4/22/25: DHS Secretary Robbed, Trump Floats Birthrate Incentives, Harvard Sues Trump, Free Speech Org Sounds Off

Summary

Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar

Episode: DHS Secretary Robbed, Trump Floats Birthrate Incentives, Harvard Sues Trump, Free Speech Org Sounds Off
Release Date: April 22, 2025
Hosts: Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti
Produced by: iHeartPodcasts

---

1. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's Robbery Incident

Timestamps: 01:55 – 11:02

The episode opens with Krystal and Saagar discussing a concerning incident involving Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who was robbed of approximately $3,000 and several important items from her purse while dining at Capital Burger near the White House.

• Details of the Incident:
  CNN reported that Noem’s purse theft included her driver's license, medication, apartment keys, passport, DHS access badge, makeup, blank checks, and cash (01:55).

  • Susan Crabtree's Analysis:
    Reporter Susan Crabtree criticized the Secret Service for failing to prevent the theft, highlighting protocol breaches such as the absence of agents within the recommended 10-foot proximity of Noem (03:59).

• Hosts' Reactions:
  Saagar expressed disbelief over the security lapse, emphasizing Noem's role as the head of Homeland Security and questioning the effectiveness of her protection detail (04:38).
  Krystal added that such security failures undermine public trust and highlighted previous incidents, including the Trump assassination attempt and breaches involving National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan (06:37).

• Security Implications:
  The conversation delved into potential security breaches, including the loss of Noem’s high-security phone, which could compromise classified information (06:51).
  Saagar pointed out that these incidents reflect deeper issues within the Secret Service, questioning their professionalism and capacity to protect high-profile officials effectively (07:46).

• Broader Concerns:
  The hosts connected this incident to broader patterns of security lapses, citing multiple breaches involving top officials like Jake Sullivan and drawing parallels to historical security failures (10:16).
  Saagar stressed the potential national security risks posed by such breaches, including unauthorized access to classified information and the ease with which threats can bypass security measures (11:00).

---

2. Trump's Pledge to Boost U.S. Birthrate

Timestamps: 13:31 – 23:42

Krystal and Saagar transition to discussing the Trump administration's ambitious plans to address declining birthrates, as detailed in a recent New York Times feature.

• Policy Proposals:
  The administration is exploring measures to incentivize childbirth, including:

  • 30% Scholarship Reservation: For Fulbright program applicants who are married or have children.
  • $5,000 Baby Bonus: A cash incentive for every American mother post-delivery.
  • Educational Programs: Funding initiatives to educate women about menstrual cycles to enhance fertility rates (14:24).

• Hosts' Critique:
  Saagar expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of these pronatalist policies, referencing similar attempts in Hungary and other developed nations that failed to significantly reverse declining birthrates (15:15).
  Krystal echoed this skepticism, highlighting the cultural factors that material incentives alone cannot address (16:24).

• Global Context:
  The discussion included comparisons with other countries:

  • France and Sweden: Despite generous parental leave and child allowances, birthrates remain below replacement levels.
  • Israel: Notably the only developed nation with above-replacement birthrates, attributed largely to cultural and existential factors rather than policy alone (19:47).

• Economic and Cultural Barriers:
  The hosts debated whether economic incentives could overcome cultural shifts towards later marriages and smaller families. Saagar argued that without a fundamental cultural transformation, such policies are unlikely to yield substantial increases in birthrates (22:32).

• Expert Opinion:
  Citing Ross Douthat’s critique, Saagar emphasized that economic stability and avoiding recession are more likely to influence birthrates than direct financial incentives. He predicted that implementing these baby bonuses during an economic downturn would be ineffective and politically damaging (24:58).

• Conclusion:
  The segment concluded with Saagar reiterating that while the policies are well-intentioned, they are not a panacea for the complex issue of declining birthrates. He emphasized the necessity of addressing both economic and cultural dimensions to make meaningful progress (25:20).

---

3. Harvard University vs. Trump Administration

Timestamps: 25:27 – 37:47

Krystal and Saagar delve into the escalating conflict between Harvard University and the Trump administration, focusing on allegations of antisemitism and the administration’s retaliatory measures.

• Incident Overview:
  An unauthorized letter purportedly from the Department of Health and Human Services' Anti-Semitism Task Force demanded Harvard implement specific policies to address antisemitism. When Harvard rejected these demands, the Trump administration retaliated by threatening to cut off $2.26 billion in funding and threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status (25:27).

• Harvard's Stance:
  Harvard maintains that the letter was unauthenticated and that it stands by its refusal to comply with the demands, arguing that the administration overstepped its authority and bypassed proper procedural channels (28:39).

• Hosts' Analysis:
  Saagar criticized the administration’s approach as incompetent and hypocritical, drawing parallels to previous missteps such as the failed census alterations and ineffective tariff implementations (32:51).
  Krystal echoed the sentiment, questioning the legitimacy and rationale behind the administration’s aggressive stance against Harvard (33:21).

• Legal and Ethical Implications:
  The discussion highlighted the potential legal battles, with Harvard countersuing the Trump administration. Saagar expressed doubt about the administration’s chances in court, labeling the actions as a significant affront to higher education and free institution autonomy (37:33).

• Broader Impact on Higher Education:
  The hosts underscored the dangers of governmental overreach into academic institutions, warning that such actions could undermine the integrity and independence of higher education in the United States (34:33).

---

4. Interview with Greg Lukyanoff, CEO of FIRE

Timestamps: 40:30 – 55:05

In an in-depth interview, Krystal and Saagar welcome Greg Lukyanoff, CEO of FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education), to discuss the Trump administration's attacks on free speech, particularly targeting Harvard University.

• Harvard's Free Speech Issues:
  Greg explains that Harvard’s recent actions have placed it last in campus free speech rankings for two consecutive years. He criticizes the administration’s attempt to “nationalize” Harvard by imposing stringent controls over its operations and funding based on allegations of antisemitism (41:25).

• Government Overreach:
  Lukyanoff argues that the administration's demands violate due process and civil liberties, emphasizing that institutions should not be coerced into adopting policies through financial threats (43:45).
  He highlights concerns over contingent federal funding tied to political litmus tests, which infringe upon First Amendment rights (44:45).

• Viewpoint Diversity:
  The conversation shifts to the importance of viewpoint diversity in academia. Lukyanoff advocates for organic measures, such as co-teaching classes with diverse perspectives, rather than government-imposed mandates, which he views as authoritarian (46:10).

• Deportation Efforts Against Students:
  Lukyanoff discusses the administration’s attempts to deport students involved in protests or critical of Israel, framing these actions as severe infringements on free speech and due process. He cites cases like Mahmoud Khalil and raises alarms about the potential misuse of the Immigration and Nationality Act to silence dissent (46:51).

• Impact on Legal Practices:
  The interview touches on how federal restrictions are affecting law firms, particularly those defending individuals prosecuted for opposing the administration. Lukyanoff warns that barring lawyers from federal buildings like courthouses hampers legal advocacy and undermines the justice system (52:57).

• Cultural Shifts and Authoritarianism:
  Lukyanoff references his book, "Canceling of the American Mind," and discusses how both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism are converging in their suppression of free speech. He stresses the importance of maintaining civil liberties against the accumulation of governmental power (50:25).

• Final Thoughts:
  Greg emphasizes the critical role of organizations like FIRE in defending free speech and warns against the dangers of allowing government overreach to dictate academic and legal freedoms. He commends Breaking Points for their work in highlighting these issues and asserts the ongoing need for vigilance in protecting individual rights (54:40).

---

5. Closing Remarks

Timestamps: 55:03 – 56:41

The episode concludes with a brief acknowledgment of Greg Lukyanoff's contributions and a reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by free speech advocates. The hosts thank listeners for tuning in and encourage them to engage with the discussed issues critically.

---

Notable Quotes

• “This is insane.” — Saagar Enjeti (08:54)

• “She literally is the boss of the largest law enforcement agency in the United States of America. They can't secure the Secretary of Homeland Security.” — Unknown Speaker (04:19)

• “Every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back.” — Advertisement Segment (56:11)

• “You can’t just do it without proving it, without going through the procedural steps, because those really matter.” — Greg Lukyanoff (45:00) (Approximate timestamp based on context)

---

Conclusions and Insights

Throughout the episode, Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti critically examined significant political and social issues affecting the United States, with a focus on governmental accountability and individual rights. The discussion highlighted:

• Security Failures: High-profile security lapses prompt questions about the effectiveness of protective agencies like the Secret Service.

• Policy Efficacy: Economic incentives alone may not suffice to address complex societal issues such as declining birthrates, underscoring the interplay between culture and policy.

• Government Overreach: The confrontations between institutions like Harvard and the Trump administration raise concerns about the limits of governmental power and the preservation of academic freedom.

• Free Speech Advocacy: The interview with Greg Lukyanoff emphasized the ongoing battle to protect free speech against both left and right-wing authoritarian tendencies, reinforcing the importance of vigilant civil liberties protections.

Listeners are encouraged to consider the multifaceted nature of these issues, recognizing that effective solutions often require nuanced approaches that balance policy incentives with cultural understanding and safeguard individual rights against undue governmental influence.

---

This summary aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the episode's key points and discussions, ensuring accessibility and clarity for those who have not listened to the full podcast.

Transcript

[Savannah Guthrie]

Every morning brings a fresh, new energy. And no matter what the day holds, we come to the Today show for all of it.

[Sagar Enjeti]

We get the best start to the day because we started together.

[Craig Melvin]

Watch the Today show weekdays at 7am on NBC.

[Unknown]

Does this podcast make you happy? Of course it does. That's why you're here. But it only comes out once a week for happiness, every night. You need Adam and Eve. Yes. I'm talking about sex toys. It's cool. It's cool. You have earbuds in right? Adam and Eve, America's most trusted source for adult products, has been making people very happy for over 50 years with thousands of toys for both men and women. Just go to AdamAndEve.com now and enter code IHEART for 50% off. Almost any one item plus free discreet shipping. That's AdamAndEve.com code IHEART for 50% OFF. Let's BOGO the Hoppin Goods sale at Designer Shoe Warehouse is on. Buy any pair of shoes in store or online. Get a second qualifying pair, 50% off. Yep. Must have sandals, sneakers and more from brands you love. Or buy one, get one 50% off at DSW, but only for a limited time. So hop to it, fill your basket and score BOGO 50% off at your DSW store or dsw.com.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Hey guys, Sagar and Krystal here.

[Krystal Ball]

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election, and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show.

[Sagar Enjeti]

This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else.

[Krystal Ball]

So if that is something that's important to you, Please go to BreakingPoints.com, become a member today and you'll get access to our full shows unedited ad free and all put together for you every morning in your inbox.

[Sagar Enjeti]

We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see [e-mail].

[Unknown]

News broke yesterday that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had $3,000 worth of CA stolen out of her purse at a restaurant here in downtown D.C. we could put that first element up on the screen. This is a report from CNN that lays out exactly what happened. I'm just gonna read from the story. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem fell victim to a thief while eating dinner at a downtown D.C. restaurant Sunday night, the secretary confirmed Monday. Noem, who was asked about the theft at the Easter Egg Roll, acknowledged the incident and said the matter has not been resolved. The thief got Away with Noem's driver's license, medication, apartment keys, passport, DHS access badge, makeup bag, blank checks, and about $3,000 in cash. Now, a DHS spokesperson explained this to CNN by saying her entire family was in town, including her children and grandchildren. She was using the withdrawal, referring obviously to that $3,000 of cash to treat her family to dinner activities and Easter gifts. Now, I do wanna also put the next element up on the screen. This is a post from Susan Crabtree, who is one of the best reporters on the White House beat, period. She says this appears to be yet another significant Secret Service failure. The agents protecting Nome allowed a man in a medical mask to walk by her table and snatch her purse with $3,000 in it. Susan goes on to say the detail leader of NOME Secret Service team should have been sitting within 10ft of her, one or two tables away, according to USSS protocol. Why aren't we hearing that a Secret Service agent tried to intervene or at least chased the man down? Sagra. This is such a bizarre story. I don't know if you've ever been to the restaurant. This is Capital Burger. So it's by the convention center across from the Apple Store that I've walked by the Carnegie Library turned Apple Store.

[Sagar Enjeti]

I know exactly what you're talking about. Just never been inside.

[Unknown]

Yes, you know, it's actually a pretty good restaurant, but.

All right.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Shout out capital Burke.

[Unknown]

Yeah, shout out Capital Burke. But so bizarre that you have a cabinet secretary sitting to dinner with Secret Service having her purse snatched. Now there's another layer of weirdness by the fact that you had three grand in cash.

[Sagar Enjeti]

That's a lot of money.

[Unknown]

And her passport on her.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah, that is weird, too.

[Unknown]

Now, perhaps to get into the White House, even though you're a cabinet secretary, you may still need something like that. I have no idea. But it's extremely weird that Secret Service should be sitting within 10ft of her. Yes, again, this is a presidential candidate was shot in the head not even a year ago.

[Sagar Enjeti]

I mean, she's the top law enforcement officer in the country. I don't think people understand that.

[Unknown]

This is insane.

[Sagar Enjeti]

She literally is the boss of the largest law enforcement agency in the United.

[Unknown]

States of America, Homeland Security. They can't secure the Secretary of Homeland Security. Insecurity in the nation's capital about five blocks from the White House.

I don't know.

[Sagar Enjeti]

I mean, look, maybe she was targeted because. Maybe she was targeted because of her notorious, like, flashy taste. So we were, by the way, for watch nerds. She Was she was rocking a Rolex, a solid gold Rolex Daytona, which is for anybody familiar with watches. You're like, whoa. I mean, that's a minimum of 25, $50,000. That's got to be one of the. That is one of. That is the ultimate rich guy. Flex is a Rolex Daytona. And then, yeah, even the women's ones, they can really climb up there in price. So she's previously worn a Rolex Daytona. I think even the women's ones, no, I mean, just traditionally, women's watches are not worth as much because people, they don't. They're not idiots like me who are willing to pay. But anyways, well said. Kirsty Noem is Kirsten Oem top law enforcement officer in the country. The whole thing is just bizarre because it's like you said, she has a protection detail which is supposed to be immediately within her vicinity. $3,000 in cash, driver's license and apartment keys stolen while she's eating dinner at the downtown. You also have the department there where there's, you know, theoretically, if you think about it like there's tons of classified information on her phone or possibly in her purse, like notes, other access keys. All cabinet secretaries have like this specific type of phone. I forget the name. I used to know what the name of it, but it's like a name. It's a phone specifically, which can have like your. It's like your outlook for classified information, but it's heavily restricted. Like there's only like 50 or 60 of these phones in the whole US government. It's literally only for top cabinet secretaries and I think like one or two other officials. So that. I think it's called high side. That's what it is.

[Unknown]

Well, maybe that was taken and we don't know, maybe they're not telling the press because we're relying on them to tell us what was stolen.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah. So the high side is. That's like the, the communication apparatus. And by the way, that's what these people were supposed to be using instead of signal.

[Unknown]

Yeah. I was just going to say if.

[Sagar Enjeti]

You see actually in that they're like, this is in your high side email. That's what I'm talking about here. That's what the high side is. So you can see that clearly there's like a major security like breach that happened here. But I mean, just broadly, it's one of those where the veneer every time of like the veneer of the protection around these individuals gets pierced, I think is really bad. That was what we really saw with the Trump attempted assassination, where you're like, dude, this guy got this close to the president and only by Trump turning his head does his head not explode on live television. And then we had previous incidents in the Obama administration where people jumped the fence. And there's just this mystery and Hollywoodization about the professionalism of a lot of the people who protect these people. But then in reality of average thief is able to just steal your purse when you're going and you're like, in.

[Unknown]

Front of Secret Service.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Well, don't forget this. Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor under Joe Biden, was in his house working at 3am in the morning, and a guy broke into his house and was in his kitchen completely past the Secret Service detail. And Sullivan, only because he was awake, came downstairs and he's like, who are you? He's like, what? What's going on here? And had to call his own detail to come and get this guy out of there. I mean, that's extraordinary breach. This is just a number of these types of incidents where people get incredibly close to these individuals. And you're just like, well, I mean, what's gonna happen, right, As a result? And it's not a joke, obviously, because the top law enforcement officer in the country, you also have. I mean, there's so many different figures like this who are all about Washington. I just saw a picture of, I saw a video of Kennedy yesterday walking out of Martin's house. He left Martin's with the Saratoga water bottle. So a little bit too on the nose for me personally, but, yeah, so, like, he's obviously a very high profile figure. His father was literally assassinated. I mean, what is the, like, what, you know, what is the protocol around protecting these individuals? It's really dangerous.

[Unknown]

It's so dangerous. And this is in the middle of a reckoning period for Secret Service. I mean, remember after the Trump assassination attempt, they were hauled in front of Congress and gave all of these testimonies and pledged, first of all, they blamed local police, but then also pledged to put in reforms and be better. And how this is not. This is less than a year from a presidential candidate being shot in the head on live television. Kristi Noem was not at a rally. She was at a restaurant with Secret Service, at least supposed to be within 10ft of her. And it sounds like from the news report that they didn't know her purse was stolen until they reviewed the security camera footage that they literally had to go back, look at the footage to notice that someone swiped the Homeland Security Secretary's purse in the middle of a busy restaurant when the entire purpose of Secret Service is to have eyes on her and her belongings. Another thing to mention is that during Signalgate, one of the points. I think it was Jeffrey Goldberg who made this, and loathe as I am to say it, he's completely correct. One of the problems with signal is that someone gets your phone. If someone took Jeffrey Goldberg's phone, he would have had these signal messages on it. If someone took Pete Hegseth's phone, he would have had these. Or Susie Wiles phone. They would have. Then if they stole their purse and they had a phone in it, for example, they would have had access to the signal messages about the strikes.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Right.

[Unknown]

Like if you are a bad actor who wants to penetrate the circle of the president, of the decision makers of the US Government, of our military, and you see the Homeland Security secretary having her passport lifted at a freaking burger restaurant five blocks from the White House. I mean, this is an embarrassment. This should be to your point. This is the last thing I'll say about this. The social fabric can be disrupted very, very severely and very quickly by security breaches that could be. They could be assassinations. They could be close brushes with assassinations. They could be access to classified. Whatever it is. The country already feels like it is teetering on the edge of something very, very dark.

[Sagar Enjeti]

I totally agree.

[Unknown]

It's insane.

[Sagar Enjeti]

You're right. Top cabinet officials and all. I mean, just think about the consequences of a security breach and all. We came close with the Trump attempted assassination and yeah, ever since then, it's just been a spotlight on this organization. You would think that they would tighten things up, but it really looks more as if it's because. Not because of their competence, but because of, you know, like nothing has just happened, all of that yet.

[Unknown]

So, anyway, does this podcast make you happy? Of course it does. That's why you're here. But it only comes out once a week for happiness. Every night. You need Adam and Eve. Yes. I'm talking about sex toys. It's cool. It's cool. You have earbuds in, right? Adam and Eve, America's most trusted source for adult products, has been making people very happy for over 50 years with thousands of toys for both men and women. Just go to AdamAndEve.com now and enter code IHEART for 50% off. Almost any one item, plus free discreet shipping. That's AdamAndEve.com code IHEART for 50% OFF.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Every morning brings a fresh new energy.

[Craig Melvin]

This is today with.

[Savannah Guthrie]

And no matter what the day holds. We come to the Today show for all of it.

[Sagar Enjeti]

When things are tough, we talk about it. When there's something to figure out, we dig into it. And when there's joy, we celebrate it.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Because today is where it's all happening. We get the best start to every morning because we start it together.

[Craig Melvin]

Watch the Today show with Savannah Guthrie and Craig Melvin, weekdays at 7am on NBC.

[Krystal Ball]

You're a hustler. You get things done, but you don't always do things for yourself. With JLo Beauty, it takes just a few minutes a day to look like facials are a regular part of your routine. JLo Beauty's Fresh and Flawless Skincare Kit includes six skincare products that work as hard as you do. They'll hustle to brighten, firm and hydrate your complexion morning and night. This skincare kit is a one and done solution that is clinically proven to visibly tighten and lift for instant and long lasting results. Cleanse, treat, moisturize, protect. The fresh and flawless skincare kit does it all. See why the kit's a bestseller today? Visit jlobeauty.com deluxe and get an extra 25% off your first shipment plus free gifts with code DELUXE. If you're not satisfied, return the bottles within 60 days for your money back. See the website for details. That's jlobeauty.com Deluxe to get that JLO globlow.

[Sagar Enjeti]

All right, tell us about motherhood. What's happening?

[Unknown]

Yes. As the only childless host of Breaking Points, I thought it would be a subject for me to handle.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Still technically childless, I guess. Well, it's cooking.

[Unknown]

It's cooking.

[Sagar Enjeti]

It's still got one or two more days, by the way. I would like for it to go ahead and hurry up, but it is what it is.

[Unknown]

You're getting it ready.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah.

[Unknown]

All right, so let's turn to this big story in the New York Times yesterday that laid out exactly what the Trump administration is planning to do in order to make good on Donald Trump's pledged to create a quote, baby boom in the United States of America. We can put this first element up on the screen. The New York Times published a big feature yesterday digging into exactly how the administration is approaching this. You can see the headline is White House assesses ways to persuade children to have to persuade women to have more children. Emma Waters from the Heritage foundation is featured in the photo there. I think we both know her.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah. Old friend of mine.

[Unknown]

Yeah, Emma's a real, actually really interesting thinker. First graph of the story, the White House has been hearing out a chorus of ideas in recent weeks for persuading Americans to get married and have more children. An early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda, which, by the way, I took issue with that line in the story, by the way. A, quote, early sign that the Trump administration will embrace a new cultural agenda. Are you kidding me? There have been so many signs that the Trump administration will embrace this new cultural agenda. One proposal shared with AIDS would reserve 30% of scholarships for the Fulbright program for applicants who are married or have children. Another would give a $5,000 cash quote baby bonus to every American mother after delivery. A third calls on the government. And this is Sagar, where I know you have all kinds of thoughts and are excited to weigh in to fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles. Sager specifically pitched this story.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah, that's right. That was what I. No, I wanted to discuss it with you because we've both been involved in some of these discussions now for quite some time. Pronatalism. And I think it's difficult for me to. It's difficult because I think four or five years ago when I started to hear this stuff and policy, like in Hungary, right, where they're like, oh, we'll pay off your mortgage. If you have four kids, you don't have to pay any tax, no income tax. And I was like, wow, this is fantastic. Here's the truth, though. It hasn't worked.

[Unknown]

Never worked.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Hungary, it didn't work. And by the way, this is not a knock on Hungary. It's a noble effort, but the truth is it doesn't work in any form that it takes every developed country in the world, even with socialized medicine, better healthcare and childcare than we could ever imagine. It doesn't work. It's like a product of industrial capitalism. It's like industrial capitalism itself is the main engine.

[Unknown]

Amen, brother. Soccer.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah, I mean, if you really want me to put my red hat on right now, but I mean, even then, let's talk about the Soviet Union. Like, we saw the destruction there of birth rates and of, you know, they're talking about, for example, can we put.

[Unknown]

The next element up on the screen, please? So the producers made this great graphic, just sort of talking about the specifics of what has been proposed by people in these circles. So we Talked about the $5,000 cash baby bonus to every American mother after delivery. Fund programs that educate women on their menstrual cycles and parts. They can better understand when they're ovulating. And able to conceive. And let me just briefly pause on that point. The idea behind that is to basically undercut the power of birth control. Control, which people in these circles believe, I think it's a pretty good argument, actually has affected women's fertility. Women get married later, meaning they're on birth control for longer and longer periods of their life, which makes it harder to ultimately conceive when they want to, because they've married later in their 30s and that's already harder off the bat. So that's the idea behind it. You know, is it going to be a tough sell? Absolutely. Is it the role of the federal government? That is a different conversation that we can have. But just to sort of explain some of the thinking, that's where it comes from. And then three, this gets to what Sager was just talking about, bestowing a special mother a medal. A special medal on mothers of six or more children.

[Sagar Enjeti]

So basically all the Mormons.

[Unknown]

Yeah, well, all the Mormons. And this is. You were about to allude, because you were talking about how the Soviet Union looked at policies like these, and particularly that policy.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yes, the medal, like the hero of the Soviet Union if you had more than four or more children. And guess what? Didn't work. If anything, actually the fertility rate fell off a cliff even more after the decline of the Soviet Union and the ushering in of their 1990s, like disaster capitalism. So I have a run in front of me of all of the programs which have even been moderately successful. So France, highest birth rate in all of Western Europe, 1.8. So still not above replacement. They have up to three years of paternity leave, of parental leave up to three years. They have monthly child allowances which are not means tested. They have huge tax benefits. They have massively subsidized childcare, which is actually good. Like people who are very well trained and they give them very nutritious food. They have a quote, cultural normalization of working mothers. They're still only at 1.8. And a lot of that, let's be honest, is because of the immigration. Population number two, the Swedish, Swedish and Nordic countries. These places have universal childcare, job security protection. They have parental leave that you're like required to basically take culturally for a year. Guess what? Doesn't work. It goes on parental leave. Hungary, probably the one country which threw everything. Massive cash incentives, 30,000 Euro loan for young couples who are partially forgiven per child lifetime income tax, tax exemption for mothers of four kids, home buying subsidies, free IVF, slight increase only to 1.6 in the overall birth rate. You need 2.2 just to be above, like, I can go on forever. Russia, same thing. They tried in 2015, it's actually declined so far. War doesn't help, actually. Again, the only country developed in the world that has an above replacement fertility rate is Israel. And even amongst their, even amongst their secular Jewish population, nobody really knows why. I mean, look, they do have a lot of policies. Like they've got norms exclude the Orthodox Church.

[Unknown]

That's not right. There's an existential fear that moves for most.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah, that's a good point. It's literally like a civilization that's like, if we do not reproduce, our land will be taken away from us. Exactly right. And. But they have the same thing. They have state funded ivf, they have generous family allowances, they have universal healthcare. They've got big, you know, cultural norms favoring children. If you ever go to Israel, there's kids everywhere. Right. But my point just on all of this is it's not policy, it's just culture. And I hate to say that I wish if it were a policy problem we could fix it. But at best you can squeeze like a 0.3 or a 0.4. I mean, that's a lot, actually.

[Unknown]

Exactly.

[Sagar Enjeti]

But I mean, even then you have to rewrite the social contract of the entire United States. Now, I'll also be clear. I would be in favor of many of these policies, even if it only did 0.3 and 0.4, because it makes life easier for even when you have one or two children. I mean, I'm going through this process right now. Oh, $5,000. Thanks. I'll consider covering a portion of my deductible, which is just going to be just for childbirth. All right. I really appreciate you covering even though I pay like $500 a month. Awesome, dad.

[Unknown]

Soccer is going to be so much fun. Yeah, it's going to be so much fun. He's just like, already an old man.

[Sagar Enjeti]

This is part of my blue maggot turn is like, oh, great, now my stroller's more expensive. The car seat's gonna be more expensive. I'm lucky I bought all this stuff before the tariffs. But yeah, there's a lot of people out there. They don't have any money.

[Unknown]

Those are investments, right? Yeah.

[Sagar Enjeti]

What are they doing? You can flip those and you go, oh, this shit only lasts for six months. Great. Now I have to go, actually, good point. I should probably buy my infant stroller seat right now before the tariffs and all of that go up. Because I was gonna wait. Guess I can't now. I'm just saying we're already getting grumpy.

[Unknown]

Text messages from Saga about the cost of shit.

[Sagar Enjeti]

That's true, that's true. You should, you know, Barry's, I mean, these kids are like Barry machines. The that they're buying there and Drumpf wants to put a 10% tariff on them. I could go on forever joking. My point is just looking at these policies, I think they're very noble. I think it's a good idea. However, it is not a magic bullet. It's just not. And the truth is that every developed society in the world just has a low birth rate. And there's just something about the comfort of industrial capitalism, of the lack of need for, you know, of the lack of like rural, you know, area community and all these other things. The truth is, is like even here in America, the poorest people have the most kids. It's one of the most, like, it's the craziest thing is that the people who are the most impacted by it, but who largely have not yet absorbed like all of the cultural milieu of like the middle class lifestyle and vacations and all these other things are the people who are having the most children. The moment that you assimilate to the higher echelons of American society, you have less children. The only exception is when you reach the extreme end of the wealth spectrum of like 0.1%.

[Unknown]

Oh yeah, they love to people like.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Elon, they love to get married and to have children, but that's because they've genuinely exited like US society. It's everybody else in between that you're like, well, people are like, yeah, but I want to go to Disneyland or whatever. I'm like, oh, do you have 5,000 bucks? If you have four kids, hope you do. And you're going to be driving, you know, you're not, you can't even fly.

[Unknown]

And to be honest, I don't even think a lot of the economic constraints affect the question of whether people end up going above replacement rate. I think it's genuinely just that when you have a career centric society, you just like, that's it's very hard to have three children. And that's where we see, I think one of the saddest, one of the saddest things that Lyman Stone has researched, he's quoted in this article with the Institute for Family Studies, is that American women actually say that they have fewer children than they want.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah, that's true.

[Unknown]

And it's because they start later than they want in order to have. Well, not than they want, but they so late that they don't end up being able to have as many children as they want. And that's genuinely one of the sadder things. And it's not really a policy, at least not in the structure, the policy structure of the American economy right now or in the American government right now. That's not really a policy question. It's much more of a cultural question.

[Sagar Enjeti]

It's a huge cultural question. It's also about what do you even want? Right. Like, yeah, I mean, this gets to the whole two income trap and a lot of the problems with the consumption economy and the driving up of the overall consumptive rate of the average family which necessitates a two person household that has. Has to work. But there are realities here. But I mean, and the, but the counter to what I'm saying is the Swedish model, the. In all these, where they have everything, every benefit that an American could possibly want to make their life easier, leave money, you know, cultural norms and all that, and they still don't have a lot of kids.

[Unknown]

Well, so this is really interesting because this is where both the left and the right are predicating their solutions on materialism.

[Sagar Enjeti]

That's right.

[Unknown]

Right. So the right solution is a little bit more money. The left solution is a little bit more money, a little bit childcare. And those things can be good policies.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Totally.

[Unknown]

Whether or not they help the birth rate. They can be good policies. Like a $5,000 baby bonus is probably a good policy.

[Sagar Enjeti]

I think it's a good policy.

[Unknown]

But is it actually going to help the birth rate? No, because these are not primarily material concerns, they're cultural ones. And just to wrap this all up, Ross Douthat reacted to the New York Times article by posting it on X and saying, of course, you know, I think it's good for the administration to consider pronatalist ideas, but right now nothing would be more pronatalist than avoiding an unnecessary recession.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah, that's right, exactly.

[Unknown]

So what we're looking at six months down the road is a Trump administration coming up with a $5,000 baby bonus into a horrible economy for families. Where to your point, they can't buy bananas for their babies. Yes. And. Or they can buy bananas, they're just exceedingly expensive and there aren't as many of them in stock. So, yeah, this is heading. It's on a collision course for the Trump administration.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Wow. Yeah, I just looked it up. Birth rate collapsed from. Collapsed by 0.5 just in 2009. From 2008.

[Unknown]

Yeah.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Just to show you what a recession can do. At the same time, there is an extraordinary showdown with Harvard going on right now between the Trump administration, which is not only putting immense financial pressure on them, basically trying to tell them how to run the university, but it all apparently stems back to a massive mistake inside of the bureaucracy which kicked this entire thing off. This was broken down in a recent CNN segment. And yes, I know it's cnn, but they actually did a decent job this time around. Let's take a listen.

[H]

Okay, so the White House's position is it was malpractice by Harvard to not realize that this letter was so outrageous it probably wasn't true. I mean, that letter came from. I mean, I think that statement actually just sort of gives away the whole game. Essentially, the argument that we're hearing there from May mailman at the White House is they should have known. They should have known there was something wrong. They should have picked up the phone and said to us at the White House, hey, guys, this looks like a mistake. I think it's pretty obvious where the fault lies, though.

[Unknown]

I mean, Ellie, could you imagine if Harvard had responded to this letter by saying, okay, we'll meet these demands and actually that they had been sent in error to them?

[H]

Yeah, I mean, exactly. Look, this is serious stuff. I mean, this is a major showdown that is escalating by the day. You know, if Harvard had acquiesced to these demands, I mean, it would have changed the institution and compromised the institution forever. But I'm interested to see now what happens next. Now, does the White House withdraw this or do they sort of decide, whoops, we're pot committed now and we're going to have to have this fight through to the end.

[Sagar Enjeti]

So to recap, this entire showdown with Harvard is because let's put this up there on the screen, an official on the, quote, anti Semitism Task force told the university that a letter of demands was actually now one that was sent without authorization from the government. So the university basically published the letter and said, no, we're not going to agree to these demands. Days later, the Trump administration is like, well, screw you. We're actually gonna cut off your funding. But by the way, that letter was actually unauthorized and sent by the acting General Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services on the Anti Semitism task Force, and it was sent in error. So the letter arrived when Harvard said they still believe they could have prevented a confrontation. Then they get this fake letter and they're like, no, we're not gonna do it. And so then now, quote, it was malpractice on the side of Harvard's lawyers not to pick up the phone and call the members of the Anti Semitism task force who they had been talking to for weeks. Instead, quote, Harvard went on a victimhood campaign that is a direct quote from the White House. Instead Harvard. So, so Harvard's position as that guy just laid out, or the government's position is that Harvard is stupid because it took a letter that it got from the United States government and then responded to. I cannot believe I'm positioned defending Harvard. I know this is painful thoughts and prayers, painful to sit here and to defend this ridiculous institution. But their position is that they should have realized that this was a fake letter. And now nonetheless, despite the fact that it was fake by the government's own.

[Unknown]

But it was also signed. This is Harvard stance. Like it was. Do I go to sign?

[Sagar Enjeti]

I mean, listen, I get a letter from the government, what I'm going to. If I get a letter from the irs, should I call the IRS and be like, hey guys, this is a real letter or should I just do whatever the fucking tell me to do?

[Unknown]

Why are they signing drafts?

Right?

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah, good point. All right, so now you tell me, Emily, based on all of this though, the government's position is still, nonetheless, we will still take all of your funding from you. So let's put that up there on the screen. Quote, what would it even mean for Trump to revoke Harvard's tax exempt status?

[Unknown]

Which by the way, is different. I just wanna say this.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah, no, you're right, you're right. But I'm saying this is all a cascading part of this. So Harvard says no. So the Trump administration goes, even though we sent you this thing in error, we're cutting off $2.26 billion in funding. And then a week later there was all coming out that actually we're gonna revoke your entire tax exempt status based on all the. I mean, this is, this is crazy shit. And it gets to the tariff thing. Nobody hates Harvard more than me, okay? These people should lose their tax stub status. These people should be paying massive amounts of taxes. They're a hedge fund. They're not actually a real university. They admit less students today than they did when the US population was 100 million less people. Okay? Absurd. It's just complete credential washing. Inflation, student debt. I could go on forever for all of the issues with that, that. But as we are going to talk about soon, with Greg, There needs to be a little bit of a process. There needs to be a little bit of a principle here, a little bit of an effort by the United States government to say we're doing this because of what I just laid out. Because you are bilking the federal government for these under false pretenses for student loans. You're putting your students in debt not because of some fake anti. In this case, quite literally, a fake anti Semitism demand of the government. So the whole thing is insane. And Harvard is now countersuing the Trump administration. Every legal expert I see says Harvard or the government has no chance in this case right now. I mean, they may prevail in the long run if they go through a proper process. But as of where things stand right now, Harvard is getting a temporary restraining order, like tomorrow based on the way that this entire thing is happening, when.

[Unknown]

I care, obviously much more about the corruption and degradation of higher education than I care about some idiot bureaucrats in the Trump administration botching it. But do you end up actually addressing the problem if you are too incompetent to address it correctly and hurt your ability?

[Sagar Enjeti]

Exactly right.

[Unknown]

Because I was gonna say, you and I are actually probably sympathetic to the argument that if you're making an omelet, you're gonna make. Gonna break a few eggs if the omelette is reforming higher ed. Yes, obviously the media is going to pick out a few examples of really bad process work from the Trump administration and blow them up into something that they're not. This actually is really bad.

[Sagar Enjeti]

No. Yeah, it's like, no question. This is not.

[Unknown]

This is so stupid.

[Sagar Enjeti]

This is not, like, common. You know, it's like, this is classic stupidity with a capital S, where it's embarrassing to even have to be in a position to be like, yeah, well, they kind of have a point. And this is what they've done with everything, with tariffs, with deportation. And that's why I'm like, I'm done with you. I am done with this bullshit. It's like this amount of stupidity that you require people to debase themselves to defend your idiocy is enough. Look, I know that there's some Maga Mimas or whatever, they're gonna stand and ride or die forever. Fine, okay, you can have them. But for people out here who actually have to follow this stuff for a living and have actual acquaintance with competence and with people who actually know what the hell they're doing, it's absurd. It's an attack on intellect itself. Go ahead.

[Unknown]

Well, so, I mean, I think. I think what's interesting here is that we compare Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0, and say Trump 1.0 was more haphazard and they didn't have their ducks in a row. They hadn't spent four years preparing this detailed policy agenda that they could install immediately when a Republican president, whether it was Trump or DeSantis, was in office. I think what we're starting to see, whether it's the student deportations, this letter to Harvard, or the tariffs, is that actually they. They did plan directionally what they wanted to do, they planned who they wanted to put in place, but they just lack the know how to execute.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Well, actually, it's a huge indictment. I've been thinking about this a lot. It's a massive indictment of Project 2025 and all of the projects that were ostensibly to professionalize the Trump administration. It's just not happened at all. Congratulations. You had some executive orders that were ready to go on day one. Let's look at the actual result of your flagship product, DOGE, 2 trillion to 1 trillion to 150 billion, which is the exact amount that we're gonna increase the Pentagon budget. Okay, so you didn't caught a single dollar of federal spend. I'm judging you by your own. By what you say that you wanted to do. Doge, you failed. It's a complete failure.

[Unknown]

Yeah.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Elon is leaving soon, right? Literally. He has to, because of this.

[Unknown]

That may actually help Doge, to be honest.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Probably would if you.

[Unknown]

If you let Russ vote start, who is a highly competent bureaucrat.

[Sagar Enjeti]

So look, we're only 100 days in, so doge, deportation. It's like, okay, yeah, I mean, you know, I said this previously yesterday. The Bureau of Prison validates gang members every day. Every single day. The Bureau of Prisons has thousands of gang members in the United States penitentiary system and knows exactly what they look like and how they do tattoos and everything. Do they make mistakes? I'm sure they do, but I guarantee you it's a much more professional. So when they come out, they go, oh, we're sending these gang members to El Salvador. I'm like, oh, okay. You know, it makes sense. The U.S. department of Justice. No, it's like, oh, complete bullshit. The way that you guys did this autism awareness tattoo. Mahmoud Khalil. Oh, we're going after the student criminals, right? I'm like, oh, okay, so the Hamilton hall guy, right? No, the guy who handed out a flyer, or this lady who co authored an op ed, or the guy who's married to a Lady who's related to someone in hell. What, like. And that tariffs this fucking formula.

[Unknown]

It's the exact same thing.

[Sagar Enjeti]

It's the same as the first time around. I mean, I remember the census thing. I think this. This is the first thing. This is the first thing that pissed me off by the Trump administration. As people know, the census currently counts illegal immigrants, which is insane, right? Insane. Because it basically means that if you have enough illegals in your state, that you get more representation in Congress. What, more electoral votes? Nonsense.

[Unknown]

Well.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Well, the administration had a plan in 2018 to get rid. To basically change the census only cost US citizens. Great. Awesome. Would have completely changed the electoral map. Well, they did it in such an incompetent way. The Supreme Court was like, we don't even disagree. But we are striking this down because you did it so stupidly. And then they're like, oh, the 2020 election was stolen. I'm like, well, also, you can't do the basic paperwork, the travel ban. How many travel bands did we have in 2017, do you remember? Maybe four, five. It was ridiculous. Actually.

[Unknown]

That's a really good parallel. I hadn't even thought about that because it's so hard to pull all of these different references out because there's literally hundreds of them. That's actually a really good reference point. And I think the difference, really, now that I'm thinking of it, between 1.0 and 2.0 here, is that 2.0, to use a somewhat violent metaphor, in 1.0, nobody knew where to aim. In 2.0, everyone spent years figuring out exactly where to aim, but didn't train at shooting. Right. They weren't going to the range, and they're not right on the target. They know exactly what target to shoot at, but they don't know how to hit the bullseye. And that's what's happening in this administration and in ways that are probably undermining their ability to ultimately hit the target, because people are going to pull them out of the range right before they can figure out how to hit the target. They're going to be like, get the.

Hell out of here.

You don't know how to use that gun.

[Sagar Enjeti]

They're already. They're already. I mean, how many days has it been since January 20th? Let's see. All right, January 21st, let's see. It has been. All right. ChatGPT is not working right now. All right, it's been 80 something. 80 or 90 days. You run out of political capital. You only. They only have one piece of legislation. They're going to pass. Exactly. For the next two years. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Good luck with that one. I hope it works out, considering all the things you guys have said that you want to do. Oh, by the way. And you have to lift the debts ceiling.

[Unknown]

That's not. Rinse and repeat from. They're trying to stuff a bunch of stuff in reconciliation. It's not just re upping the tax cuts. It's actually stuffing a bunch of other policy priorities in total.

[Sagar Enjeti]

But I'm saying you have one piece of legislation. That's all you guys have left. You burned all your political capital. You haven't deported that many people. If anything, you're actually trailing the Obama and Clinton administration and you're roughly on par with the Biden administration. Tariff policy disaster. Sorry. It's true. There's been. I mean, maybe you'll get some benefit, you know, a few months from now. I'm genuinely doubtful as the. I mean, it's this, this is where I'm just going full Richard Henania. Like they do not have elite human capital who are behind it. It's true.

[Unknown]

I don't agree with that.

[Sagar Enjeti]

No, it's true. I don't see it. I don't see a single one.

[Unknown]

I don't think anybody has the human capital to accomplish the goals that they've set their sight for.

Maybe.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Right.

[Unknown]

You know, they're trying to like radically transform a system that's built up over 100 years. And I don't think it's a matter of the Trump people being. I think there are absolutely some idiots in the Trump administration. I think we could both.

[Sagar Enjeti]

I would say more per capita personally, but.

[Unknown]

Okay. But yeah, it's because Republicans haven't trained up an army of bureaucrats over the course of the last 100 years. Democrats have. And now Republicans are trying to use this sort of like haphazard, like Lexington and Concord band of policy amateurs to do something much more difficult than anyone's ever tried to do in the policy. Policy space.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Very fair counter. And I actually think that's probably a good place to leave it. So anyway, Harvard, that's what happened. Let's get to the CEO of Fire, Greg Lukinoff. He's going to break down some of the free speech attacks for us, including some on Harvard. Let's get to it.

[Unknown]

Does this podcast make you happy? Of course it does. That's why you're here. But it only comes out once a week for happiness, every night. You need Adam and Eve.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yes.

[Unknown]

I'm talking about sex toys. It's cool. It's cool. You have earbuds in right? Adam and Eve, America's most trusted source for adult products, has been making people very happy for over 50 years with thousands of toys for both men and women. Just go to AdamAndEve.com now and enter code IHEART for 50% off. Almost any one item, plus free discreet shipping. That's AdamAndEve.com code IHEART for 50% OFF.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Every morning brings a fresh new energy.

[Craig Melvin]

This is today and no matter what.

[Savannah Guthrie]

The day, we come to the TODAY show for all of it.

[Sagar Enjeti]

When things are tough, we talk about it. When there's something to figure out, we dig into it. And when there's joy, we celebrate it.

[Savannah Guthrie]

Because today is where it's all happening. We get the best start to every morning because we start it together.

[Craig Melvin]

Watch the Today show with Savannah Guthrie and Craig Melvin, weekdays at 7am on NBC.

[I]

Spring into savings during Blinds.com's spring Black Friday sale. Happening now. Freshen up your home with brand new custom Window Treatments for [e-mail], shopping online for custom window treatments doesn't mean sacrificing on service, selection or style. As the 1 online retailer of custom window treatments, blinds.com has hundreds of options to fit any decor and budget. Choose from stylish roller or bamboo shades, blackout options and more. We even have motorized shades for your patio DIY or let our experts handle the heavy lifting. Blinds.com has you covered with free virtual consultations. We'll even send a pro to do the measure and install. Try before youe Buy with free samples delivered to your door. With over 25 million windows covered, every order's backed with Blinds.com's 100% satisfaction guarantee. Shop Blinds.com's Spring Black Friday sale now for up to 50% off site wide plus a free professional measure. Save up to [e-mail] rules and restrictions may apply.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Joining us now is Greg Lukyanoff. He is the CEO of Fire, one of the most principled free speech organizations in the United States. And we're very excited to be joined by him. Greg, it's great to see you. Thanks for joining the show.

[Unknown]

Thanks for having me.

[Sagar Enjeti]

So, Greg, we wanted you to sound off on some of the extraordinary moves by the Trump administration. First of all, you are the author of several books and more recently, this one, let's put it up there on the screen, the Canceling of the American Mind. But more recently, you might look at that and be like, oh, this is a right wing guest or something But Greg, you're unique in that you really have stood up against a lot of unprecedented attacks on free speech currently by the Trump administration. We have a list that we can just put here right now, assembled by your team. Let's put it up there on the screen. Relevant, in fact, some of the Harvard discussion that we just had here on the show. Why don't you break down for us why you see this as an attack on free speech with the Harvard situation and for a lot more.

[Unknown]

Oh, yeah. I mean, there is no small irony in my taking so much hate mail at the moment for defending Harvard because Harvard finished dead last two years in a row on our campus free speech ranking. And I want to be very clear, they earned that position. But the answer cannot be the government wildly exceeding its power to effectively nationalize Harvard using powers it doesn't have. And I'm a civil libertarian. So I'm concerned about left wing authoritarianism and I'm concerned about right wing authoritarianism. I'm mostly afraid of the accumulation of power. And what they're currently claiming is that because of the history of antisemitism at Harvard, which I say, like, that's a real concern, they now can restrict what, $2.6 billion in potential funding to Harvard unless Harvard meets demands that control everything from certain departments to what it's taught to who is admitted. And that's what I mean by effectively nationalizing. It's micromanaging this massive company. And I think that. But yeah. Is it possible that if you had, if you followed the procedures and did Title 6 hearings and even Title 9 hearings on the way Harvard has behaved over the last five years, that Harvard might lose and be in risk of losing its federal funding. Absolutely, that is absolutely a possibility. But the government does not have the power to completely skip over that entire process and just declare by you. Cause that essentially you now have to do what the government says you do because you received any federal, federal funding at all. And I did write, I'm taking some flack for this right now, but I take this very seriously. The idea that, yes, Harvard has made a ton of mistakes and I'm first in line in criticizing them. Canceling of the American mind. Harvard does not come out particularly well. But the idea that we'd freeze a massive amount of science funding for things that could actually be groundbreaking. This is the one thing that consistently scares me is essentially that in an effort to deal with very r problems in higher ed, we're going to destroy our unique ability to push the frontiers of science, which harms Everyone, not just even in the United States and the globe.

And we might disagree on this because I'm more sympathetic to the idea of the federal government exercising some power over federal funding. And to your point, Greg, I think also there's Title ix, Title vii, like all of this could get pretty interesting in the courts, but I have seen. I'm curious what you make of this. Some really interesting commentary on the question of viewpoint diversity. The federal government asking Harvard to implement different measures to ensure there's viewpoint diversity at Harvard or in its research and all of that. I mean, it's the same thing with the antisemitism definition. That fire has been really brave and for years standing up against the overly broad IHRA definition of antisemitism. Those seem like problematic answers to a problem in and of itself. And could you just speak to the viewpoint diversity question because you've been advocating for viewpoint diversity at the university level for a long time, then when the federal government asks about it, it becomes a different issue.

Exactly. I want viewpoint diversity in higher ed. And for example, if Congress decided to make some of these contingent on federal funding, you have a lot of power to decide what you tie federal funding to in the first place, but you can't work backwards and then say, oh, by the way, we've now decided that federal funding is contingent on viewpoint diversity. That also poses really serious First Amendment issues, because what you're saying is a private institution has to basically have a political litmus test to make sure that they have greater viewpoint diversity. Now, I want schools to achieve viewpoint diversity, and I think one of the ways they can do that is to have more classes co taught by people who disagree. I think this would be powerful on multiple levels and it could be a great way to introduce more viewpoint diversity. But as a civil libertarian, when it's achieved through government coercion, we're rightfully concerned about that. So definitely. And to be clear, the government does have power to put strings on its federal funding, and they do. And that's why I made the point that essentially, could they be found guilty of violating Title vi, Title VII and Title ix? Yeah, I think that's a real possibility. But you can't just do it without proving it, without going through the procedural steps, because those really matter. That's the difference between a government, a republic, and something that looks a lot more authoritarian.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Well, what you're really talking about here is process through the legal courts, where you have to present evidence, where you have to have a judge who is ruled. Here, let's put the Next parts up there, guys, on the the screen, which FIRE has also spoken out against some of the deportation efforts here of students who have criticized Israel and or participated in protests on college campuses. Can you just tell us why? Again, you know, in this particular case, the administration is justifying this as a violation of the Immigration and Nationality act, saying that they're expressing support here for a terrorist organization and thus these students are eligible for deportation. FIRE has spoken out against us. Tell us why.

[Unknown]

Yeah, and again, people could point out some irony here. I don't really see it as irony because FIRE has been one of the ones pointing out actually alone, to a degree pointing out that pro Palestinian protesters are responsible for all but essentially three of the highest number of campus shout downs of speakers on record. It's been overwhelmingly a pro Palestinian movement in some cases. I remember they did a shout down. They shut down an event of someone who was just there to talk about black holes, you know, like it was ridiculous and we called it out all the time. So I think that a lot of these protests have been in some cases a disaster for free speech and economic freedom. However, again, you have to follow process and you have to prove it. So when they first accused Mahmoud Khalil, for example, I was like, well, you know, Colombia was a disaster. And I'm willing to bet, not willing to bet, I suspect they might actually have something more serious on him, like he was involved in some of the vandalism or some of the anti Semitic harassment himself, or some of the really bad, in some cases, criminal behavior that took place at Harvard, or at least things that they could have kicked him out of school for. But as the case went on, we're like, the government's not making this argument. They're basically pointing to flyers that a group that he was loosely affiliated with circulated. And I'm like, okay, that's saying that you're kicking him out just for speech that would be protected by an American citizen. And that's problematic according to the law. There was a weird argument that I keep on getting that people here on a green card, and green card is one step away from citizenship, have no free speech rights. And that's absurd. And in 1945, the Supreme Court was incredibly clear in a case called Bridget C. Wixon that resident aliens do have First Amendment rights. Now, what the full parameters of those rights are is the one remaining question. But it certainly should not be that you can be at a protest at a college campus where there are 10 protesters, all of it peaceful, all of it protected, and nine of Those protesters are fine cuz they're American citizens, but the 10th has to show his papers and could be kicked out of the country for being on the wrong side of it. So the Mahmoud Khalil case actually just got worse the longer it went on. And the ostrich case is even worse because the only thing they're pointing at this Tufts students is that she wrote a op ed that was critical of Israel, that was critical and it was much more mainstream than it was being presented as. And this is the young woman that they actually drove a van by and plainclothes policemen stuff her and take her away for deportation. That's scary stuff. And it's one of these things where think about all the great Americans that we are proud to have come to this country and eventually became naturalized or didn't in some cases, who would be horrified if they were deported. I think of Christopher Hitchens. I don't think Christopher Hitchens, he definitely was here on a green card for a long time. I don't think he ever actually became a citizen. And the idea, or for that matter, point this out to conservatives. What about, oh my God, Peterson, Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson. Elon Musk or Elon Musk. So I think that I understand that people are concerned about what happened at Columbia and a lot of these schools. I am too passionately so. I think they shamed themselves during this period. But that's not the same thing as saying these students are responsible for it and that they should be kicked out because of their opinion. That's much more dangerous.

And Greg, you didn't just write Canceling of the American Mind. That was a follow up to a really great book you wrote as well called the Coddling of the American Mind with John Haidt. And that's a really important book. I mean, I would say that's like a landmark book in the way that we've sort of come to view our culture. And the reason I want to ask you about that is in the midst of this conversation about the quote unquote woke. Right. One of the things that as a conservative, I worried about sometimes pre2024 is that there were cancellations that did see conservative students being the victims of attacks on free speech. They were really truly being victimized in some cases. And that fueled though, a really interesting sense of victimhood on the right, which is something the right critiqued the left for sort of being defined by for a very long time. And I'm curious, as the author of coddling and canceling, if you see that sort of Instinctive illiberalism that comes when you end up genuinely being a victim, actually starting to fuel right wing encroachments on speech. Is there something to that?

Oh, no, I think there absolutely is. I think I'm reading Musa Al Gharbi's book We've Never Been Woke. And he really kind of saw James Lindsay's term woke right coming. That essentially when you look at some of the tenets of the authoritarian left and the authoritarian right, both of which I very much oppose, they have very similar characteristics. And it goes so far as to have people like Chris Ruffo, you know, talking about their admiration for Gramsci and Lenin and like all of these monsters that my family had to flee Russia to fight because they were so good at manipulating the public, oftentimes with an initial sense of grievance that called for centralization of power on the basis of identity. The woke right and woke left are more similar than they're comfortable with, even to the point at which they're citing the same. And I'm going to show my own bias here. Historical monsters to justify their position.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah. And last part here is on these law firms. This is one where I have not yet victims. Again, this gets the victim I had around this one. But go ahead, Greg. We're going to put it up there on the screen. We haven't even done a full segment just because it is kind of convoluted in a way. You're like, the president is like attacking a law firm and thus saying that he have to do like pro bono work for him personally. But why is that a free speech problem?

[Unknown]

Oh, my God. It's a problem for a free speech organization because we go into court to defend freedom of speech. And we're all lawyers, not all of us. I'm actually really glad that some of us are social scientists as well. But what they're saying is, and it went beyond just people who opposed the administration people, I mean, but they're going after law firms that, for example, helped with the January 6th prosecutions or helped oppose some of the attempts over the 2020 election. The argument that who fought against the idea that the election was stolen, which, by the way, it wasn't. And what they're saying to some of these law firms now is that because you opposed the administration on their position on affirmative action, for example, that's one of our justifications for targeting you. I'm like, so wait. But here's the most important thing. The way they're targeting them is one, telling these law firms that they're losing their security clearance, which, as a D.C. lawyer, that's. That's a death sentence for some of these lawyers. But more importantly and more horrifyingly, they're telling them that they can't go into federal buildings. And guess what's a really important federal building for lawyers? A court. So the idea that the federal government has power to say that lawyers can't enter courtrooms is an extraordinary addition to power. And because Fire is currently in court with Donald Trump's personal lawyer in a case where he's suing a pollster for getting a poll wrong. Oh, Ann Seltzer back in Iowa. And because we're a nonprofit that goes into court, we're very aware of the idea. Like, how on earth are we supposed to do our advocacy in a situation in which lawyers can be told that they can't enter a courtroom if you oppose the administration? Wow. Yeah.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Very interesting, Greg. We can always look to you and your organization. We really, really appreciate the work that you guys do over here at Breaking Points, and we're just really happy to have you on, man. So thank you.

[Unknown]

We appreciate it. It can be. It can feel like a really thankless job to constantly be angering both sides of the political spectrum, but at least I've had a lot of practice.

That's great.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Well, there are a lot of people out there who definitely see and appreciate the work that you guys do, so thank you very much.

[Unknown]

Greg, thank you so much. Take care.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Thank you guys so much for watching. And, Emily, thank you for being here. It was great fun. I hope the audience got what it needed, what it deserved, possibly.

[Unknown]

All we did was give, huh?

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yeah.

[Unknown]

That's all. That's.

[Sagar Enjeti]

We're givers. I'm a giver. I'm forgetting what movie they're from. Anyway, anyway, all right, we will see. Oh, you'll be on tomorrow with Crystal. So there you go. We will see you all later.

[Unknown]

Does this podcast make you happy? Of course it does. That's why you're here. But it only comes out once a week. For happiness, every night. You need Adam and Eve.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Yes.

[Unknown]

I'm talking about sex toys. It's cool. It's cool. You have earbuds in, right? Adam and Eve, America's most trusted source for adult products, has been making people very happy for over 50 years with thousands of toys for both men and women. Just go to AdamAndEve.com now and enter code IHEART for 50% off almost any one item, plus free discreet shipping. That's AdamAndEve.com, code iHeart for 50% off off.

[Sagar Enjeti]

Are you still quoting 30 year old movies? Have you said cool beans in the past 90 days? Do you think Discover isn't widely accepted? If this sounds like you, you're stuck in the past. Discover is accepted at 99% of places that take credit cards nationwide, and every time you make a purchase with your card, you automatically earn cash back. Welcome to the now it pays to Discover. Learn [e-mail] credit card based on the February 2024 Nielsen report have you ever.

[Craig Melvin]

Wondered what it would be like to have supervision, enhanced hearing, extraordinary reflexes? To be, dare we say, superhuman? Well, Roku's new Pro Series TV can't do any of that for you, but with a 4K screen, side firing speakers and a blazing fast refresh rate, it'll sure feel like it. Elevate your entertainment using all your favorite apps like iHeart and Play all your music, radio and podcasts. With the new Roku Pro series, your senses aren't better. Your TV is.