The Shawn Ryan Show
Episode: 🚨 IMMEDIATE RELEASE 🚨 Rep. Dan Crenshaw Threatens to Sue Shawn Ryan...
Host: Shawn Ryan
Date: December 11, 2025
Episode Overview
In this urgent and candid episode, Shawn Ryan addresses his audience regarding a legal demand letter he received from Congressman Dan Crenshaw, who has threatened to sue Shawn for defamation. The episode unpacks the events that led to this confrontation, examines the content and implications of Congressman Crenshaw’s messages, and reflects on the broader issues of transparency, free speech, and accountability for public officials. Shawn emphasizes his refusal to back down, promising full transparency and inviting his audience to assess the facts for themselves.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
Background to the Legal Threat
- [00:57] Shawn discloses receiving a legal demand from Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s lawyers on December 9, 2025.
- The letter accuses him of defamation over comments made about Crenshaw’s lifestyle and finances.
- Crenshaw’s demands: Remove content, issue a public apology, and stop mentioning him.
- Shawn’s response: Rejects all demands, choosing transparency.
Shawn (00:57): “I'm not going to do any of that. Let me give you full context so you can judge for yourself what I originally said.”
The Origin of the Controversy
- [01:15] Shawn previously questioned, without naming Crenshaw, how a congressman on a $174K salary could afford high-end parties (e.g., Steve Aoki DJing at Crenshaw’s 40th birthday).
- These comments led Crenshaw to personally message Shawn.
The Instagram Message & Perception of Threat
- [02:39] Shawn reads the direct Instagram message sent by Crenshaw:
Shawn quoting Crenshaw (02:39):
“Hey, Sean, you have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at 6 told me about your indirect swipe at me. From the comment you made, it sounds like you have some beliefs that are based on trendy narratives instead of facts.”
— Congressman Dan Crenshaw to Shawn Ryan
- Shawn explains his interpretation:
- Refers to “my boys at 6” as a reference to SEAL Team Six/DEVGRU, an elite special operations unit.
- Felt the invocation of SEAL Team Six—especially from a sitting Congressman—carried a threatening undertone, particularly in the context of prior criticism.
Shawn (03:46): “When I received that message, in the context of me criticizing him, I interpreted it as threatening. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe he just meant that some guys he used to work with told him about my comments and he wanted to have a friendly chat. But that's not how it read to me, and I said so on my podcast.”
Context of Aggressive Rhetoric
- [04:39] Shawn references a claimed clip where Crenshaw allegedly said he would "fucking kill" Tucker Carlson, suggesting a pattern of aggressive statements.
Shawn (04:39): “Now here's a clip of Congressman Dan Crenshaw literally saying, if he ever meets Tucker Carlson, he will fucking kill him.”
Crenshaw’s Legal Demands & Shawn’s Response
- [04:56] Crenshaw’s lawyers allege Shawn’s public interpretation of the Instagram message constitutes defamation—specifically, that Shawn accused Crenshaw of issuing a criminal threat.
- They demand a public apology and removal of the episode.
- Shawn’s rebuttal: Will not comply and is publishing the demand letter and his own lawyer's response for full audience scrutiny.
Shawn (05:39): “This isn't really about whether I misunderstood a message. This is about whether a sitting member of Congress can use the threat of an expensive litigation to silence criticism… I won't.”
On Asking Legitimate Questions about Public Officials
- Shawn reasserts his core inquiries:
- How did Congressman Crenshaw accumulate significant wealth on a congressional salary?
- What stocks did he trade while in office, and was he privy to non-public information?
- How was he able to afford such an extravagant party?
- Posits that legal threats are an attempt to avoid answering these legitimate questions.
- Warns that any lawsuit will result in a discovery process that will dig into Crenshaw’s finances.
Shawn (06:22): “If Congressman Crenshaw wants to sue me, he can. My lawyers are ready. And if he does, we're going to use the discovery process to get answers to all the questions I originally asked.”
Shawn’s Position on Free Speech and Accountability
- Shawn frames the dispute as a test of whether elected officials can use their power and resources to stifle critical inquiry.
- Reiterates his military background and lack of intimidation by legal threats.
- Doubles down on the need for public scrutiny of elected leaders.
Shawn (07:22): “He thought a legal threat would make me back down. But unfortunately, Dan, you're wrong. I'm a veteran who. I've been in combat, too. I've faced actual threats. A demand letter from a D.C. law firm unfortunately does not scare me.”
Invitation to Crenshaw and the Audience
- Shawn leaves the door open for Crenshaw to clarify his message and answer the underlying questions, but refuses to apologize for raising them.
Shawn (08:43): “To Congressman Crenshaw. Sir, if you want to clarify what you meant by my boys at six, you're welcome to do so. If you want to answer your questions about your wealth accumulation and your stock trading, I'll give your time to do it. But if you think you're going to silence me with legal threats, you've badly miscalculated.”
- Shawn encourages his audience to review all the documents themselves, reiterating his commitment to transparency.
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- [00:57] “I'm not going to do any of that. Let me give you full context so you can judge for yourself what I originally said.” — Shawn
- [02:39] “Hey, Sean, you have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at 6 told me about your indirect swipe at me…” — Congressman Dan Crenshaw (quoted by Shawn)
- [03:46] “When I received that message, in the context of me criticizing him, I interpreted it as threatening… But that's not how it read to me.” — Shawn
- [04:39] “Now here's a clip of Congressman Dan Crenshaw literally saying, if he ever meets Tucker Carlson, he will fucking kill him.” — Shawn
- [06:22] “If Congressman Crenshaw wants to sue me, he can. My lawyers are ready. And if he does, we're going to use the discovery process to get answers to all the questions I originally asked.” — Shawn
- [07:22] “He thought a legal threat would make me back down. But unfortunately, Dan, you're wrong. I'm a veteran… I've faced actual threats. A demand letter from a D.C. law firm unfortunately does not scare me.” — Shawn
- [08:43] “Sir, if you want to clarify what you meant by my boys at six, you're welcome to do so… If you think you're going to silence me with legal threats, you've badly miscalculated.” — Shawn
Important Segment Timestamps
- 00:57 – Shawn announces the legal threat from Crenshaw
- 01:15 – Context about earlier discussion on congressional wealth and parties
- 02:39 – Reading of Crenshaw's Instagram message, explanation of "my boys at 6"
- 03:46 – Shawn’s interpretation and rationale for feeling threatened
- 04:39 – Reference to aggressive rhetoric involving Tucker Carlson
- 04:56 – Details about the defamation demand and Shawn’s response
- 06:22 – Shawn discusses readiness for legal discovery, reiterates core financial questions
- 07:22 – Shawn’s response to intimidation and his background
- 08:43 – Invitation for Crenshaw to clarify, affirmation of continued questioning
Tone and Style
The tone throughout is candid, firm, and combative. Shawn is unapologetic about raising uncomfortable questions and is open with his audience, appealing to values of transparency, free speech, and holding power accountable.
Summary
This episode is a bold pushback against attempts by a high-profile public official to silence criticism via legal threats. Shawn Ryan shares the complete context of his statements, the communications he received, and his unwavering commitment to transparency and the democratic principle of holding elected officials to account. He invites both Congressman Crenshaw and his audience into an open dialogue, making clear that he won’t back down from legitimate inquiry—and that he’s prepared for whatever legal steps follow.