Charlie Kirk on Crime, the Horrific Charlotte Stabbing, and the Wrong Lesson About Trump Scandals

Summary

Podcast Summary: Next Up with Mark Halperin

Episode: Charlie Kirk on Crime, the Horrific Charlotte Stabbing, and the Wrong Lesson About Trump Scandals
Host: Mark Halperin
Guest: Charlie Kirk
Date: September 9, 2025

---

Overview

In this episode, Mark Halperin welcomes Charlie Kirk, founder and CEO of Turning Point USA, for a comprehensive discussion encompassing the nature of political survival in the Trump era, the tragic Charlotte stabbing case, criminal justice reform, generational economic struggles, youth political attitudes, and contemporary challenges facing American cities. The conversation delivers insight into both current events and deeper philosophical divides shaping modern politics.

---

Main Themes & Key Discussion Points

1. The Unique Resilience of Political Outliers

[01:01 - 26:54]

• Halperin's Monologue:

  • Explores why some politicians, notably Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, have survived scandals that would end most political careers.
  • Argues it’s erroneous to believe that since Clinton and Trump survived “the meat grinder” of modern politics, anyone else can (“It’s not the same to say Bill Clinton could survive it or Donald Trump could survive it and anybody else could survive it.” — Mark Halperin, 05:30).
  • Attributes survival to a “magical” and ineffable mix of tactical prowess, media savvy, and personal charisma.
  • Warns prospective candidates against complacency: many believe that if scandals are already public or already weathered, they are “safe”—a dangerous miscalculation.

• Notable Quotes:

  • “There's a certain quality about Bill Clinton and Donald Trump that I’ve never seen in anybody else I've covered.” — Mark Halperin, [05:48]
  • “You can't prepare for the need to be magical. You can't prepare for the need to be able to say, 'I got this, I'm gonna change it.'” — Mark Halperin, [19:05]

• Controversy & Opposition Research:

  • Discusses politicians’ misplaced confidence in surviving scrutiny and the limits of opposition research.
  • Emphasizes the unpredictability of “unknown unknowns”: “Nobody knows everything that's coming, not even the candidate.” — Mark Halperin, [19:48]

---

2. Charlie Kirk on Crime & the Charlotte Stabbing

[27:26 - 44:05]

Kirk's Travel Impressions as a Lens on American Urban Issues

• Shares observations from his recent trip to Korea and Japan:
  • Praises cleanliness, order, low crime, “high trust society,” and respect for even “little jobs.”
  • Points out these societies lack the “dynamism” of America but sees American cities as suffering from the absence of these virtues.
  • “When it comes to crime, when it comes to cleanliness, I’m very envious... I wish our major cities were as clean and orderly as theirs are.” — Charlie Kirk, [29:34]

Discussion on the Charlotte Subway Stabbing

• Details the case: Ukrainian refugee Irina Zarutska stabbed to death by a repeat offender with 14 prior charges.
• Argues such crimes are “preventable” and sees the failure as directly tied to “criminal justice reform” policies.
• Expresses regret for previously supporting certain criminal justice reforms and criticizes both left and right for “falling for it.”

Key Kirk Quote:

• “I used to kind of be sympathetic and even push for this legislatively in a prior life—this whole criminal justice reform stuff has been a complete failure.” — Charlie Kirk, [32:05]

• Cites staggering statistic: “Only half of America's murders are even solved... That means 50% of our murderers are walking the streets...” — Charlie Kirk, [33:07]

Racialization and Media Response

• Argues media would treat the case differently if victim and perpetrator races were reversed.
• Critiques Van Jones and CNN for what Kirk perceives as mischaracterizing his comments and for ignoring the attacker's own racial comments (“I got that white girl”).

Debate on Framing:

• Halperin urges a move away from “eye for an eye” racial politics and media critiques in favor of policy solutions (“I want a new set of rules...” — Mark Halperin, [41:23]).
• Kirk counters that confronting and “breaking the left's book of rules” is necessary before any new policy consensus can be reached. Advocates harsher sentencing, “three strikes laws,” and fundamentally more punitive approach to violent crime.
  • “We do not have enough people in prison, period. Hard stop. We’re a violent country.” — Charlie Kirk, [43:35]

---

3. The Economy, Homeownership, and Young Voters

[46:38 - 61:28]

Economic Mood and Generational Outlook

• Kirk sees improved "psychology" of the economy but acknowledges persistent generational barriers:
  • Young people struggle with homeownership, cost of living, and skepticism about the “American way of life.”
  • Identifies a looming “philosophical fork in the road” as disaffected youth are increasingly drawn to economic populism from both left and right (referencing NYC’s Mondáni).
  • “Ownership is good for the individual. I think it's good for society. I think it's good for the community. I think it's good for your family.” — Charlie Kirk, [52:51]

Young Men, Young Women, and Family Formation (NBC Poll Discussion)

• Noted gender divide in prioritizing family and children among political subgroups:
  • Trump-voting men score highest on wanting children; Trump- and Harris-voting women among the lowest.
  • Speculates men desperate for stability and meaning are now more interested in families; women prioritize independence, in part, as protection against the instability of relationships.

Memorable Quote:

• “Young women in particular, they have, I believe, been sold a mythology...that if you don't have the ability to make your own money that you will be held captive in a marriage.” — Charlie Kirk, [55:29]

• Halperin highlights the lack of economic security and inability to afford homes as a significant barrier for young families: “It's implausible for them to think, yeah, I'm going to go buy this four-bedroom house in a nice neighborhood and start to save for college.” — Mark Halperin, [58:12]

---

4. NYC Mayoral Politics and Economic Populism

[59:02 - 61:28]

• Discussion of the rise of Mamdani and left-wing economic populism in New York City.
  • “It takes very little political skill to say ‘I'm going to take from them to give to you. Vote for me so I take from them to give to you.’ That’s...the dark triad of economics.” — Charlie Kirk, [61:19]
• Kirk expresses concern that, absent conservative solutions, populist leftist messages will gain traction with young, asset-poor voters.

---

5. Lighter Moments: South Park Cameo

[62:48 - 64:38]

• Conversation about Charlie Kirk’s cameo/parody on South Park and the value of self-deprecation in politics.
• Kirk’s reaction: “A lot of people on the left were mad that I wasn’t mad. I thought it was really funny.” — Charlie Kirk, [64:04]

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments (with Timestamps)

• “There's a certain quality about Bill Clinton and Donald Trump that I’ve never seen in anybody else I've covered.” — Mark Halperin, [05:48]
• “I used to kind of be sympathetic and even push for this legislatively in a prior life—this whole criminal justice reform stuff has been a complete failure.” — Charlie Kirk, [32:05]
• “We do not have enough people in prison, period. Hard stop. We're a violent country.” — Charlie Kirk, [43:35]
• “Young women…have, I believe, been sold a mythology…that if you don’t have the ability to make your own money you will be held captive in a marriage.” — Charlie Kirk, [55:29]
• “It takes very little political skill to say ‘I'm going to take from them to give to you. Vote for me so I take from them to give to you.’” — Charlie Kirk, [61:19]
• On South Park: “A lot of people on the left were mad that I wasn’t mad. I thought it was really funny.” — Charlie Kirk, [64:04]

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• Presidential Resilience & Scandal (Halperin Monologue): [01:01 - 26:54]
• Charlie Kirk Travel in Asia & American Urban Issues: [28:03 - 30:21]
• Charlotte Stabbing, Crime, and Criminal Justice Reform: [31:30 - 44:05]
• Economy, Homeownership, and Generational Attitudes: [46:38 - 61:28]
• Populism and NYC Politics: [59:02 - 61:28]
• Lighter Moment – South Park Parody: [62:48 - 64:38]

---

Conclusion

This episode explores how American political scandals are survived by only a rare breed of candidates, delves into the roots and responses to a high-profile crime, critiques narratives around race and media, and discusses the real economic anxieties—particularly among youth and young families—that are shaping both policy and partisan opportunity. Charlie Kirk combines policy critique, culture war rhetoric, and philosophical speculation, while Mark Halperin pushes for more practical solutions and less tit-for-tat partisanship.

A must-listen for anyone interested in the intersection of politics, crime, and generational change in America.

Transcript

[Commercial Announcer]

Moms and dads. Do you wish you could know where your kids shoes are at all times? Now you can with Skecher's newest Apple AirTag compatible sneakers. Find My Skechers. There's a clever hidden Airtag compartment under the shoe's insole. It's sleek, secure and your child can't feel or see it. Then you can check where your kids shoes are on the Find My app. Plus they're available for boys and girls. Get Find my [e-mail], a Skechers store near you or wherever kids shoes are sold. Apple AirTags sold separately.

[1-800-Flowers Advertiser]

Whenever I need to send roses that are guaranteed to make someone's day, the only place I trust is 1-800-flowers.com with 1-800-flowers. My friends and family always receive stunning, high quality bouquets that they absolutely love. Right now, when you buy a dozen multicolored roses, 1-800-flowers will double your bouquet to two dozen roses. To claim this special double roses offer, go to 1-800-flowers.com Pandora that's 1-800-flowers.Com Pandora.

[Mark Halpern]

Welcome to NextUp Nexters. I'm Mark Halpern. Glad for you to have joined us yet again by land, by sea and by air.

[Charlie Kirk]

It's Tuesday.

[Mark Halpern]

You know what that means. It's time for another episode of the program NextUp. Glad to have you here. I am Mark Halpern, editor in chief, the live interactive video platform two way host of this program where I bring you all of my exclusive reporting, my analysis of all the top stories, great guests, and as always, a focus on what is coming next. Up in a moment, we're going to talk to Charlie Kirk, founder and CEO of Turning Point usa. He's been a guest here before. I sometimes appear on his program, the Charlie Kirk Show. We're going to run run the gamut across the waterfront from A to B to C to Z with Charlie. Looking forward to that. But first, my reported monologue on what's caught my eye this week, which is this question about running for president. There is so much news right now, I got to tell you, I was thinking about what to talk to you about. There's so much there's this latest report about Israel hitting in Qatar, some alleged Hamas leadership. There's the North Carolina murder, there's the Epstein story. There's all sorts of things. And we'll talk about a lot of that with Charlie. But what I wanted to talk to you about was this question of running for president because I get asked about it all the time. Who's going to run, who's going to win, particularly on the Democratic side, because as you know, I think on the Republican side, unless something changes, it's going to be J.D. vance, and I'm a specialist in covering presidential campaigns. It's been my focus in my career. And when people say it's too early, we don't even know who's going to run. Well, we don't know who's going to run, but it's not too early. Because I believe that while there's a chance that someone who's not currently talked about at all or very much will be the Democratic nominee for president, there's a lot of people talked about now who I think will be significant players in what should be a pretty wide open contest. We've never had a race quite like this. And what strikes me a lot about what's going on now is an ignorance about what is arguably about the most important thing to determine who's going to win, which is who can run the gamut. Running for president is unlike anything else. It's not like running for senator or governor or being a business leader or being in the military. There's a level of scrutiny. And of course, in the age in which we live, the scrutiny is different than it's ever been because on digital there are no barriers to entry. People can go online and say whatever they want. What often is discussed with these candidates is who's got the record, who's got the charisma, who's got the hang factor, who's got the the vulnerabilities in terms of their public record. And all that's not unimportant. Who's got the ideas matters, too. And we'll talk a lot together between now and the election about who's got a great chance, whose chances of winning are really definable. But I will say this, what I want to talk to you about today, based on my conversations over years, but also this past week and over the weekend with experienced folks in both parties about running for president. The factor that I think people don't take into account is the ability to withstand the onslaught, to run the gauntlet, to get through the meat grinder, whatever metaphor you want to use. And I think a mistake people are making now when they say, well, so and so has this stuff in their background that we know about, leave aside what we don't know. And they say, well, they'll survive it. Maybe that would have killed a candidacy in the past, but they'll survive it because look at what Donald Trump survived If Donald Trump could survive January 6th and impeachment and the indictments and Access Hollywood, well, if he could survive that, the rules have changed. In the modern era, you can defend yourself using social media, you can change the subject, think it's a mistake. And I saw this mistake occur on the other side with Bill Clinton. After Bill Clinton survived charges of added draft dodging, Jennifer Flowers, impeachment of his own, I heard people say, well, the rules are changed forever. The rules are changed forever because if Bill Clinton could survive that stuff, anybody could. Well, here's what I'm here to tell you. And this applies as I think about, to some extent, JD Bands, but certainly as I think about these Democratic presidential prospects. It's not the same to say Bill Clinton could survive it or Donald Trump could survive it and anybody else could survive it. Now, you look at people like Barack Obama and George Bush, they survive stuff, too. But there's a certain quality about Bill Clinton and Donald Trump that I've never seen in anybody else I've covered. And the question is, how much can you survive and how do you survive it? And I have studied closely those two guys. Bill Clinton was the first presidential candidate I ever covered full time. I covered Donald Trump as closely as I've ever covered anyone who's run for president, who's been president. And I can't find a great explanation for what's different about them. There's something different about them, but defining it, part of it's tactical. They're able to think about the politics of it in a very complex manner. The coalition politics, their base, the media, the news cycle, what could diffuse the bomb. They're extraordinary at it. But some of it is not explainable. There's no human way to put it out. So I want you to look first at Bill Clinton and certainly not the only controversies he faced. But here are some of the things, kind of a greatest or worst hits of the things Bill Clinton survived that I don't believe most mortal politicians or maybe anyone but Donald Trump could barrel through.

[Commercial Announcer]

I will start by explaining why I came forward to tell my story about my affair with Governor Bill Clinton. I quite simply was afraid when I heard Bill describe our relationship as an absolute, total lie, I knew what my decision should be.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

Who is Jennifer Flowers?

[Mark Halpern]

You know her?

[Bill Clinton]

Oh, yes.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

How do you know? How would you describe your relationship?

[Bill Clinton]

Very limited. But until this, you know, friendly but limited. She was an acquaintance, I would say a friendly acquaintance.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

She's a legend and is described in some detail in a supermarket tabloid, which she calls a 12 year affair with you.

[Bill Clinton]

That allegation is false.

[Mark Halpern]

Today's New York Times raises questions about a real estate venture involving Governor Clinton, his wife Hillary, and the owner of an Arkansas savings and loan. This week, the White water special prosecutor, Mr. Starr, got a federal judge to extend the life of that grand jury looking into the Whitewater case. He says there's extensive evidence of obstruction of justice. If, as you say, there is nothing there, Mr. President, how can so many.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

Reputable, respected professionals keep pressing on with this?

[Bill Clinton]

Well, that's your characterization, not mine.

[Mark Halpern]

Another extraordinary day in Washington as the intern sex scandal involving President Clinton continues to unravel again today, with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat at his side, Clinton denies having a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and that he asked her to lie about it to investigators. And tonight, Monica Lewinsky's attorneys tell us.

[Charlie Kirk]

That she has told prosecutors all she knows.

[Mark Halpern]

They describe what they call a complete account of her relationship with President Clinton.

[Bill Clinton]

I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie. Not a single time.

[Charlie Kirk]

Never.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

In the wake of the unprecedented vote against an elected president, Mr. Clinton vows to continue doing the work of the American people.

[Bill Clinton]

It's what I've tried to do for six years. It's what I intend to do for two more until the last hour of the last day of my term.

[Mark Halpern]

That is a skillful guy. That is a guy who understands now he had around him very skillful people who understood all the same things about the news cycle, who understood the complexities of how to walk through fire. But he did it. He did it. And the people who said, people around, who were called the masters of disaster, he had them in the 92 presidential campaign. People like James Carville, Paul Begala, George Stephanopoulos, he had them in the White House. People like Chris Lehane, Mark Fabiani, others. These folks knew how to be supporting players in these extraordinary Houdini acts, escape acts of survival. But it was Clinton and his instinct for what the traffic would bear. And as I said, after Clinton's presidency, even during it, people said, well, anybody, anybody now in this new age can, can use the same tools. It's just not the case. And, and saw the same thing with Donald Trump. I remember the, the, the time around the Access Hollywood video coming out and being told by the lots of reputable political analysts, political operatives, no way, no way this could be survived. This. He could survive this. And yet he did and very similar to Clinton, the breathless reporting about how politically existentially damaging this was, and then Trump's capacity to respond. Here are those moments.

[Commercial Announcer]

This 2005 Access Hollywood clip leaked to the Washington Post is blowing up the door on Donald Trump's history of lewd commentary towards some women.

[Donald Trump]

I've never said I'm a perfect person, nor pretended to be someone that I'm not. I've said and done things I regret. And the words released today on this more than a decade old video are one of them.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

You called what you said locker room banter. You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You brag that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that?

[Donald Trump]

No, I didn't say that at all. I don't think you understood what was said. Nobody has more respect for women than I do.

[1-800-Flowers Advertiser]

Tonight, the historic moment in the House.

[Charlie Kirk]

Voting along party lines to impeach President Trump. He's called it a witch hunt, a coup, a fraud and a scam.

[Donald Trump]

You're talking about the witch hunt? Is that what you mean? Is that what you're talking about? I hear it's a joke. I haven't watched.

[Commercial Announcer]

Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has vowed not to concede. At this point here, we're going to.

[Donald Trump]

Walk down to the Capitol because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong.

[Commercial Announcer]

U.S. capitol has been placed on lockdown as angry protesters surround the building.

[Charlie Kirk]

Donald Trump about to become the first president in our nation's history to be.

[Mark Halpern]

Impeached for the second time.

[Charlie Kirk]

Is there anything you regret about what you did on that day?

[Donald Trump]

You just said a thing that isn't covered peacefully and patriotically. I said during my speech, not later on peacefully and patriotically. John James, Is he a congressman, this guy? He. Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to start the impeachment of Donald Trump. What the hell did I do? Here we go again. They want to impeach me, this lunatic.

[Mark Halpern]

So Trump and Clinton, special cases. Special cases. Now, when I hear in particular people float as presidential candidates, business leaders or entertainers who have never. Military officials who have never run for public office before, for them, the degree of difficulty is even more. It's not that Trump had never been in politics, and therefore anyone in politics could do this and, and survive the scrutiny. It's that Trump's special like Clinton. The only two people I've ever covered who can handle this. And as I start, as I have, including this past week talking to people around some of the leading potential presidential candidates. I'm not a gossip monger. I'm not. I'm not trying to stir things up, make the pot hotter and more bubbly. But I am looking at what we know about each of these folks. All of them have something publicly known, some have quite a bit. It's rarely discussed now. And in the minds of these candidates and their people around them, there's kind of two. There's kind of two schools of thought. One is, well, we've been through it. These allegations about my military record, or these allegations about my past personal life, or these allegations about my business dealings or political controversies, we've been through it. And so it asked and answered. But that's a naive attitude, because you take some of these things, whether they were sort of known or very known, they're in a different context when somebody's running for president. And then the second school of thought says, yeah, running for president's tough. We need to be ready. But being ready means doing the tough stuff, which presidential campaigns talk about and rarely do well, which is you hire your own opposition research team to go after your record, and you cooperate with them. You don't just let them Google around and use ChatGPT to say, you know, what's controversial about potential Candidate X. You hand over documents, you make yourself, your family, your associates available. It's rarely done at the level it needs to be done. And most of these big controversies that come out unknown to the people around the candidate, and sometimes the candidate doesn't even remember them. Donald Trump, in the case of the Access Hollywood tape, he didn't really, I don't think, have a concrete recollection of the event, but he certainly didn't know it had been recorded. This occurred, you know, between official tapings, but somebody was rolling video and audio and got and got some of those conversations. So these campaigns, these candidates are looking to enter the race and focus on anything but this. Very unpleasant for either the candidate, candidate's family, for the people around the candidate, very unpleasant to focus on. But I've started to have the conversations to say, not the only thing I ask, but I started to have the conversations. What do you know about this? What are you going to do about this? What else is there? And what I'm finding so far is a fair amount of naivete, a fair amount of, we've been through it. And the other old standby, Trump and Clinton got through, we can get through it. What Trump and Clinton walked through was so much worse than anything I've done speaking as a candidate or my candidate's done speaking as a staffer. And I'm just, I'll say again, if you're not Trump and Clinton, and I don't see anybody out there thinking of running, including JD Vance or any of the Democrats who have that magical ability, who have the capacity to use their sixth sense and their extraordinary understanding of, of how news works, how information flows to diffuse situations. It's an incredible case study. One by one, you look at the controversies that have brought down other politicians, whether they're running for president or just in some other office. And I always imagine, what would Clinton do if he were in that situation? What would Trump do? And usually I have a pretty good guess about sort of the route they would take. Maybe not the absolute specifics 1, 2, 3, 4 of what they do, but the level at which you need to play. Because remember, if this stuff happens in the context of a nomination fight, not in a general election, you're going to be gone after by at least three groups. You're going to be going after by the media, by the other party and by people in your own party who want to bring you down. And not a surprise. Most of the scrutiny, most of these crucible moments occur for folks who are the front runners or amongst the front runners who have a good chance to be the nomination. People don't waste time dropping opposition research, which is where most of these stories come from, on people who aren't going anywhere. Often when a politician is attacked, they say, well, I must be doing something right, otherwise they wouldn't be coming after me. They don't shoot at you if you're not over the target is a popular way of saying it these days. It's not always true, but it's generally true in presidential campaigns. And so what we're looking at now, think about Gavin Newsom, Wes Moore, the Shear of Kentucky. Those are three guys talked about as much or more than anybody else. And the focus in the Democratic Party continues to be on the senators, on the governors, rather, rather than senators or anybody else. There's some others who do get talked about. But take those three governors. All three of them have controversies. Go in chat GPT, put in Governor Newsom, controversy. You can read about some stuff, but, but there's a second category. There are things that won't come up in a search but are widely discussed by political elites of both parties. I'm not going to talk about them today. Not wouldn't be the right thing to do, but for almost any of These candidates, there's the category of things that quote unquote, everybody who's in state capital in Kentucky or Sacramento or state capital in Maryland, everybody knows, everybody talks about them. And then there's the third category, nobody knows. And as I said before, sometimes even the candidate doesn't know. That's the category that not going to be engaged right now. You take J.D. vance. If you said, if J.D. vance runs and has a nomination fight, what will the controversies be? Sometimes they're a bad policy, but most policy controversies you can get through, right? Or J.D. vance said a lot of bad things about Donald Trump and a lot of those are known. I bet you there are more that have never come out. Will that matter given that, you know, he's already been reported to have said and acknowledged saying some pretty bad things about Donald Trump. But I think for Vance, the more the bigger danger would lie if he is the nominee in the general election. And how do I appraise his skills? I think he's going to have around him a team that knows the playbook, that has studied Clinton and Trump and others, and knows whether it's Trump's tactic of just saying the sky is not blue, it's a hoax to say the sky is blue, or it's the fake media saying the sky is blue, or to change the subject to something else. Bill Clinton, one of his most effective things is he would say when they bring up things from his record in the past, he'd say, my opponents want this election to be about my yesterdays. I want it to be about your family's tomorrows. Pretty good line. But that was a big, that was a line that illuminated and illustrated a larger tactic, which is whatever the controversy is, unless he killed somebody, you can always say as a candidate, more important to talk about the real lives of real people than controversies from my past accused of being something done by your political opponents. Possible, but you got to be skillful at it. And as I said, there's something about Trump and Clinton that allow them to do it. I get asked all the time by people, why can't others just copy it? Why can't you study it and copy it? And I say the same thing about giving a great speech. You know, Trump and Clinton, in addition to being masters of Houdini like Escapes, they both could give really entertaining speeches. And I used to love watching other potential candidates if they were at an event with Clinton or Trump, whether they were running against them or thinking about running for president in the future. I always loved watching them watch Clinton and Trump give speeches, and you can see them trying to process what is it? What is it that they do? Like, why can't I do that? And the answer is, you know, it's not something you can necessarily copy or learn or borrow. There's just something about their capacity to do that. And I think the capacity to escape from these politically perilous situations and is even more inexplicable. It's even harder to understand how to borrow it, copy it, mirror it. So, again, the folks who are thinking of running in 2028, some of them have run for big offices. A few like Pete Buttigieg, maybe Amy Klobuchar, they've run for president before. But no one who's running has gotten to that final part of the process where it's down a nomination fight down to just a couple people, and where the pressure's really on and where the scrutiny comes. Buttigieg is another great example. Ran for president, had some success, I guarantee you. Guarantee you there's stuff, not just from his time in the last few years since he left office, where, who knows exactly, you know, what things he might have done, but his time as Secretary of Transportation, his time before that. And as I've talked to these campaigns in waiting, they're not formal campaigns yet, generally, when I ask them about this stuff, not always, but often they'll say, well, what should we be doing? How should we be preparing? And of course, the answer is, learn everything you need to know about the candidates past. Be ready so you're not hit with something out of the blue. But as I said, two problems with that. One is you don't know everything that's coming because nobody does, even the candidate. And the candidate often knows and isn't saying or has suppressed it. But the other thing is, you can't prepare for the need to be magical. You can't prepare for. For the need to be able to say, I got this, I'm gonna change it. I can't tell you the number of people who thought Clinton was dead politically, the people around him in 1992, in 1997, around impeachment, people grown adults in tears, saying, it's over. And same with Trump. Same with Trump. And yet when they start to survive some of these things, when they walk through the hail fire of bullets, when they emerge on the other side, not just living, but stronger for having done the politically impossible, that's when the myth grows. That's when the staff is confident. And now Team Trump, I guarantee you there's nothing that could happen. Nothing Literally, that could happen. Where they would go back to what happened after Access Hollywood and some of these other things, saying, that's it, our guy's done. Our guy's a great political athlete, but he's done. I cannot name a thing. Of course, Trump's famous. If I shot someone at Fifth Avenue, I cannot name a thing. A thing. And it's the same with Clinton back in the day. After a while, you get the joke. They've got a certain capacity that's ineffable that allows them to do this. I'd urge you, as you watch these candidates, prospective candidates, I'd urge you to think about how do they deal with crises. Governor Shapiro of Pennsylvania, who I was so high on my sources and I agreed he looked like he was the person to beat. He has not shown quite the opposite, this capacity. He has shown an inability to address these things in a way that puts them to bed and allows them to move on. Personal controversies, personnel things, some issues things. So when you're evaluating prospective candidates, whether you're Republican, Democrat, independent, if you're thinking about J.D. vance, if you're thinking about some of these Democrats, ask yourself the question, do they have what it takes, some version, Maybe not the magical Trump Clinton version, but they have what it takes to survive that firestorm. Because, believe me, no one walks into the nomination, no one walks into the general election without that capacity to survive. All right, that's what's on my mind for this week. We're going to come back in a little bit and talk to Charlie Kirk. But first, tell me what you think about what I just said. Tell me about this reported monologue and your view of it. Send me an email@nextup halpern Gmail.com that's next up. Halpern Gmail.com you can always find the program and our clips on X, on Instagram and on TikTok, where all the kids hang out at NextUp, Halpern is our handle. And of course, watch the program if you want to see me, what I'm, what I've chosen to wear on any given day, whether there's a ketchup stain on my shirt, you can watch us on YouTube.com nextup halpering and next up here, the one, the only Charlie Kirk. That's next up. All right, let me tell you a story now about a guy named Leo Grillo. He was on a road trip and Leo came across a Doberman. The dog was severely underweight, clearly in a lot of trouble. So Leo rescued that Doberman and He named him Delta. Sadly, though, horse Delta is just one of many animals and needs help, which inspired Leo to start Delta Rescue. It's 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 all their animals with shelter, love, safety and a home. This dedication and everlasting love to animals, that's Leo's mission and Leo's legacy. Delta Rescue now relies solely on contributions from people like all of us. So if you want caring for these animals to be part of your legacy, speak with your estate planner. Because there are tax savings and estate planning benefits as well, you can grow your estate while letting your love for animals live well into the future. Check out now the estate planning tab on their website to learn more and to speak with an advisor there. We call a dog man's best friend for a reason. You can help those who need it most. It's a great thing to do. So please visit Deltarescue.org today to learn more. Again, that's Deltarescue.org when it comes to.

[1-800-Flowers Advertiser]

Delivering flowers for life's special occasions, trust the name that's been setting the standard for nearly 50 years. 1-800-flowers.com from breathtaking bouquets to one of a kind arrangements, 1-800-flowers is your authority on quality blooms. Always fresh, always stunning, always delivered with care. And right now, for a limited time, you can save up to 40% off your bouquet and make someone's day. Save up to 40% off today at 1800-flowers.com sxm that's 1-800-flowers.com. sxm.

[Mark Halpern]

All right, next up, the Globetrotter, the man who founded his organization. Why are you laughing at that? Don't laugh, DeAndre. He's the founder and CEO of Turning Point USA.

[Charlie Kirk]

I was curious what you're going to say, but sorry, keep going.

[Mark Halpern]

He's the host of the Charlie Kirk Show. He's going to be on the road, as I am, later this year with Megan Ken Kelly on her worldwide really us tour. Charlie Kirk, the eponymous host. Charlie, welcome back. Thank you for making time.

[Charlie Kirk]

Thank you. Yes. Not the Harlem Globetrotters, but the Arizona Globetrotters. We're starting.

[Mark Halpern]

As much as you're comfortable, tell people where you went and how it was.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, no, I was invited to speak at a event in Korea and Japan. I've never been to Asia and I've always kind of made excuses for not being able to go to Asia. Oh, I'm too busy. There's an election. I Said, you know what? No more excuses. So I had an opportunity to see both countries the first time. Incredibly clean, orderly, wonderful people. Different world in some ways. And Tokyo especially, I mean, I only spent a day in Tokyo, which is. Just doesn't do it even close to service or justice. But amazing, amazing trip. Got back a couple days ago and yeah, three days in Asia. And so we're back now in our campus tour starting tomorrow.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, three days is not enough to get over the jet lag. So I'm not quite sure how you did it. What was memorable for you? First time in Asia? I've been many times. I spent a lot of time in Japan, been to Korea a couple times. But what stood out to you as a new experience? Revelatory.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, I mean, look, just from a. It kind of ties to domestic American politics. But I was able to walk the streets of Seoul, 5am and I mean, just how clean and orderly. Very few if any homeless people, very little of any graffiti. Their crime rates are incredibly low. It's a very high trust society. I mean, Mark, there is this one situation where you're able to leave all of your bags outside of convenience store unattended. When you go into the convenience store. It's just kind of the way they do things. There's no one's really worried if someone's going to steal your luggage or your bags, which was very bizarre when you see kind of, you know, 50 bags outside of the store. But those countries are also missing, I think, a dynamism that we have in our country as well. So it's not all something that we should necessarily apply, but boy, when it comes to crime, when it comes to cleanliness, I'm very envious because I wish our major cities were as clean and orderly as theirs are. And Tokyo especially, I mean, just Tokyo is a phenomenon. And the last thing I'll say that really was a takeaway was how seriously the people of Tokyo took the little jobs, whether it be a janitor, a bus driver. They dress well, they'll bow when you come by. They're always like, that is their task to perform, no matter how small or how big.

[Mark Halpern]

And.

[Charlie Kirk]

And it just kind of reminded me of a broader sense of duty that I'm afraid that we're losing in the West.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, I mean, as you usually do, you put your finger on it, both the strengths and weaknesses, the order, the pride, the discipline. It's incredibly attractive for not just a tourist, but for a cohesive society. On the other hand, they don't have our dynamism. And you see that particularly the Japanese economy that struggled for so long. They really. Finding the right balance is key. You brought up crime and it's one of the topics I really wanted to talk to you about. What an incredible story Irina Zarutska, her life story, I think will be told both in the United States and Ukraine for years. To come to this country from a war torn nation and to be senselessly and brutally killed here is epic and tragic and the personal piece of it is obviously most important. But there are a lot of bigger themes here and I've been talking about them on two way and in my writing. What, what do you think the importance of this story is most fundamentally?

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, it's, it's multifaceted. First of which, yeah, we covered the story a couple weeks ago when it first happened. This is important for your audience to know that this is not a couple days old story, it's a couple weeks old. It's just that the footage was released recently and the footage was so grotesque and it. Cause a lot of people were wondering when this story came out, was there a struggle? Did she have any background with this guy? It was not clear. Right. So we just kind of. The headline was Ukrainian refugees stabbed to death on mass transit. Okay. You know, there might be more to the story. Turns out this was one of the, in my opinion, I've ever seen. Coldest, most senseless murders I've ever seen. She had no interaction with this guy whatsoever. He was sitting, she was sitting minding her own business and he just takes out a knife and just decides to stab her. The big component of this though is that this was so preventable. He had 14 priors. And one of my passion projects is going to be part of me atoning for my sins in this regard because I used to kind of be sympathetic and even push for this legislatively in a prior life is this whole criminal justice reform stuff has been a complete failure. And a lot of people on the right fell for it and it was obviously pushed for people on the left. And the Koch brothers put a lot of money behind it. But how many more examples do we need of somebody with 10, 12, 13, 14 priors that then goes and commits a murder? This is not an isolated thing. We now see that this is not. There's some people that have demonstrated that the current model is not able to rehabilitate him. These people. So I think that is really where I want to focus a lot of my attention, which is what are we really doing here in regards to this whole fake and fraudulent Criminal justice push that we've seen the last 10 years especially, is it making us safer? Is it making our streets better? And I understand the intention of it. I understand that there's some people that get caught up in that thicket that probably are in jail for too long or the evidence could have been better weighed. But largely, we do not have enough people in prison in this country. And I can defend that. It's very defensible. Actually, only half of America's murders are even solved. You think about that, Mark. Only half of our murders in our country are solved. That means 50% of our murderers are walking the streets of our cities. We should have more people in prison. Not to mention this guy should have been in prison and multiple other situations that are resembling this. And so, look, I do say this with some form of just heaviness. I don't like politicizing situations like this, but it just necessitates it because there are so many dynamics at play here. And then, yes, the other part of this is that based on the information, evidence we have, the attacker did say, I got that white girl. The attacker racialized it in his own telling of this situation. And we all know this. Any honest observer of your program knows this, including Van Jones, even knows this deep down, which is that, of course, if a random white person on a subway took out a knife and stabbed a black girl senselessly to death, there would be massive media coverage to. There would be policy changes, there would be people having to apologize for this. We saw this in George Floyd. And yet, for whatever reason, the situation has not garnered even a fraction of that kind of outrage or backlash. There's a lot there, Mark, we can explore. Yeah, but I think there's. There, there's. There's many implications to this tragic and terrible story.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, you've laid out some of the most important things. You also referenced Vane Jones, a nice guy at cnn, commentated. Let's.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, I agree.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, he is. Yes. Let's listen to what you reference, which is Van Jones on CNN talking about Charlie.

[Commercial Announcer]

That's the part that I think he's.

[Charlie Kirk]

Almost giving away the game.

[Commercial Announcer]

And it's sad to see a lot of people going along with it.

[Interviewer/Reporter]

And for Charlie Kirk to say, we know he did it because she's white, when there's no evidence of that. It's just pure race. Race mongering, hate mongering. It's hurt people. Hurt people. What happened was horrible, but it becomes an opportunity for people to jump on bandwagons. And then for someone like Charlie Kirk, he should be ashamed of himself. No one mentioned the word race, white, black, or anything except him.

[Mark Halpern]

Okay, so Charlie leaving.

[Charlie Kirk]

There's so much.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, there's. There's a lot.

[Charlie Kirk]

I never said what he said I said. I never said what he said I said ever. Okay, so this is just a game of cable TV telephone. So I'm gonna grant him a little bit of grace, which is that he thinks that I said something because Abby Phillips think I said something. The second part I did say, which is like, I was not making this about race at all. In fact, I did say the second part, which is that, of course, if roles were reversed, there would be national outrage. Everybody knows that is true. That is a material fact. 100% true. But to the other part of this, that the attacker did say, I got that white girl. Van Jones did not mention that. And just as a side note, I don't want to.

[Mark Halpern]

What is it?

[Charlie Kirk]

Okay, fine. Yeah, go ahead.

[Mark Halpern]

Well, I'm sorry. What does it matter that he said that? I'm not saying it doesn't. I just want you to put in words. Why does it matter that he apparently said that the killer, the alleged killer.

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, he didn't say, I got that girl. I mean, he racialized. The attacker is a black man. No. I don't even know if it matters. It matters. Well, let's just go back. It matters because they racialized Floyd, even though Keith Ellison said there was no evidence of racial animus in that situation. Keith Ellison, the Attorney General of Minnesota, said there was no racial animus in the Floyd situation. In fact, he dismissed that repeatedly at press conferences when the media was trying to bait it. So, Van Jones, even though I believe George Floyd overdosed on drugs, I don't want to go in that situation. Ben Shapiro has done phenomenal scholarship on that. But I would ask you, Van Jones, what evidence do you have that Derek Chauvin acted racially? Why are you implying that in your answer? And you guys made us believe that for an entire summer. I have more evidence that. That this madman acted racially than Derek Chauvin did against George Floyd. And anything to contrary, it goes that you are the race hustler. Van Jones, you're a very sweet person. I met you before, but you are the race hustler. Calling me a race hustler. It's true.

[Mark Halpern]

But again, there's so much of this we could discuss. But here's where I want to open the aperture a little bit, because so often people on your side of the aisle say this because they did it first. Right. I don't want this woman's death to be caught up in George Floyd. I want you all to do what the left has not done, largely, which is turn the other cheek and just let's focus on what can be done to fix the problem that this puts in sharp relief. Because if what this becomes is a fight over rate of. They racialize something first, so now we're entitled to racialize.

[Charlie Kirk]

It doesn't racialize that the attacker mentioned she was a white girl. That is not me.

[Mark Halpern]

What is just. Charlie, what is it?

[Charlie Kirk]

It does. Hold on.

[Mark Halpern]

I'm not saying you made it up.

[Charlie Kirk]

No, no, no, no, no. It matters. Hold on. It does matter because it shows that that was an attack on a white person because of the color of their skin. And because of the rules of modern political warfare, we're told that that is the worst thing that can possibly happen. We are told in court, the post Civil Rights Act America, that if somebody is targeted based on their race, they. That is the ultimate sin. So excuse me, when all of a sudden I try to make the left live by their own moral standard. And that's what I'm doing. So the left, the left lectured us, burnt down America, changed our institutions, raised billions of dollars. We don't know where it all went. All to make us have to change our entire language, our configuration around something that there was no racial animus of, which was the death of George Floyd. All of a sudden we start to make the left live up to their own book of rules. And I'm told that I'm a race hustler. That's why it matters. It matters because it exposes the fraudulent nature of their racial posturing that they've done these last couple of years. That's why it matters, Mark. Right. Even beyond that, it should matter that if a white person is targeted based on the color of their skin, and the media doesn't care, because the media doesn't care when white people get killed by evidence of no coverage of this. I mean, again, Mark, just to say this, if it was a black victim, because of the construct that we have in our current, like, modern political landscape, we are told to believe that if a white person were to kill a black person, that is unspeakable sin, of which it would be terrible. But if a black person kills a white person because they're white, it's not even newsworthy in the New York Times, BBC, NBC, abc. You've seen all the legacy silence on this, and it's only a news story. Because of social media. So it does matter, because we, as conservatives are, are going to make the left have to live by their own book of rules. And maybe we can rewrite a new book of rules. Where is that? Hey, let's have a color neutral society where it really doesn't matter what color you are. But insofar that the attacker invoked race, we are then gonna make Van Jones, who was one of the chief race hustler designers in the summer of 2020, that made America more dangerous, made our cities worse, and in result, made America more unnecessarily, racially divided.

[Mark Halpern]

I listen to and understand everything he said. I'm for a new book of rules. That's my point. There's all sorts of ways.

[Charlie Kirk]

No, I understand.

[Mark Halpern]

I know you're not. I know you're not. I know you're not. I know you're not. I just. In the spirit of, of the platform that you have and, and, and the ability you have to influence folks, I'm looking to end, you know, my view of the liberal media and the bias and, and how upset people are justifiably about that. I don't disagree with your analysis of the Floyd situation. What I want for my kid and your kids is, is in America and a set of political conversations that don't say eye for an eye. The left did this, so now they're going to have to eat their own rule book. They're going to have to live by their own rules. Because in this case, there's plenty to discuss that don't involve the failure of the media, although it's getting covered a fair amount now, and it doesn't involve us. But yes, the left hypocrisy. Well, sure. Well, partly for sure, although I think it would have gotten coverage because of the video. But I want a new set of rules that says what you started with, which is, do we need new judges? Do we need new laws? Do we need what could have prevented her death?

[Charlie Kirk]

Sure.

[Mark Halpern]

And that's where I want the focus to be.

[Charlie Kirk]

But let me challenge you one last time. Until we break the left's book of rules, we will not be able to get policy changes because their book of rules gave us these bad policies. Mark, let's just be clear. Their book of rules is why they allow these repeat offenders. That George Floyd Criminal justice act that Van Jones was peddling would have put more violent criminals on the streets. They're the ones that want, you know, very pacified prison reform or criminal justice reform. So what I'm getting at, though, is that it's important that if we are to rewrite the new book of rules, we must publicly put, put those book of rules on trial of which I am doing. And it's working because it's indefensible because they set the standard and they are in control of so much of the configuration of how these things are framed. So I agree. So what do those new books of rules mean? We need three strike laws back. And if you happen to attack a random person violently, prison for the rest of your life, end of story. Like if you just happen to randomly attack a person by the side of your street, we need more judges. We should not be releasing repeat offenders on the street. And I think we need to have the moral clarity and courage to push back against this propaganda that, you know, we have too many people in prison. We do not have enough people in prison, period. Hard stop. We're a violent country. It's not a good thing. It's something that Japan is not and South Korea is not to kind of tie this all together. And since we are a violent country, we need more prisoners and we need more prisons. And until we're willing to swallow that pill and say that we're going to keep on having situations like this happen and our inner cities are going to be chaotic places of crime where you don't know if you're gonna be getting on a subway and if you'll get home or whether something's gonna happen to you. There's a lot more to unpack here, Mark. But just to summarize, if we are to write a new book of rules, you must first, you must first upend the current one, which is dominant, which was ushered in post. George Floyd. I wanna see that gone. That new book of rules, though I'm happy to have that conversation with anybody. I don't think Van Jones actually would agree or whomever on the side because they'll always, always, always, always say it's systemic. It's because they don't have money. It's a thing of poverty. We don't know why this thing did it. Van Jones. It is actually, it is more important to say or whomever the question of what are we going to do when the people do this? And if you are more on the side of, well, we need to have compassion for the assailant. How about compassion for Irina Zarudska and the potential arena Zarudska? That is why I on the maga. Right. And this is where it plays in politically and I think your audience will like it. We are becoming harsher and harder on crime. It's very popular with the American people, and we're kind of finally exercising the demons of our libertarian past and getting back to our true conservative roots.

[Mark Halpern]

All right, we could talk about this forever, but we're going to take a break. And next up, Charlie and I. Charlie and I are going to talk about the economy and young people. Stay with us. That's next up. Listen up now. If you're 64 years or older, older, this is important. The Department of Justice recently sued three major Medicare brokers for claiming they were unbiased while allegedly pushing people into plans that got them the biggest kickbacks. It's true so many insurance agents just can't be trusted. But you can't necessarily rely on government resources either. That's why I want you to know about something called Chapter. Chapter was started by people who went through this personally themselves after their own parents were pushed into the wrong Medicare plan by an agent more focused on commissions than on care. Chapter's mission is very simple. To give every American the honest, straightforward Medicare advice they deserve. And here's what makes them different. They're the only Medicare advisor that compares every plan across the country, not just a handful. That saves their clients an average of $1,100 per year. The there's no reason not to call. It's quick, it's easy, and they can review your options in under 20 minutes. If you're already in the right plan, they'll tell you that. But if there's a better plan, they'll help you switch. This could be the most important call you make this year. Dial £250 and say Chapter Medicare to get peace of mind. Again, that's £250 and say Chapter Medicare.

[Commercial Announcer]

Moms and dads, do you wish you could know where your kids shoes are at all times? Now you can, with Skecher's newest Apple AirTag compatible sneakers. Find My Sketchers There's a clever, hidden Airtag compartment under the shoe's insole. It's sleek, secure, and your child can't feel or see it. Then you can check where your kids shoes are on the Find My app. Plus, they're available for boys and girls. Get Find my [e-mail], a Skechers store near you, or wherever kids shoes are sold. Apple AirTags sold separately.

[1-800-Flowers Advertiser]

Whenever I need to send roses that are guaranteed to make someone's day, the only place I trust is 1-800-flowers.com with 1-800-flowers. My friends and family always receive stunning high quality bouquets that they absolutely love. Right now, when you buy a dozen multicolored roses, 1-800-flowers will double your bouquet to two dozen roses. To claim this special double roses offer, go to 1-800-flowers.com Pandora that's 1-800flowers.com Pandora.

[Mark Halpern]

All right, back more next up with Charlie Kirk. Charlie, there's been economic data that's not great. I know you follow that closely. And there's this new NBC poll that shows young men generally more favorably disposed towards Donald Trump and his policies in young women. And I want to talk about kind of the intersection of those two. How are you feeling about the economy and what are you hearing from the young people you talk to about how they're feeling?

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, I feel pretty good. I mean, our campus tour is about to kick off in a couple of days. So I'll have a better answer for you in the coming weeks. I mean, look, the president knows this, that he still has a lot of work to do with young people. I think that we're in a much better spot than we were a year ago. I could tell you, Mark, undoubtedly talking to CEOs, businessmen, investors and even international folks, the psychology of the American economy is far better. And so much what happens in business is just psychology. Do you think we're doing better? Do you think that this is a better pro business environment? I actually haven't had a chance to dive into those economic numbers. I was, as you know, traveling, so I'm going to have to do that. I was told that they weren't as good as they could have been, but I'm not going to be able to comment on that. I will say, though, that there are a couple fundamental problems that I know the president wants to solve and I think he has to solve. Homeownership for young people is, number one, cost of living. And then also just restoring this idea of the American way of life, which is fundamentally meritocratic, which is that if I work hard and play by the rules, I can materially and financially and socially ascend in this country. What we are seeing happen is more and more political and economic nihilism. I think we're going to be able to cut that off at the past. But it is a race against the clock. And I've said this, I've said this publicly, is that you have kind of two competing economic visions of which I think the Democrat Party, they're going to stumble upon themselves, but they're eventually going to end up in this mold. And you and I have talked about this before on My podcast, Mark, which is you have MAGA pretty clear what we believe, right? We believe in America first agenda, but we're generally, you know, fair. We believe in markets with proper restraints and we like entrepreneurship, private property rights. The other side, you have Mamdani and you have this idea of mass economic restructuring, kind of bitter resentment. And he is kind of a, you know, more polished version on a city level of confiscatory economic policy. It's very alluring, it's very attractive, especially to a generation that owns nothing, that is renting endlessly. And so all this to say, Mark, that there's going to be kind of a fork in the road politically and philosophically over the next couple of years. So I'll have a better idea of where young people are feeling in the next couple of days, next couple of weeks, but there's definitely more work to do. But I think the President's successes so far have been notable. We are seeing housing prices go down finally in the sun belt. That data came out the last couple of days. We're starting to see housing go down a little bit. But the biggest thing is going to be can we, can we grow the economy for young people in particular, not just for late Gen Xers and baby boomers. And baby boomers. So I have a lot more to say on that. As you know, I've been pretty non political on this, saying that this is an issue that transcends political lines and it's of civilizational import.

[Mark Halpern]

Right. Should young people look to Washington to look to the Trump administration to help the economy or should they just be thinking about the private sector?

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, both. I think that, look, I think the one big beautiful bill has some very compelling provisions that are going to help young people. But I mean, I say this regardless if it's Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or Donald Trump in the White House, you should always be looking towards your own agency for your own success. Right. Meaning that it's your own capacity to save, it's your own capacity to invest and to see a better future. Not a politician, regardless of who's in there. But I think that we're going to see a major economic boom at some time during this presidency. I think there's a pent up need and desire for this. And as bad as people want to say the, you know, oh, the economy, you know, we're look, we are so much better than our peers and our competitors. We are seeing, and we're going to see trillions of dollars of capital invested in this country. And look, also the other component of this though is that we are trying to reverse a couple years of massive deficit spending, of unnecessary inflation and trying to get back towards a private sector economic growth model. So. But my number one thing that I'm looking at is can we increase the amount of home ownership for young people in America? It's the number one thing that I'm most concerned about.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. And the President and Treasury Secretary are concerned about it and are talking about it. Do you have any thoughts on what they might do or what they should do to deal with homeownership?

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, I think deportations help because you're limiting the supply of people that will potentially be able to go into housing. I also think that you need to build more homes. So there's a little bit of debate amongst this, which is will lowering interest rates actually lower housing prices? You can look at it either way. So interest rates will probably release a lot of buyers and that will increase housing prices. However, developers, especially mass developers that are developing thousands of homes are almost always, always, always borrowing. I mean, they're not putting up all their money as equity. So lower interest rates will probably increase the supply. Longer term. I am willing to endorse some radical ideas going to as far as is it time for a new social compact, you know, piece of legislation? The same way that we did this for veterans after World War II. Because this generation has been so battered, treated so terribly when it comes to economics. Everything is more expensive, everything is out of reach. First time home buyer 10 years ago was 30, now it's 39. We have more baby boomers than Gen X, gen zers buying homes. I can go through all the numbers. They're not great and it's not President Trump's fault. A lot of this is an inherited economic multi decade problem that is just culminating right now. So generally I want to, I have the position that we need pro free market, pro freedom solutions towards this. But the other thing is this. I and I had a private conversation with someone that you would know and that you would recognize. I won't say his name, multibillionaire guy who's like, but Charlie, we should just change the philosophy towards a nation of renters. It's better for them. You can move easier. I reject that wholeheartedly. That is a fight that I think is coming, Mark, is that some people on the right are just going to propagandize this house. Well, it's the same if you rent as you own. I completely disagree. I think ownership is good for the individual. I think it's Good for society. I think it's good for the community. I think it's good for your family. I think it's good to be able to say, I own something. You can't take it away from me. So, anyway, that's another, I think, philosophical fight. You know, it's going to happen mostly amongst the. Right.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. You know, what that story illustrates is you and I know a lot of billionaires. Some of them aren't that bright. I don't know. I don't know how they got so rich because they're not that bright.

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, look, we know they might.

[Mark Halpern]

Know a lot of bright ones, too, but.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah. I will say, though, that if you've made money yourself as a billionaire, you're. You're probably good. You're probably amazing at one or two things. That does not mean you're good.

[Mark Halpern]

Not at, but not everything. Yeah.

[Charlie Kirk]

That's one of the lessons I've learned being around America's ruling class. So.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah, Yeah. I mean, well, someday I want to do a whole show with you about billionaires, but not today. This NBC poll. Okay, good. I realized the other day I know almost 10% of America's billionaires feel blessed professionally to have had that opportunity. You probably know more than I do. You probably know 20.

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, I don't.

[Mark Halpern]

There's like 1100. There's like 1100. It's like 1100. And I know like 100. 100. And some of them. No, you know, number two. Whatever.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yeah, yeah, probably.

[Mark Halpern]

Probably some overlap in our list. This NBC poll that shows a clear gap in the poll between female and male support for President Trump and his policies. Does that match with your experience? And if so, why do you think that is?

[Charlie Kirk]

It does. The most interesting part of that poll, though, is actually, and it's not getting as much coverage. Women who voted for Trump have equally low prioritization of family formation and having children. Men who voted for Harris, women who voted for Trump, women who voted for Harris all have a low value on having children and getting married. Men who voted for Trump have a high value. I want some sociologist to tell me, has there ever been a time in American history where it's the men who want the children dramatically more than women? I'm curious. I don't know. Maybe. You know, Mark, I think that would be just worth kind of going back in the tickler file of data that we. Somebody must know that answer to that. Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

I was struck by the same. That's right. I was struck by the same thing. And I'll invite you to, to theorize and speculate. I've got some ideas, but I wanna hear yours first. Why would men, men who voted for Trump feel that way compared to everybody else?

[Charlie Kirk]

Well, they want a traditional way of life. They also are rebelling against all the trash of COVID and they're going to church more, which obviously prioritizes this. They're obviously leaning into religion more. I could do a whole hour long program on this and to what I think is happening in a way that probably is just nothing more than analysis. But young women in particular, they have, I believe, been sold a mythology. Part of it is true, but mostly a lie that the 60s and 70s were nothing but oppressive for women. And the most thing, the most important thing that you must prioritize is your own freedom. That if you don't have the ability to make your own money that you will be held captive in a marriage. Now this is not even a controversial thing I'm saying, Mark, I'm simply psychoanalyzing it because after hundreds of conversations have finally clicked to me that it's not about the stuff that the women want. It's about, they want the ability to escape or to be able to be self reliant if they're ever in a relationship that goes south. That's really what this is all about. I don't know if you agree with that or not, but that's. Yeah, that's primary motivation.

[Mark Halpern]

All right, here's my equally, here's my equally fact based sort of speculation. I think people search for, primarily for two things, for security and for meaning in their lives. And right now, if you're a young male, you know, so many young people, I think over the last couple decades, if you have, when I've asked young people, you know, do you want to have kids, it's the farthest thing from their mind, particularly men. But I think for now we've had a switch for a variety of reasons which we could speculate about or talk about. Where men see meaning and security in having kids. And women, young women see meaning and security in having more independence because they need to be in the market, they need to build human capital, they need to not be as vulnerable to reliance on a spouse. Whereas for men they're moving towards that. They don't want to wait till they're 40 to have a kid. They want the security and meaning that comes with starting earlier.

[Charlie Kirk]

I think that's all right. And I don't think any of this is good. That's where this is not a good trend. It's Actually really bad. I mean, it's good that men want kids, but this is not just to final point on the NBC poll. It's not like women ranked. Having kids is like four or five. I mean, it was at the bottom of the list. Right. It was very evidently like. And then for the men, it wasn't like they ranked at 4 or 5. It was at the top of the list. So there is something just alarmingly dramatic happening that and need to be explained and explored.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. And fixed because this goes back to the economy and housing. When I talk to young people, they're so, they're incredulous that they could buy a home big enough for themselves and maybe a spouse. But when you say, are you in a trajectory to buy a home big enough for kids to be able to afford to send them to school to take family vacations? It's the farthest thing from their experience. It's the farthest thing from their, with they feels in their grasp. And so until that's fixed, what you and I want, which is for people to get married and have kids earlier, not just so that they can enjoy it, but for all the societal benefits of that, they can't afford it. It's, it's, it's implausible. It's implausible for them to think, yeah, I'm going to go buy this four bedroom house in a nice neighborhood and start to save for, for college.

[Charlie Kirk]

That's. Yeah, it's 1.7 million bucks. Right. And I will say that this is something that we as conservatives have to address and solve. If not naked political opportunists on the left will take advantage of the situation. And Mamdani is the coming attraction of that.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. When you think about Mondami, the President and his team have expended effort. Some of this happened while you were gone. You probably missed some of it. But they've been trying to get Cuomo elected. I mean, we don't need to put a fine point on it. They want to stop Monda me partly because their own personal wealth concerns, but also they love New York City and they don't want a socialist mayor. Do you think that there's, what are the prospects, do you think at this point that there'll be a plan to get, to get Cuomo the victim?

[Charlie Kirk]

I don't know. I don't know. I actually haven't, I've not talked to the Trump team at all about this. The only conversation I had with the President was when I encouraged him to try to get Curtis Slow out of the race. And he was not a big fan of Curtis. He was like, that guy's just a novelty candidate. That was the only conversation I had. It was back in July. So I can't speak for the president.

[Mark Halpern]

Can you. What could you offer? What could you offer Curtis?

[Charlie Kirk]

What could I. It doesn't matter.

[Mark Halpern]

Take him on tour with.

[Charlie Kirk]

All kidding aside, he doesn't want to drop out. B. They have this weird thing like if you don't run a candidate then you're not allowed on the ballot the next time. It's like a goofy, weird New York City thing. I don't know.

[Mark Halpern]

He could, he could stay on the. He could. He could stay on the ballot and just say don't vote.

[Charlie Kirk]

Of course he should drop out. That's a no brainer. It's 15% that would get freed up. Ish. Based on the polling. Right. But he's not, he's not looking like that. The whole thing is just a catastrophe. And it looks as if Mom Donny is the likely favorite to become the mayor of New York City.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. And at that point, do you agree with the analysts who say he'll be the face of the Democratic Party for a while and it'll be. It'll be tough for other Democrats?

[Charlie Kirk]

I don't know, man. Well, it will be the face. Yes, but the tough. I'm trying to warn people, you don't want to run against economic populism properly articulated. I'm telling you that from the left now. Thankfully they're totally insane on trans crime and border. So you know, politically that's easier to run against. But man, it takes. It takes very little political skill to say I'm going to take from them to give to you. Vote for me. So I take from them to give to you. It's what I call the dark triad of economics. Vote for me. So I take from them to give to you. That's. I don't want to live in that country, man. And it will be rep. It will replicate itself especially to kind of complete the circle. You have a generation of people that own nothing and are not happy. They will look for politicians that are kind of in that dark triad of political economics. Vote for me. So I take from them to give to you. That's.

[Mark Halpern]

That's. What do you think would happen? I. I know you're busy, but if you. I took time and flew up here and you and I went to a Mandami rally together, what kind of reception do you think you would get there? Like just standing quite negative.

[Charlie Kirk]

I mean, I Wouldn't be able to last 30 seconds. However. However, all kidding aside, if I could pull off a disguise, I actually would love to go as just a citizen and learn. No, I mean, I mean, come on.

[Mark Halpern]

Come up. Come up and dress like Serpico. We'll get you. It's summer, but we'll get you like a, A cap.

[Charlie Kirk]

And I think. I think we should hire a professional costume artist and I should dress.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah.

[Charlie Kirk]

As you know, there's a.

[Mark Halpern]

There's a Halloween pop night. There's a. There's a Halloween. There's a Halloween pop up in Greenwich Village. I passed the other day. So come up, we'll get costume, we'll shoot the whole thing. We'll do a nice gag video.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yes.

[Mark Halpern]

We'll go to the rally.

[Charlie Kirk]

I don't even want to troll the supporters like. I know.

[Donald Trump]

Yeah.

[Mark Halpern]

We just want to be present.

[Charlie Kirk]

Same way that people wanted to go to the maga rally to learn. I think it's incumbent on us to go and see what is happening in.

[Mark Halpern]

Our country and talk and talk to people.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yes.

[Mark Halpern]

I'm a little worried about how you'd. I'm a little worried about how you'd react to the secondhand fumes. That's my concern, man.

[Charlie Kirk]

I'm telling you, I didn't do well in Bill Maher. Secondhand high is a real thing. You thank Bill Maher for that.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. Yeah. South Park. Were you a fan of south park as a boy? Not.

[Charlie Kirk]

Yes and no. I'll tell you that When I was, I, I. It was a big deal when I was in like 8th, 9th grade. So I watched a couple episodes thinking I'd ever be on South Car. South park was like beyond anything I had on my. Even back this summer. I couldn't have imagined it. So.

[Mark Halpern]

Yeah. So they included you in the, in the new episode. Do you care?

[Charlie Kirk]

I thought it was hilarious. I thought it was awesome. I thought it was hilarious.

[Mark Halpern]

Charlie Kirk featured on South Park. Let's take a look.

[Eric Cartman (South Park Character)]

Watch as Eric Cartman shuts down these woke liberal students.

[Commercial Announcer]

Oh my God. What makes you think you have the right to say what I do with my body?

[Eric Cartman (South Park Character)]

Let me ask you something. If a pregnant woman is killed and the baby dies too, why is the killer charged with a double homicide?

[Commercial Announcer]

Well, but because people have different beliefs.

[Eric Cartman (South Park Character)]

It's not about belief, it's about truth. Science confirms life begins at conception. So yes, Jeremiah 1:5 says, before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. But it's just morality that demands we protect the most vulnerable. So let me Ask you, when do you think life begins?

[Commercial Announcer]

Eric, are you all right in there?

[Eric Cartman (South Park Character)]

Yeah, I'm fine, Mom. I'm just in here. Master debating.

[Commercial Announcer]

Well, Eric, that's enough. Let's get out of the bathroom.

[Eric Cartman (South Park Character)]

I can't, Mom. I'm master debating to these young college girls.

[Commercial Announcer]

That's very naughty. Eric, stop it.

[Mark Halpern]

Mom.

[Eric Cartman (South Park Character)]

I finally got sponsored by a protein powder. So I got a master debate for a couple more hours. Leviticus 9:1 through 8. Leave me alone.

[Charlie Kirk]

It was so funny. A lot of people on the left were mad that I wasn't mad. I thought it was really funny. And you know, a lot of people are, you know, we have the master debater shirt. We kind of. You have to be able to laugh at yourself. Don't take yourself so seriously. And honestly, like they captured the essence of like what we kind of do in a very South Parkian way. And you know that that's, that's a symbol of success. And I think we on the right have to be able to laugh at ourselves better.

[Mark Halpern]

I've never been so proud of you for all your, for all your accomplishments. This to me was like the pinnacle. Grateful to you for making time. I know you're busy and. Welcome back.

[Charlie Kirk]

Thank you.

[Mark Halpern]

I was slightly afraid you would just love Japan so much you'd stay. So I'm honestly, I did love it.

[Charlie Kirk]

And I will be back, but I have a mission to save America, not Japan. Thank you, Mark, Talk to you.

[Mark Halpern]

All right. Thank you, sir. See you on your show soon and on my show. And I'm grateful to you for making time. All right, that is it for today's program. We'll be back. Thank you, sir. We'll be back Thursday. All brand new episode. And that will include something I think you're going to like. We're going to have a debate, the first semi official 2026 midterm debate. I'm going to be moderating a conversation between two gentlemen who would like to be governor of California. Republican Steve Hilton. Democrat Stephen Klubeck. They will join us and we're going to talk about the issues that matter in California. One in every seven Americans lives in California. This isn't going to be like a legacy media debate. We are doing something I hope you'll like and hope other candidates will enjoy. We're updating the old network news debate format. We think for the better we're going to fit what happens here in the new media, in the non legacy media, today's political climate. A good substantive, fun, interesting conversation where you'll get to understand these two guys putting themselves forward to be governor of our big estate. So don't miss it. We'll see you on Thursday. And of course, always make sure help us out and be part of the Nexter community. Subscribe Download NextUp wherever you get your podcast including Apple and Spotify and Watch us on YouTube. Stay close so you always know what's next.

[Charlie Kirk]

Up.

[Commercial Announcer]

Moms and Dads do you wish you could know where your kids shoes are at all times? Now you can with skechers newest Apple AirTag compatible sneakers. Find My Skechers There's a clever hidden Airtag compartment under the shoes insole. It's sleek, secure and you're just child can't feel or see it. Then you can check where your kids shoes are on the Find My app. Plus they're available for boys and girls. Get Find my [e-mail], a Skechers store near you or wherever kids shoes are sold. Apple AirTags sold separately.

[Blood Cancer United Representative]

Being diagnosed with leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, or one of over 100 other types of blood cancer makes people want more time to do the things they love. That means more time to be artists, prom dates, world travelers, and moms. We are Blood Cancer United, the world's leading organization focused solely on blood cancer research, support and advocacy. We do the most for more people with blood cancer so people with blood cancer can do more of whatever they want. Blood Cancer United Join us and donate [e-mail].