformation about how we hate animals. That's just.

[Emily Jashinsky]

I don't know. We're gonna have to check with the intelligence here.

[Rachel Bovard]

I am.

[Emily Jashinsky]

That's what my intelligence is. Telling that one.

[Rachel Bovard]

Yeah. Correct. The truth. I'm staying up late for you.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Oh, that's right. And probably not drinking either because you both have children now. But you guys both were here for the Tucker Carlson interview and I imagine because I think Rachel and I are probably more aligned on this than Inez is. So inez I'm going to give you the floor first. Let me wind you up and just let you respond to what you heard. Some news in that he had talked to President Trump in the last several days. He does believe he was wrong that it wouldn't have. He, he doesn't believe Iran would have come to the table like it appears to have done now without the strike, but not wrong about the probability of catastrophe. So, Inez, what's your reaction to what you just heard?

[Inez Stepman]

Well, I think you asked a really good question. He mentioned some of those things which was, you know, does this impact your worldview? Does this say something about your worldview that you were very wrong about this? Look, we're all wrong. That's not, you know, that's sort of, you know, that's a given here. But I think that's the really relevant question. And that's why I think Donald Trump's foreign policy is so interesting because, you know that actually the other half of this equation is probably going to be wrong. This fight is going to be wrong about Donald Trump again. And so, I mean, so that's really, I think my response then is that, sorry, there's just so many things that he said that I'm like, I'm trying to think about what, what to say. So I think it was simplistic to define basically matters of war and peace in terms that are, and he says himself he doesn't like to use the word isolationist. And he complained about people complaining about him using the word neocons. Donald Trump's foreign policy is neither one of those. He has advisors on both sides of that, that equation. And he said in the past that he actually uses those advisors to communicate things to his adversaries. So I would sum up his foreign policy both in the first term and in this term as somewhere in between, but as like probably the most direct and honest foreign policy that we've seen in the sense that he telegraphs what he does. So he said there's a 60 day window. And on day 61. Right. Bombs started dropping on Tehran. By the way, that that happened as well in the Ukraine context where a lot of media missed the fact that he tweeted or truth. Right. That, that he, that, that he had like that he was holding Ukraine back in exactly the sort of drone operation, similar drone operation. Right. So I think this is happening on his timeline and I think maybe the unprincipled exception of the sort of litany of insults, frankly, that Tucker was throwing at people, the unprincipled Exception was Donald Trump. Because what I think is very, very clear is that Donald Trump is in charge of his policy. And to the extent that people think they're influencing him, I'm sure he listens to a lot of different people. But actually, I think more often he uses them to communicate to his adversaries, to his enemies, something that he wants them to believe. And he said that very explicitly about John Bolton. Just, you know, as he was running for president, he said, John Bolton. I like having him next to me in the room, and not because I'm going to necessarily listen to his advice, because it communicates something to the person across the table. And now I think, frankly, the sort of dovish part of his administration, his advisors have been communique in the same way. So Donald Trump is actually very predictable in foreign policy, which I think is the most unpredictable thing of all.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Rachel, you have historically had the most boring portfolio in all of politics in the various jobs that you've held. But you did work for Senator Rand Paul, who's been very opposed to the president on this. You also are familiar with the types of circles, the types of people that Inez was just referencing, you know, the folks that are coming from both sides and talking to the president, advising the president from different directions. So what do you make of Inez's take on the push and pull that maybe got us to where we are right now?

[Rachel Bovard]

Well, I think there's definitely a push and pull. We know that Trump loves argument. Trump loves disagreement. That is, you know, he. It's a New Yorker thing about him. I think he thrives in the chaos. It's the businessman about him.

[Emily Jashinsky]

You can say that because you're a New Yorker. And actually I'm the only non New Yorker here, which is out of chaos.

[Rachel Bovard]

Rises, you know, opportunity for Donald Trump. But I will say this. I think what perplexes people the most about Donald Trump, you know, from wherever you sit, if you've been watching foreign policy and politics for any length of time, is that he is the first non ideological president when it comes to foreign policy. Every other decision that we've made in this realm is influenced by a lens through which we view things. I mean, you think clearly back to the Iraq war. That was a. That a moral imperative almost, right? We had a moral veneer over everything that we did. We're bringing democracy to Iraq. We're gonna help all these beleaguered groups. It wasn't real politic really. It wasn't geopolitics or great power politics. It was this moral lens, and I think we've become so accustomed to that. So when Donald Trump enters the equation and is literally the only lens through which he views things, I really do believe is the national interest. We've never actually experienced this before as a country, and so it feels incoherent because of the history of how we do things. And I did work for Rand Paul, and one of the reasons I went to work for him right when he got elected was this question. Because this town, and this is what scared me so much about the strikes in Iran, is not so much what Trump would or wouldn't do, it's that this town is so primed for war. And I have seen that up close. I've seen it in some skiffs, I've seen on the Hill. Everybody around Donald Trump, from the military to the intelligence agencies, they want one thing, and that is kinetic action. And they push away any accountability that people try to put on them, and they create a series of choices that make that sort of military action look inevitable. So my fear was that this was lining up to that again. And you know what, if this ceasefire holds, if there's a peace deal reach, God bless Donald Trump, because he will be the first president in my lifetime that's been able to resist that pull of inevitability because the entire town is set up to do just that. Yeah.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Amen. I think that's exactly right. You know, just as I think about it, Tucker used the word paranoia, and I just think that's a really good word. I feel like the entire world has been utterly paranoid since Hiroshima. And I don't think that it's an irrational paranoia. That's kind of an oxymoron. But we all have to be. Be irrationally. We all have to be paranoid. When you have nuclear weapons, that can just have dramatically changed the way human beings relate to each other. And that sounds like woo, but it's absolutely true. We forget about it sometimes because we've just been in a rush to, you know, get through the Cold War and then get through the post Cold War period and build McDonald's everywhere so that we can have lasting peace. But I think that was just really well put, actually. I. I feel like I agree with both of you, but maybe we should keep like a. At some point I should get a control where I can give you guys points talk, and then I can take them away. I think that would be really fun for me. On a lighter note, this has been a really dark news cycle, obviously for very clear reasons. So I thought you know, just keeping on this theme of misery. We should bring in Michelle Obama, a miserable person. Apparently a miserable person. And we have a clip ready to go of Michelle Obama on her podcast. I know you guys watch, I wouldn't say every episode, but most episodes of Michelle Obama's podcast. Try not to miss an episode of what she does. But she has a podcast. She was talking about her children. Got asked a question. Let's roll this clip. And I want to get your guys response.

[Tucker Carlson]

It's about what he needs as a grown man in the world. That would be. You should have threw a boy in the mix. I would. I'm so glad I didn't have a.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Boy here.

[Tucker Carlson]

Because he would have been a Barack Obama, the oh baby Barack. It would have been amazing. No, I would have felt for him.

[Emily Jashinsky]

I don't want to have a boy. He'd be like my husband. Wonderful. Now I want to connect this. Follow me along here with the New York Times headline that went kind of viral over the weekend. It's just men, where have you gone? Please come back. Incredible headline. One that could have been predicted. Now a part of a quote from this article is quote. We have moved into an era where many men no longer seek women to impress other men or to connect across difference. They perform elsewhere alone. They filtered us out. We're still here. Those of us who are willing to concrete something true co create something true. We are not impossible to please. False as a woman.

[Rachel Bovard]

False.

[Emily Jashinsky]

We're not asking for performances. We are asking for presence, for courage, for breath and eye contact and the ability to say I'm here. I don't know how to do this perfectly, but I want to to try and as. Does your husband make eye contact with you? If not, why?

[Inez Stepman]

He makes eye contact with me every day usually to tell me that I'm wrong about something. And he's usually right.

[Emily Jashinsky]

No, I mean stop shopping and shut up.

[Inez Stepman]

The number, the number one, I feel like rule in marriage, maybe it's not the number one rule, but it ought to be up there, which is that you are only allowed lighthearted jokes in public. Right. And that's what makes I think this interview so uncomfortable with Michelle Obama. It is really uncomfortable and wrong, frankly, to see somebody insult their spouse publicly. What does that say about you, first of all, that you chose this person. Right. And frankly, Michelle Obama has so little grounds on which to to do this. Like Hillary Clinton, nobody would know who she was if not for her husband, which is a very strange position to be lobbying, you know, insults at her husband and Sort of. I mean, this is just. This is really insulting. Like, nobody should say this about their spouse. It says a lot about. If they say that in public. But the New York Times article, the reason I was looking down a minute ago is because I wanted to pull out a line from this New York Times article that you're referencing, and that is maybe no one taught you how to say. Maybe you tried once and it hurt. Maybe the role the world told you that your role was to provide, to perform, to protect, and never to feel. Which just to me, stuck out in this. This article as exactly the wrong attitude. I feel like there is a deluge of pieces that go viral every. I mean, the New York Times Modern Love section is a great bastion of these kinds of pieces that go viral and spark conversation online. But I would translate all of them as our husbands are bad because they're not women.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Right?

[Inez Stepman]

Because they don't process information or they don't bond in the same way, or they don't communicate in the same way. It's the premising of a feminine style of communication. And I think this is a broader political issue. It's one that J.D. vance touched on during the election with his childless cat lady comments and about misdirected female energy. But I think it's. And it's something that online Sphere talks.

[Emily Jashinsky]

About with the misdirected female energy playing at Bonnaroo. Yeah, right.

[Inez Stepman]

And I think that actually is a very important lens. It's not the only lens, but a very important lens that we should be looking at our politics through. Because so many of those institutions that have been losing trust have within them, whether that's in a private sector, in the corporate world, or whether that's in government, have, if in some, in many cases just a female majority, but even in the cases that they don't, this kind of feminine cast to them and that this. That's. That's. I don't know. It stuck out to me in this article that she was saying, basically, she's dismissing the role of men while complaining that they have disappeared. But in the very same piece that she wrote where she's complaining that they disappeared, she's basically saying the unique things that men bring to the table vis a vis women are useless and to be dismissed and are just something that they're, quote, unquote, taught.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Rachel, I have to know if you are properly directing your female energy, but also as a boy mom. You are a boy mom. Tell us why, or if you agree with the premise that I think Inez and I are getting at here, which is that men, particularly by cultural people, culturally, on the left, who have dominated a lot of these conversations, shaped and driven and influenced a lot of these conversations for multiple decades through academia, the media, Hollywood, if they've actually been. Are they now regretting what they've done to men? It seems like maybe it's subconscious, not conscious. What do you make of that?

[Rachel Bovard]

Yeah, well, first I have to go back to this idea that I listened to Michelle Obama's podcast on the. Routinely I do that only when I can stack it with episodes of the View. And it's when I really feel like I need to, like, do penance for something, then I watch them together. Anyway. Yeah, it's a good strategy. My. My two sons are sleeping upstairs. And this is something I really never considered until I was blessed with. With raising boys in this kind of environment. Because that piece is just. She's missing men. She's re.

[Emily Jashinsky]

They.

[Rachel Bovard]

All of the institutions that you mentioned are reaping what they have sown for decades. You have told men for years it is unacceptable to be a man, that being a man is the worst thing that you could be. In the intersectional pyramid, men are like the concrete on which the pyramid stands. There is nothing defensible about them at all. And when you spend years telling people this, what do you expect?

[Tucker Carlson]

Right?

[Rachel Bovard]

What do you expect? It's not just a political question at this point. It's the psyche of the men who are raised in this environment to hate themselves, essentially. And I think that it's a challenge, frankly, for parents to raise boys with the self esteem, but also the respect that's. You treat them how to. Or you teach them how to treat a woman to be respectful and how to talk to them. I talk to other parents whose kids are older. And there's this just plague in high schools now where boys are even too scared to go up and ask girls out on dates. This is a product of the modern culture that we've created about what it means to be a man. And I think it's a huge problem for us going forward. And sadly, when I think about more than I ever wanted to, but here we are.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Yeah. So, I mean, people like us have been having this conversation for at least 20 years. I mean, more like 30 years. And I mean, even before that, if you go back to like the great Phyllis Schlafly, but my college job was working for Christina Haas Summers on the rerelease of a book that she came out with In, I think 1999 or 2000 called the war against boys. And I think you were about to say that the left is kind of reaping what it sowed. I agree with that. And I wonder if it feels like this is changing because the whole, like, podcast bro slur that's been tossed around by the left as they seek to reacquaint themselves with some of these men that they've lost and kind of forced themselves to talk to some of the men that they've lost. That requires, like crossing a bridge. I don't think a lot of them actually want to do. And I read this piece as maybe flirting with what it would take. I don't know. Inez, what do you mean? Like, do you think that the, that they'll be able to successfully reconnect with men, to bring men back into these spaces so that they can have male eye contact? Is this in the future?

[Inez Stepman]

No, I, I really don't think. I think you're just like, you're just like, no. Well, the pitch, it's pretty clear.

[Rachel Bovard]

Always such a beacon of light.

[Inez Stepman]

No, the pitch they're going to end up giving, I think is one that is really sad. But it's the only one that they can consistently give with their deeply held worldview and principles, right? Which is they're going to offer endless unrestricted porn, online gambling. Right? And they're going, they're going to take that case to young men and say, well, you know, you don't want, you don't want Republicans to stop you from doing these things that are, you know, I think increasingly people realize they're at least somewhat bad for you. Right. Their vices.

[Rachel Bovard]

Don't forget the AI girlfriends. I feel like that's a.

[Inez Stepman]

Well, that's true. And you know, in some way that's, that's worse because it's the like, emotional connection that you should find with another human being. And by the way, it's not just sexual relationships that are in collapse. We know that the younger generation is not having as much sex as past generations. They're also not dating as much, etc. Etc. The sex war is. Are endless and ongoing all the time. But I think missing in a lot of that is the collapse of friendship, of in real life, hanging out, you know, just. It's hard to make a connection with the opposite sex if you have just. You don't even hang out with the opposite sex. And feeding into that as fewer and fewer people have siblings, right? So the number of relationships that people have, even the non sexual relationships with the opposite sex has really declined. So I Mean, yes, they're reaping what they sowed. I don't know that they really have a way to pivot a lot of the outreach, quote, unquote, to men. As cringy as it is, it reminds me a lot of that brief moment. You talk about this all the time, Emily, after the 2016 election where the New York Times was like, we, we must send at least one reporter to fly over country to see what all these people are about. Right. It reminds me of that. But I don't think they're fundamentally going to be able to change. And frankly, as a political party, I'm not sure it makes sense for them to, because their largest constituency are single unmarried women. And just to back that up with one sentence of numbers, right. We don't need, basically, yeah, like, married men. Married women and single men all vote Republican by, you know, relatively small margins. Each one of those is like under 60%, like somewhere in the 50s. Right. And then single women vote Democrat by something like 30 or 35 points. And that's a gap that's endured basically since the 80s. It started opening up and endured until now and is only widening. So I actually would flip that advice around. I don't really think it makes sense for the Democratic Party to appeal to men. I think there's no way to make that work with their central message and with their voting base. But I think the Republican Party should repeal to. Should appeal to men explicitly, because we're always talking about what can we do to outreach to new voters. You know, what can the right do to talk to, for example, you know, women who are voting in that category that are voting 30% Democrat? That's the wrong way to think about it. You have a new audience. Young men are voting for the Republican Party in the first time. They're voting for the right for the first time in large numbers. Those are the people that you should be outreaching to. You should be thinking about what you can offer them, whether that's, you know, due process in universities and supporting due process and sexual assault claims in universities that are such an egregious violation of the Constitution, whether that's tied into a new economic message about being able to support a family on one income and then what. All of the cultural issues, of course, that we talk about all the time, you know, about the dignity in these masculine and feminine roles that we have. I think that's the opportunity, you know, I don't think Democrats are going to be able to change course.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Reminds me I needed to wish you. And as a happy 40th birthday to Lana Del Rey. I know you celebrate Lana's birthday every year religiously.

[Inez Stepman]

Yeah.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Thank you for giving us a slice of your time. Now, Rachel, before we go, I want to ask you, based on what Inez just said, that risks total irrelevance for Democrats, right? Like, if they can just lose so much of the country by being toxic with men in general. Yes, voting patterns are getting very polarized. Yes, women are about 50% of the voting population, but that pushes them into a state potentially, of total electoral irrelevance. And this is what was happening, I think, to the Republican Party before Donald Trump came along and broadened the base again. Yes, you lose some suburban voters, but the math gets a lot more interesting when you're adding some of those Obama voters in the Rust Belt. And you're not like all of these. You're keeping the people in some of the suburbs, some of the Rust Belt suburbs, and it's additive. Now for Democrats, that makes me think, are they. I mean, are they able to. At some point, does this make it so that the party gets a hostile takeover by someone who's actually able to communicate with those voters? Because you just cannot go on as a party. I mean, Republicans had. It took Donald Trump screaming in their face at debates for them to. Not even screaming. He was very calm. But doing this in their face of, like, 20 debates to realize that the party had changed forever or needed to change forever. So is that where the Democrats are heading to, like, basically total irrelevance lest there's a hostile takeover?

[Rachel Bovard]

Well, I think we're about to see how far they can get with. With a university constituency, because that's essentially what they have is this highly educated, extremely progressive, you know, clique that is running their party. And thus far, no mainstream Democrat has been able to stand up to them. Them. And so I think there is movement. I think there are people that see what's happening, right? You have this old, old guard of the Democrat Party. I'm thinking of James Carville and even Rahm Emanuel to some extent, who are standing up and saying, guys, guys, like the cliff, it's coming. I see it. We're all gonna go over. Is there anyone that's gonna stand up and stop it? I don't know how much institutional power something like that has anymore, although I am. I'm sure there's a constituency for it, right? Because a lot of those people came over and voted for Trump. They held their nose and did it, but they voted for him. And it's Almost like the Democrats need. The irony of what I'm about to say is just shocking, even to me. But they need a Bill Clinton. They need the predator that wasn't.

[Emily Jashinsky]

They need a pervert. Yeah, they do. You're right. This is Andrew Cuomo's moment.

[Rachel Bovard]

Well, but say. Right. It's true. Right. In some respect. But set that part of it aside. He was incredible at retail politics. He straddled. He was aggressively moderate on issues that drew somewhat. Yeah, I know. Sorry. The later we get, the less thoughtful I am about my word choices.

[Emily Jashinsky]

I thought it was.

[Rachel Bovard]

But he did.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Right.

[Rachel Bovard]

He came to the center on a lot of issues, and it's like, you need someone in that vein, and I don't know that those Democrats don't exist at the 35 and below level, even the 40 and below level. And so I really do think it's.

[Tucker Carlson]

It's.

[Rachel Bovard]

I've never seen, you know, the Democrats in this state before in my political life. And so I do think it's gonna. One of the olds is gonna have to step up because I think that the. The university youths are about to drive the car into the wall.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Well, we've run out of time for the most important question I wanted to ask both of you, which is just name five things in order that I do better than both of you. Like, just give me the list. But I won't. I won't have you do that today. So it's a homework for next time you're on. Just five things that I do better than either of you. I'm, of course, kidding. These two are very good friends of mine, and I happen to be slightly younger, and they like to give me guff for being young and inexperienced. But I appreciate. I'm so happy you guys were here on the first night. I was telling you I need a little moral support. So it's. It's just very, very kind of you to stay up late. I know you have children. I know you're old. So thank both of you.

[Rachel Bovard]

Anything for you, Emily.

[Inez Stepman]

Yeah, anything for you, Emily. And we think that we're so excited to be here, and we're so excited for your show. We were talking, actually, just before you had us on to her texting. We're like, don't tell her, but she's incredible. She's doing an incredible job. So we're very proud of you. Like two old crones.

[Rachel Bovard]

Yes. Very proud.

[Emily Jashinsky]

Thank you, guys. I love you guys. I'll see you soon. Inez Detman and Rachel Bovard of the Independent Women's Forum and the Conservative Partnership Institute. All right, before we get into the close of the show, I want to tell you about Tax Network usa. They are proudly celebrating our nation's birthday, honoring freedom, resilience and financial independence. To mark the occasion, they're offering 10% off. That's a good deal. All services through July 4th. If you're dealing with back taxes or missed the April 15th deadline, don't wait. The IRS is stepping up enforcement and penalties can add up quickly. Those go up to 5% per month, maxing out at 25% of your time, total tax bill and just for not filing. And that's on top of actually what you already owe. So there's good news. Tax Network USA can still help you turn things around. Whether you're self employed, run a business or your books are a complete mess, their team knows how to cut through the chaos and find solutions that work. Your consultation is always free and getting ahead of the problem now could help you avoid harsh penalties, wage garnishments or surprise bank levies. Take the first step up. Call 800-958-1000, that's 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com and don't forget, you'll get 10 off all services through July 4th as part of their celebration of our nation's birthday. Regain control of your finances with expert help from Tax usa.

[E]

When it comes to preventing pregnancy, it's your choice how you take control of your body and when it comes. When it comes to a backup plan, there's Plan B. One step. Plan B is safe, effective emergency contraception you take within 72 hours after unprotected sex. The sooner you take it, the better it works. Plan B helps prevent pregnancy before it starts by temporarily delaying ovulation. No egg, no fertilization, no pregnancy. Get it in all 50 US states at all major retailers. Visit planb1step.com to learn more.

[Emily Jashinsky]

All right, everyone, first of all, I just want to thank you for being here. I'm going to see if I can pull up some comments that you all I know have been kindly leaving on the YouTube. Probably some of them are not so kind, but I'll respond to those too because I'm just that kind of person. Tucker's interview, I'm sure has spurred a lot of reactions because a lot of people were waiting to Tucker for Tucker to say something and including me. By the way, I think he had posted just a couple of hours ago, basically. Thanks. Thank God. And yeah, I mean truly thank God. ICY has Posted. Yes. Emily, great job. Thank you. I appreciate that. This is a funny one that someone just posted about Inez and Rachel. A young woman talking to two old grandmas. Thank you for noticing. I appreciate it. As long as you're not saying the young woman was one of them. A lot of kind comments. Uh, thank you so much. Someone said they came from breaking points. Appreciate that. Um, you know, one of the cool things about streaming live, and I think I feel like it's a. It was an opening in the conservative podcast ecosystem because one of the cool things about streaming live is that just has a totally different energy. And I mean, I love, you know, doing all kinds of shows. You know, I like going straight to tape, I like doing live to tape. I love doing, you know, edited stuff. It all has its place. But I think for something in the late night market, it's just really, really different to be going live straight to the audience to hear people as the news hopefully is being made. Oh, someone says misdirected female energy is my new favorite band. Totally agree with that. So it's just nothing, nothing is getting edited. Nobody can stop down and say, hey, I misphrased that. Can you, you know, take that off if someone coughs, you hear it sounds like a small thing, but imagine that with different things that get said as you're talking. So I'm just really happy to be here. I'm really grateful to Megan. I really believe in that binary I set up at the beginning of the episode between Johnny Carson and Stephen Colbert. That's us talking about the business of media, but also the way the business is upstream of the ideology that you get to engage with. And for me, I always look back on, you know, I got great training when I was really young and was first doing tv. And the training, this has always stuck with me. When I was doing the training, I was in a simulation of an interview on a cable news segment and this simulated host asked me a question and I responded, I don't know. That's a good question. Something like that. And the person who was doing this training stopped me and said, just, just don't ever say that you don't know something. And I think that's the biggest thing that's changed basically in media over the last decade is that people always do want you to be honest when you don't know. And that's where this actually last 48, 72 hours has been, I think, a really important time because you have, I mean, important time obviously for the world, but for the media from the vantage point of the media. You just have so much uncertainty. And if you go back and you read some of the early reporting from Iraq after 911 in the lead up to our invasion of Iraq in 2003, you just are reminded of the consequences of leaks and the fog of war and spinning that's coming from the intelligence community, our country, other countries. And you just have to have some humility and recognize that at every given moment, you don't have the answers. And one of the takeaways from my interview with Tucker, because I'd been thinking about this in my head as somebody who was, I think, directionally aligned with him, very skeptical that a strike on Iran from Donald Trump, that the cost benefit analysis of that worked out in America's favor. And as I've been thinking about it over the course of the last 10ish hours, or however long it's been since Donald Trump made that announcement, we're an hour away, by the way, right now from when that supposed ceasefire is supposed to take place. As I've been thinking about this, I go back and I realize the probability of catastrophe was always significant. And the question is whether it was intolerably high or worth the risk. And I don't take back that I believe it was not worth the risk. Again, I will be proven. I may be proven wrong. I will be proven wrong sometimes, and that's okay. I try really hard so that doesn't happen. And, you know, that's when you could kind of, that's how I gauge whether or not I trust somebody who's in the media space. But I don't think it was wrong, to Tucker's point, to look at the probability of abject catastrophe, to look at the probability of many, many deaths of American service members. Thank goodness we're not right now talking about 100 plus casualties of the American men and women, 40,000 of whom are in the region overseas, thank goodness. But I think the probability was unacceptably high. I might be wrong about that. I think Tucker was interesting when he said that, you know, he doesn't believe Iran would have come to the table like it did without the strikes. You know, it's, that looks indisputably to be true at this point. And he said in the lead up that he was hope, he hopes he's proven wrong. I hope that I am indeed proven wrong. I think the situation is still dangerous, but it appears very, very hopeful at this moment. So on that note, I just wanted to say that's, that's what I've always tried to do with with my career is be honest with the audience and be transparent with the audience and kind of work through these things in real time. It's another reason I really like the live format with all of you. So thank you for watching. It means the world to me. I hope you enjoyed it. You can email me by the [e-mail] Feel free to hit us up there. We can answer your questions. Like right now I have the YouTube up. I'm I'm reading them. Really appreciate everyone sticking around with us. We are gonna be here indefinitely. Mondays and Wednesdays, every 10 every Monday and Wednesday at 10pm Very, very exciting. So gratified that you all joined me. So thankful to Megan and her team for making this happen. Stick around because we're to be back with more on Wednesday night at 10pm Hope to see you then.

[E]

Don't want to get pregnant right now? It's smart to have a primary birth control method and a backup plan like Plan B. One Step Plan B is safe, effective emergency contraception you take within 72 hours after unprotected sex or birth control failure. The sooner you take it, the better it works. Whether you've taken it once, twice, or multiple times in the past, taking Plan B after unprotected sex won't impact your ability to get pregnant in the future. Visit planb1step.com get to find a store.