Loading summary
Transcript58 lines
- [00:00]
Ben Shapiro
She's made up her mind to live pretty smart learn to budget responsibly right from the start she spends a little less, inputs more into savings Keeps her blood pressure low and credit score raises.
- [00:17]
Ryan Reynolds
She'S cutting debt right out of her.
- [00:19]
Ben Shapiro
Life she tracks her cash flow on her spreadsheet at night Boring money moves make kinda lame songs but they sound.
- [00:26]
Unknown Speaker
Pretty sweet to your wallet brilliantly boring since 1865. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy taxes and fees extra. See mintmobile.com Mama Papa Alrighty folks. Tons. Coming up on today's show, all the updates on this terrible shooting in New York City. Plus massive controversy, Internet cleavage over Sydney Sweeney's cleavage, among other things in we'll bring you all the foreign policy and economics updates. But first, we are 35 days out from the release of my brand new book, Lions and scavengers coming September 2nd. It's been four years in the making. It lays out the defining battle of our time between those who build and those who wish to tear everything down. Via resentment and envy, I expose exactly how those scavengers are undermining the west and why the Lions have to fight back. If you've had enough of the scavengers, this is the book you read before the next round begins. Go to dailywire.com ben to pre order right now, all the buying options are there, including Amazon, Barnes and Noble, even a signed copy from the Daily Wire shop. Again, that's Daily Wire.com BEN so yesterday afternoon, horrific shooting in midtown Manhattan. According to the Associated Press, a man stalked through a Manhattan office tower firing a rifle, killing four people, including a New York City police officer, wounding a fifth person before shooting himself. That shooting took place at a skyscraper that is home to both the headquarters of the NFL as well as Blackstone. It appears that the shooter was attempting to target the NFL headquarters, got off at the wrong floor and just started shooting people. The gunman was identified as a a person with a documented mental health history. We don't use the names of mass shooters on the program because we don't wish to give them the sort of glory and and attention that they so desperately seek. The motive was supposedly unknown, although there was apparently a note on the body that suggested that this person, who apparently had a history when he was in high school, being a pretty good football player, he said he had cte. The short note was scribbled, according to cnn, over three pages and found by investigators after the shooting. It apparently expressed grievances with the NFL and suggested that he suffered from some sort of brain damage and had mental illness and that is why he was doing all of this. Surveillance video showed the man exiting a double park BMW just before 6:30pm carrying an M4 rifle and then marching across a public plaza into the building. He started firing. Apparently he killed a police officer who was off duty working a corporate security detail and then also hit a woman who tried to take cover as he sprayed the lobby with gunfire. He then went to an elevator bank, shot a guard at a security desk and then shot another man in the lobby, then went all the way up to the 33rd floor offices of the company that owned the building. Now again, that's probably not on purpose. Probably what happens that someone summoned the elevator. Because when you go into these big office buildings in New York usually have to have a key card to get into the level that you are seeking to go to. Probably this person just got into the elevator, went up to wherever it was going, got off and started shooting people. He shot and killed one person on that floor and then he shot and killed himself. The officer killed was a man named Didarul Islam, an immigrant from Bangladesh who had served as a police officer in New York City for three and a half years. Mayor Eric Adams said that officials are still unraveling what took place. There is a rifle case, revolver magazines and ammo in the car and as well as medication that belonged apparently to, to the shooter. The vehicle traveled all the way across the country. It went through Colorado, then Nebraska and Iowa, and then went through New Jersey on Monday and drove into New York City thereafter. And so what is there to say about this? Well, I mean, obviously the media continued to get this sort of stuff wrong in early reporting. And this is why it is worthwhile to wait for a little bit before you make a judgment as to the motivations or the identity of the shooter. Here was CNN in real time getting it wrong, suggesting this person was, quote unquote, possibly white. He clearly was not. This person was obviously a person of color. Here is CNN getting it wrong. All right, so Brian, stay with us. The deputy former deputy Director of the FBI, Andy McCabe is with us as well. And Andy, I just want to ask you, you talk about a 40 floor, a 44 story building, as Brian is reporting and what John Miller just said, there were a few things that really stood out there among them that they did get. They do know what he looks like. Sunglasses, mustache, male, possibly white. So again, getting that completely wrong. Now, some people are suggesting that that is because of animus for white people by cnn. Certainly a possibility. CNN is always quick to jump to a particular racial narrative. And because this was not a white person shooting up in an office building, presumably it'll be out of the news within about five minutes. With that said, CNN tends to get things wrong, just as most networks tend to get things wrong in the early minutes of any reportage. The bigger point here about the city of New York is that you really should not be electing a mayor of the city who hates the cops, regardless of the motivation of the shooter. And we can talk about the NFL and CTE and the damage that is done to brains by the repeated concussions that football players suffer, but the real story here is that if you're a resident of New York City, forget about CTE and the motivations of the shooter. Why would you elect as mayor a person who obviously does not like the police? Flashback November 7, 2020. Zoran Mamdani, now the front runner for New York mayor, quote, nature is healing. He tweeted that in response to a person writing, I just saw a cop crying in his car. Lmao. Nature is healing, says Zoran Mamdani. This is a person who obviously has animus for the police department. He's also somebody who believes in defunding the police. And now he's attempting to walk that back as he runs for New York mayor. If New York decides they wish to embrace a person who hates the cops, wish to undermine the cops, who wishes to destroy the ability of the cops to police the city, you will end up with more violence, period of all sorts. People being thrown in front of subways, people engaging in mass shootings, people engaging in stabbings. Now all of that will go up because the cops are indeed the barrier between chaos and normalcy in the city of New York. So if you're in New York City this morning and you're thinking of voting for the socialist idiot who is Zoran Mamzani, you might want to think twice because honestly, every incidence of violence just underscores that you need a a virile and powerful police department in order to ensure safety in a major city like New York. Alrighty, folks. Coming up, a commercial feature. Sydney Sweeney and Everybody Goes Crazy because of Nazism or something. We'll get to all of it. First, here's the reality. Over 90% of Americans are not getting enough dietary fiber. Most of us aren't hitting that recommended variety of fruits and veggies either. I know I wasn't. That's why I tried Balance of Nature supplements. These aren't some artificial knockoff trying to mimic what nature provides. They simply let nature do what it does. We're talking about 47 real ingredients. Mango, wild blueberry, spinach, kale, shiitake mushrooms, broccoli. The whole works. Plus their fiber and spice blend is also unique. It combines four whole fibers like psyllium, husk and flaxseed with 12 aromatic spices including turmeric and cinnamon. You won't find another supplement that does that. I also appreciate there are no artificial additives and no added sugars, just clean ingredients. They're vegan, kosher, certified by the ou, and gluten free. You can even mix the powder into smoothies or sprinkle it over food. No bags, no mess, no measuring. And when I'm traveling hard to be really nutritiously conscious, it's absolutely handy. Balance of Nature after years of research and development, they've created something that makes getting proper nutrition convenient. Go to balanceofnature.com use promo code SHAPIRO for 35 off your first order as a preferred customer. Plus get a free bottle of fiber and Spice. That's balanceofnature.com promo code shapiro balanceofnature.com promo code SHAPIRO Also, what does feeling truly safe at home mean? I used to think good locks and a loud alarm were enough. Eventually I realized real security isn't just about responding to threats, but preventing them entirely. That's why I use Simplisafe for proactive protection that keeps my studio and employees secure before anything can happen. Most security systems only spring into action after someone's already broken in. By then, it's too late. Simplisafe's new Active Guard Outdoor Protection actually stops break ins before they happen. Their AI powered cameras work with live monitoring agents who can spot suspicious activity around your property in real time. If somebody's lurking where they shouldn't be, agents can talk directly to them, flip on spotlights, call cops if necessary. All before anything actually happens to your home. There are no contracts or hidden fees to worry about. It's Easy to see why over 4 million Americans trust Simplisafe. CNET named it the best home security system of 2025, while Newsweek and USA Today ranked them number one for customer service. Plus monitoring plans start at just a buck a day. They'll back it all up with a. A 60 day money back guarantee. We love Simply safe here at the office because it means that when we leave at night, everything is back here when we came in the morning. This is simply safe.comshapiro to claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan. Get your first month for free at SimpliSafe.com Shapiro. There's no safe like Simplisafe. Okay. Meanwhile, in significantly lighter cultural news, the big controversy of the day, believe it or not, surrounds Sydney Sweeney's chest. Now, I know Sydney Sweeney, very famous actress. She's on Euphoria. She's been doing a number of movies lately, but she's mostly famous because she, when she's on tv, when she's, when she's doing snl, she shows a lot of cleavage. That is mostly what she is famous for. Listen, she's a very attractive woman. Of course, of course. She is doing a new American Eagle ad. And this apparently is just setting heads aflame. So here is the American Eagle ad that has generated enormous amounts of controversy on the left. And it has something to say about where we stand socially as a country on both left and right. It's kind of fascinating. Cross cuts some political boundaries. Here's the American Eagle ad. Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue. Cindy Sweeney Casper jeans. Okay, so for those who can't see, that's just a picture of her buttoning her jeans seductively as she talks about genes using a homonym. It's kind of a silly homonym. She has great genes like G E N E S, as in like her genetic predispositions and characteristics. And then her genes are J E A N S. Right? Her genes are blue. Okay, so that is the pun. No biggie. The real story here is that Sydney Sweeney is doing sexy commercials. All right? I mean, this has been a hallmark of advertising for, you know, at this point, hundreds of years. Probably go all the way back to the mid 19th century. And you can find print ads that I'm sure were, were suggestive at, at the very least. Here's another ad that she did with a Mustang C20 Hasbro Kane. Okay? So she, she shuts the hood on one Mustang. He Had a tight shot of her rear and then she gets into another Mustang. You know, this is sort of supposed to be classic Americana, ok? And when we say classic Americana, we mean that it's a cheesecake shot. So this has resulted in people going absolutely insane, like totally crazy. And I think first it's important to note that people who are characterizing American Eagle as some sort of bizarre right wing company are missing the boat. American Eagle is not a right wing company. American Eagle is a jeans company that follows whatever it thinks are the prevailing trends of the time. So here, for example, is an ad that they cut in 2019. Okay? You can see in this ad it is a bunch of people who are variously abled, who are of various body types. In any case, American Eagle is not a right wing company is the point here. So the real question is what is the zeitgeist? And this is being read in fascinating ways by the left and by the right. So the left is breaking down into sort of three categories over the Sydney Sweeney ad. And again, it is amazing that we are now having a controversy over what would have been in about 2005 a perfectly normal ad on your television as we'll get to the right in a second because I'm old enough to remember when the right would have objected to such an ad. And some of us who are traditionally minded still object to the overt sexualization of women in advertising as well as the sort of sexualization that is being done to our culture. Right? Some of us are old enough to remember when Paris Hilton was grinding on cars for a Carl's Jr commercial back in 2005 and objecting to that as being too raunchy and problematic. And we say problematic, I don't mean like problematic in a left wing sense. I mean morally problematic. To put scantily clad attractive women in advertising specifically to get people to buy product. That, that, that poses a moral problem for the right. For the left. The left has gone completely insane. And so they've broken down into sort of two categories, both of them objecting to the ad. One is the sort of feminist line that this is the over. This, this is made for the male gaze. It's all about the male gaze. Now can we, can we get over this nonsense? The male gaze, okay? You know what? Men like to look at pretty women. Get used to it. That is the way of the world. It is the pro generation of the species, is the basis of literally all human reproduction, is quote unquote, the male gaze. That is the beginning of all of it. That does not mean that men should ogle women. But if we are going to pretend that beauty does not exist, that men don't appreciate it, then you are just ignoring the realities of life. Okay, but this is one aspect of the left. They're very angry that, quote unquote, the male gaze exists, which is really, really silly. But that is really not the angle that they are taking most of all. But they are. What they are really taking most of all is the angle that there is something peculiarly Nazi about all of this. There's a piece in the Washington Post titled hell American Eagle. Sydney Sweeney Good genes ad went wrong. Well, it's hard to say that it went wrong when it is the most talked about ad of the last five years for American Eagle. It's a very good ad according to a conversation between fashion critic of the Washington Post, Rachel Tash Gian, and Style Memo newsletter writer Shane o'. Neal. According to that particular discussion, the biggest problem with the ad is the genetic component. Quote, the most provocative part of the campaign is when she's talking about offspring and genes. That's a message about mutable identity there. And that could be extended into a vision of America as a place where you're not bound by who you are at birth. But they went the full opposite of that. To be honest, I think the ad campaign didn't exactly know what it wanted to be. I think what's getting people talking is how regressive the ads seem, says Tashtian. The line about her having great jeans. Several people are suggesting in the comments on Instagram and Tick Tock this is a pro eugenics ad. Whether or not that's the case, it is part of a wave of imagery of influencer pop stars and musicians that feel tethers to the value of another time. Do you mean again, this is where you're going to see a right wing backlash? Building the values of another time would be men think attractive women are attractive because attractive women are attractive. Good looking people are better looking than not good looking people. Like if that's tethered to the values of another time, that'd be tethered to the values of all time. There's nothing new there. If that were not the case, I promise you sales of Ozempic would be significantly lower. So would sales of makeup. Okay, but the left is now trying to turn this into a. A sort of take on Volkish German Nazi esque imagery. There is in this piece a reference to this idea. One of the writers, the. The newsletter writer for the Washington Post says The first thing I thought of when I heard the tagline Sydney Sweeney has great genes was the DHS Instagram account which posted a subtly racist painting a few weeks ago and an explicitly racist painting last week. The latter depicted a gigantic blonde buxom woman chasing away native people to make way for white settlers. When this is the imagery being promoted by our government upon About Jeans hits differently. And then the Washington Post style critic wrote, we're being fed a lot of images of thinness, whiteness and unapologetic wealth porn. But with this cover, influencers like Alex Earl and Sabrina Carpenter's album cover. Hey. So again, they continue to promote the idea that there's something, you know, terribly evil and eugenic about the Sydney Sweeney ad. And here's a bunch of crazy ladies on Tik Tok saying the same thing. Those Sydney Sweeney American Eagle ads are weird. Like fascist weird. Like Nazi propaganda weird. Would we be surprised that a company whose name is literally American Eagle is making fascist propaganda like this? Probably not, but it's still really shocking. Like a blonde haired, blue eyed white woman is talking about her good genes. Like that is Nazi propaganda. Saying anybody has good genes is eugenics. Blonde hair, blue eyed Nazi. This pro Americana talking about pure American Americans having good genes. This is Nazi that people, especially Jews, have been warning about for a very long time. Oh, it's not that big of a deal. Jeans is just a play on jeans. Shut the up. This is Nazi. Sydney Sweeney's jeans ad is giving ethnic steak propaganda. It is giving dystopian. It is giving 1940s Germany. And they could have had her said anything. She could have just said, I'm hot, drink my bath water, here are my jeans. But instead they had her say, jeans are passed down from parents to children. I have good genes. My jeans are blue. Why? Yeah, no, that was like the most thinly veiled propaganda I think that I've ever seen. American Eagle. Who is in charge of your marketing department? Joseph Goebbels. A strawberry blonde blue eyed woman marketing, having great jeans. Would you do this with a model of color? Think about it. Would you? I mean, they. I mean, they probably will. My guess is that their next dad will be a model of color saying the exact same thing. Will be a beautiful black woman saying the exact same thing. Probably. It's all a catfish, by the way. I love that. That last guy in the TikTok video, if you can't see, he's wearing an Adidas shirt. We should note at this point that Adidas was founded by two brothers with significant ties to the actual Nazis. So, you know, this is crazy. This is crazy. I'm sorry, a play on words, genes and genes is not meant to be a reference to the Nazis. And also, when people look at Sydney Sweeney, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings here. Her eye color and hair color are the third and fourth things people are looking at when they look at Sydney Sweeney. Hey, let's just be real about that. So when she says she has good genes, people are not thinking about her eye color. That's silly. Nonetheless, the left is pushing forward with this nonsense. Advertising expert Robin Landa, a professor at Michael Graves College at Keene University, told Newsweek, quote, the campaign's punt isn't just tone deaf, it's historically loaded. Landa said the phrase good genes was once central to American eugenics ideology, which promoted white genetic superiority and enabled the forced sterilization of marginalized groups. Yeah, that's what's going to happen here. This is going to lead to forced sterilization. That's probably where this is going. By the way, for all the talk about the failure of the ad, American Eagle Stock has surged 4% since the ad was released. You know why? Because earned media is. In fact, we wouldn't be talking about American Eagle on this program if the left hadn't gone totally insane over an innocuously stupid ad. And now to the response from the right, and this is kind of fascinating. So the right has split on this ad, not. Not in the sense they agree with the left. Of course, that's silly. But it demonstrates the difference between anti left and traditional right, which are not the same thing. President Trump's coalition, for what it's worth, is an anti left coalition. It includes a bunch of people who are not in any way shape or form conservative, but they don't like the insanity of the left. And then there are the traditionally conservative. And the reactions to the ad differ between the two groups. Alrighty, folks. Coming up, the right split reaction on Sydney Sweeney. Yes, there's a cleavage over Sydney Sweeney. I. I know it's a pun first. I always assumed restless sleep was inevitable. Night after night, tossing, turning, waking up with that aching back. Well, I thought that's how sleep was just supposed to be as you get older. Then I tried Helix sleep and everything has now been changed. It's truly been transformative for my sleep quality. Now I easily fall asleep in minutes, even when current news stories are continuously demanding my attention. What makes Helix different is they don't just sell you a random mattress, they actually match you with the perfect one for your body and sleep style. Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, somewhere in between, they have you covered. They make it so simple to get your best night's sleep every night. All you have to do is take their sleep quiz. Get matched with a custom mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences. Trust me, when you find the right match, you'll wonder how you ever slept on anything else. I have a mattress made just for me means it's firm but breathable. It means that I'm sleeping cool at night and also I don't have that back pain when I wake up in the morning. Right now Helix is offering an Incredible deal. Visit helixleep.comBen Get 27% off site wide that's helixsleep.comBen For 27% off site wide, make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you again. Just visit helixleep.comBen for this exclusive offer. Helixsleep.comslven Also, you know when you are busy, it is so easy for your day to fall apart in a myriad of tiny little stupid tasks. Well, if you're in any profession that involves a lot of mailing and shipping, Stamps.com will take at least one tedious task off your plate. Stamps.com lets you focus on what you do best by handling all the logistics for you. You can print stamps, shipping labels or certified mail forms in seconds and schedule free package pickups all from one convenient place. And save up to 89% off USPS, UPS and other carriers while you're at it. For over 28 years, more than 4 million customers have trusted Stamps.com to simplify their shipping and mailing needs. Whether you're running a small business or selling online through major marketplaces, Stamps.com gives you access to all the USPS and UPS services you need right from your computer or phone. No more waiting in lines or dealing with post office traffic. What makes it really convenient is the flexibility it offers as your all in one solution. All you need is a computer and printer and they'll even send you a free scale to get started. You can take care of everything on the go. Make their mobile app easily, schedule package pickups automatically. See your cheapest and fastest shipping options. Plus their Rate Advisor takes the guesswork out of shipping costs, helping you find the best rates fast, including exclusive discounts you won't find anywhere else. Don't waste time worrying about being a postage expert or standing in line to drop off those letters and packages. Let stamps.com do what they do best so you can do what you do better. Go to stamps.com Shapiro Sign up for a special offer. No contract, Cancel Anytime. That's stamps.comshapiro so you're seeing a lot of people in the online space who are anti left, who look at the insane reaction of the left to this calling it nazi propaganda, suggesting that it is all about the male gaze and the evils of the male gaze tethered to another time and all this crap. And you see a bunch of people on the right who are like this ad is great. It's making America great again. This ad is bringing back what makes America awesome. This is a reversion to the heterosexual norm and all the rest of the. Okay, now let's be clear. The left can be perfectly insane, stupid and wrong. And also this ad is effectively no different from when Brooke Shields back in the 1980s was saying nobody gets between me and my Calvins. Right? This ad can, can both be a rejection of these sort of post gender insanity pushed by the left. And also it can just be a piece of very soft core pornography. I say very soft core because of course it's not pornography quite, but it, but it is certainly more in that arena than it is in the arena of art. Clearly it is attempting to use sex to sell jeans. That is literally the purpose of the commercial. And so being a moral traditionalist, I do not actually believe that commercials like this are amazing for America. I think it's good to expose the left for being totally insane. And I think it is worthwhile noting that the left is totally crazy. But if you're a traditionally moral person, if you're somebody who's a churchgoer, a synagogue goer, for example, and you look at this ad saying, okay, what this looks like is a way to get a bunch of young people to buy jeans by showing Sydney Sweeney's button and breasts, basically. Is that like good for. Is that good for culture? Is that good for male female relations? Is the over sexualization of our society, has that been a generally good thing or is that a generally bad thing? And so what you see is the reactionary nature of the anti left, which is correct in slapping down the left, but then goes too far by suggesting that what we need, what America needs is, is more tna. That TNA is the only solution to what ails us. Ok, well actually no two things can be true at once. One, the left is totally insane. There's nothing Nazi esque about a Jean's pun. And by the way, it is not Nazi for Sydney Sweeney to be a star. That is not a Nazi thing. We live in an era in which Zendaya is in every movie that has been made for the past 10 years. So I don't think that we are in danger of like a whites only Hollywood here or a whites only advertising industry. So the anti left is right to mock the left for being totally insipid and insane. But the right is also split between people who don't actually hold any sort of traditional values and people who do hold those traditional values. And they exist in a sort of uneasy coalition. It'll be fascinating to see how that coalition works moving forward. By the way, you're going to start to see this coalition fray, just politically speaking, once it's in power, because then there are divisions over how to actually handle policy. And you're seeing that happen actually in real time. Right. You are seeing many of these so called podcast bros who endorsed President Trump mainly out of ire at the left for being totally crazy are starting to revert to type and now they're very critical of President Trump's actual conservative policies. Among these people would be, say, Andrew Schultz, the podcast bro who sort of endorsed Trump out of ire at the left and then turned around and talked about how the only honest people in America are the actual Democratic socialists of America. I think you'll see some of this from Joe Rogan, who is never on the right. Always been amusing to me. I'm friends with Joe. It's always been amusing to me when the left says the left needs its own Joe Rogan. It's like, guys, Joe Rogan would have voted for Bernie Sanders were he on the ballot. Like, let's be clear, Joe Rogan is not of the right. And so what you will see is as President Trump pursues conservative policies on everything from tax to foreign policy, that a lot of these podcast bros will be angry at President Trump because they're not actually conservative. And a lot of the manosphere guys are not actually conservative. They are more in line with the TNA is good for America as opposed to the traditionally conservative position, which is modesty is good for America. Traditional male female relationships are good for America. And the left is insane. And so as we move forward in time, what you will see is a split inside the right over this issue. There is no split on the left, really. It's hard to find anybody on the left who's defending this ad today because they've all lost their minds. And so as long as the left is completely crazy, any splits on the right are going to look mild by comparison. But it's important to note that there is in fact a split on the right between the people who just don't like the left and the people who actually do hold traditional conservative values on a wide variety of issues. And you should keep your eye on that because a lot of those people who are basically joining the right wing coalition as a response to the left will start infusing that right wing coalition with left wing values if given half a chance. It won't be the crazed full version left wing values, but many of the left wing values will migrate over to the right because of the nature of the coalition that has been created against the left right here. Okay. Meanwhile, in other news can be a lot of big economic announcements this week, ranging from announcements about the interest rates those are probably going to stay stable, to a bunch of earnings announcement that are supposed to come out over the course of this week. The biggest announcement economically, of course, is President Trump and the EU coming together over the weekend to create a trade deal. The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece titled How Trump Got the Upper Hand over the EU on Tariffs. Quote. Soon after he sat down to negotiate Sunday with European officials on a potential tariff agreement at one of his Scotland golf resorts, President Trump said he wanted assurances that Europe would follow through on its pledges to increase investment in the United States. Trump questioned how the US could be certain European companies wouldn't shrug off their plans after a deal was agreed upon, according to people familiar with the matter. After EU leaders assured him the investment plans were real, Trump responded, prove it. EU officials then rattled off the names of companies they said were already prepared to invest. With a trade deal in place, planned investments of almost $200 billion would grow by even more, they told Trump. At the end of the talks, Trump said he would impose 15% baseline tariffs on the block. And he said the EU would now be investing $600 billion in the United States under the deal, now unclear exactly whether it's gonna be 600 billion or something less. Bottom line is President Trump used tremendous leverage in order to get the EU to accept essentially zero tariff barriers on American goods coming into the European market and 15% tariffs on European goods coming into the American market. Basically, President Trump made the bet, a correct bet, that the EU is more interested in the United States being able to shop in Europe and Europe still being able to ship goods to the United States than they are in a big trade war with the United States, that we essentially have more leverage than they do. And not only that The EU is recognizing that if they don't make some sort of economic deal with President Trump, that could have security implications as well, which is why they've also been increasing their GDP spend on defense. So the bloc, the European bloc had been making threats. And then they shifted their approach. They presented U.S. trade officials, according to the Wall Street Journal, with a proposal that included plans to increase purchases American energy products and an offer to lower tariffs for certain U.S. imports. And then President Trump threatened again. And then the EU negotiators upped the ante. So again, President Trump used leverage. Howard Lutnick, his commerce secretary, very triumphant yesterday, going around on Fox explaining the European Union is going to pay 15%.
- [29:50]
Ryan Reynolds
And they sell us $600 billion worth of goods. That's $90 billion for American America. And they agreed for the first time.
- [29:57]
Unknown Speaker
Ever to cut all their tariffs, cut their barriers and let American businesses and farmers and ranchers and fishermen finally sell into the European Union massive market.
- [30:09]
Ryan Reynolds
This is huge for America.
- [30:12]
Unknown Speaker
Okay, so it is yet to be seen how huge it will be for America because again, the EU is now saying that they're not sure how much they're going to buy. They're always going to buy a lot of American energy, by the way, because as they shift away from Russian supply, they're going to need to buy American lng. That part is true. As far as European investments in America, sure, they're going to try to build some stuff in America, presumably to avoid tariff barriers entering the United States, make their products more competitive. At the same time, American consumers are going to be paying higher prices on things they normally would have bought from Europe with the lower tariffs. Overall, the tariffs on Americans, which is what tariffs are, they are tax on Americans because we're the ones who actually pay the bill when the prices are go up. Those tariff rates are now at on average 15% across the board, which is the highest since the 1930s. And yet the economy seems to be on relatively even footing right now. Bill Maher of hbo, he says, listen, I thought the tariffs were going to sink the economy. They haven't. Here's what he had to say.
- [31:08]
Ryan Reynolds
I don't know what his strategy is.
- [31:10]
Unknown Speaker
But look, the stock market is at record highs. I know not everybody lives by the stock market, but, but I also drive around, I don't see a country in a depression at all. I see people out there just living their lives. And I would have thought, and I got to own it, that the cut, that these tariffs were going to sink.
- [31:32]
Ben Shapiro
This economy by this time.
- [31:34]
Unknown Speaker
And they didn't now like Bill Maher. I also was extremely skeptical of the tariffs, and Bill Maher may be right that, you know, the tariffs are really not going to have a major impact at this point. I certainly hope Bill Maher is right. I hope the Trump administration is right. I hope that I was wrong when I talked about all the tariffs having a really significantly bad impact on the American economy. But there are a few possibilities to where we go from here. Some good, in which case I'm happy to be wrong, and some not so good. So he's right, and a lot of people are wondering what the hell is going on. CNN's Jeff Zeleny. He says Trump has been reshaping the global trading order, which obviously is true.
- [32:13]
Ryan Reynolds
This is the biggest trade deal in.
- [32:15]
Unknown Speaker
President Trump's effort to effectively reshape the global trading order. That has been one of his central priorities since taking office in January. He's been issuing many threats of tariffs, but they clearly have been working in terms of bringing other countries, allies and adversaries alike, and some cases to the negotiating table. Okay, so the big question is, many people, including me, are anti tariff. As a general rule, tariffs are not good for economies. So why aren't we in a recession? Why haven't we had a sort of downturn? Gerard Baker has a really interesting piece over at the Wall Street Journal laying out the various possibilities. I don't know the answer to this. However, the one thing I will say about tariffs and, and tariff wars is we heard the same sorts of talk about modern monetary theory for a couple of years before inflation exploded. Now, this is something retailed by Elizabeth Warren. It was retailed by the Obama administration back in the day. The idea that you could endlessly spend money and you'd never hit an inflationary cycle because people would essentially just keep buying our debt because the American dollar was still the best bet and it turned out not to be true. It turns out that when you flood the market, you end up having predictable results in the economy. So what exactly is going on? Gerard Baker lays out three possible theories. He says first theory. It's too early to tell. Most of the tariffs announced haven't been in place for long. Strangely enough, the uncertainty from Mr. Trump's dizzying policy changes that was expected to have been especially destabilizing maybe help softening the blow. If importers aren't sure whether announced duties will stay or change, they may be holding off on big price increases until they have clarity. And as we saw with the outcome of the US Japan deal last week when the the actual tariff levels come in lower than the worst fears, the psychological effect can be a positive. That odd feeling of contentment you get when you discover the $100 bill you thought you had dropped on the sidewalk was only a 20. But still, for all the unclarity, the average tariff paid by importers has indeed risen sharply to more than 15%, up from less than 3% a year ago so far with limited adverse consequences. So possibility number one is that we just haven't had time, that President Trump is announcing these trade deals in real time, that, that the tariffs have applied for a couple of months and you have to wait for people to really adjust to that. Then there's the second possibility, which is that the tariffs aren't actually big enough to create the sort of adverse effects that many economists thought that they would. The US is a relatively closed economy, says Gerard Baker, with imports accounting for less than 15% of GDP. Perhaps the US economy is simply resilient enough to withstand even bad policy, more capable of withstanding a moderate tariff shock. But he says this is incomplete. The average 15% tariff rate is now historically large, five times the level that prevailed previously is close to the average rate of around 20% on all imports under Smoot Hawley. So there's the third possibility, what I would call the MMT possibility, which is that the conventional wisdom is just wrong. Perhaps economists have overlooked the countervailing forces at work with tariffs. The redistribution of the burden of duties between foreign exporters, US importers and consumers may be reordering the balance of benefit between domestic and foreign businesses and between companies and consumers. Federal tariff revenue up to $300 billion a year will produce gains for Americans. The relative advantage of doing business in the United States may be, as promised, start to be reflected in stronger inward investment flows. The strikingly one sided deal Trump just inked with the EU certainly suggests the sheer economic muscle of the US has been previously underutilized in opening up markets overseas. So he's saying probably not. The second, that the tariff shouldn't have any impact because they're too small. So that leaves you with really two possibilities. One is we don't know yet and it's going to be bad. And two is we got it wrong and it'll be fine. I don't know the answer to this question. I'm not sure that anybody knows the answer to this question. I would lean more toward the former because again, when you are trying to fix quote unquote trade deficits by essentially creating an import tax that hits Americans in their pocketbook. What you're doing is not only making Americans pay more for the products that they would normally buy, you are also preventing people in other countries, presumably from seeing the benefit of their sales. In the United States, you, you don't have a capital account surplus. A capital account surplus is where you have a bunch of people abroad who essentially owe you money and then they have to use that money in American markets. Are you going to get less investment because less capital is flowing from the United States to other countries? When you have a trade deficit in terms of goods, very often that means a capital accounts. I think inherently it means capital account surplus for other countries. Right? You're sending, they're sending you goods, you're sending the money. They have more money than they know what to do with. What do they do with the dollar? They then invest that back in the markets. So it is yet to be seen what the impact of this is. We're going to find out. We are certainly going to find out. For the moment, it's a big win for President Trump, at least politically, to be able to say that he forced the EU to pay their fair share, that he's, that he's forcing them to invest in the United States. And we'll have to see how all of this plays out. And when you combine that with the idea that there may already be a market bubble again, I tend to be more skeptical than the average about the next couple of years in American economics. And I desperately hope that I am wrong because I hope the American economy soars. I think the consequences of a stagnant American economy or some sort of recession are devastatingly bad for the United States because the next thing that will happen is a reversion to left wing orthodoxy on economic issues. And that means maybe President aoc, which is a full scale disaster area for the country. So I'm praying that I am wrong and that actually traditional economics is wrong and that tariffs work out just fine. I tend to be more in the first camp, however, saying that, let's wait, let's see what the timing is now. If it turns out that the tariffs are having a bad impact, I think President Trump again, he shifts and he moves. He's not wedded to any sort of real ideology. And so if the impact turns out to be bad, I think that he will move on that as well. But as the Wall Street Journal points out, stocks are doing crazy things again. The share price of online house flipper Opendoor technologies has catapulted 377% in the past month despite a stagnant U.S. housing market. One of the biggest stock gainers Tuesday was Kohl's, an apartment store that has been losing ground to competitors for some time. On Wednesday, the Crowd favorites were GoPro and Krispy Kreme, with both the camera company and donut maker notching eye popping gains over the weekend. Some investors say the action is the latest phase in what has turned into a near euphoric rebound from April's tariff turmoil. There's been a stampede into risky assets like meme stocks, cryptocurrencies and shares of smaller companies that have yet to turn a profit. To some, this resembles a bubble and certainly you're seeing some signs of a bubble. One of the big tactics that many companies are using right now is they're taking all of their assets, their cash, for example, and they're turning those into crypto and they are now seeing a multiple of on their trades, which is kind of weird because you could just buy the underlying crypto if you want exposure to crypto, but people instead are buying companies that buy crypto, which is very strange. Speculative stocks are doing really well right now. Crypto prices are up. All of this sort of suggests that there is indeed a bubble. But, you know, maybe not. Again, I hope that I'm wrong. I hope that the fundamentals of the economy remain sound. I think one of the things that's happening here is a sort of emotional response to the idea, as Gerard Baker suggested, that we were going to get hit with $100 tariff and it's a $20 tariff, combined with the idea that maybe we weren't going to get a solidification of the Trump tax cuts. And those got solidified. The one big beautiful bill.
- [39:24]
Ben Shapiro
Why is sex trafficking a multibillion dollar industry? Sex buyers to end trafficking, we need to put them in the spotlight. The documentary Buying her, created by the organization Exodus Cry, is a first of.
- [39:35]
Unknown Speaker
Its kind film exposing the truth about sex buyers.
- [39:38]
Ben Shapiro
It captures the unfiltered stories of men revealing how they became predatory consumers in.
- [39:42]
Unknown Speaker
The booming sex trade and how some.
- [39:44]
Ben Shapiro
Of them found redemption.
- [39:46]
Unknown Speaker
Buying her strikes at the very heart of sex trafficking. It's available to watch now for free@buyingher.com.
- [39:52]
Ben Shapiro
Trip Planner by Expedia.
- [39:54]
Unknown Speaker
You were made to outdo your holiday, your hammocking and your pooling. We were made to help organize the competition. Expedia made to travel. All I can say is hold your breath because I don't know where this is going. I don't think anybody knows precisely where this is going. Well in what is clearly salutory news, the Washington Post has been cleaning house and now they've gotten rid of the Washington Post pseudo fact checker Glenn Kessler. Glenn Kessler is one of the scourges of the journalistic industry. He has never been a fact checker. Len Kessler has instead been a propagandist on behalf of the left. He is now out. John Nolte has a really good piece on this over at Breitbart, pointing out that during the 2012 presidential election, President Obama's Republican appointment, Romney ran a campaign ad pointing out that Obama did not visit Israel during his first term. Washington Post fact checker Glenn Kessler called Romney a liar despite the fact that actually Barack Obama did not visit Israel. And that is Kessler in a nutshell. He wrote, yeah, yesterday, quote, after more than 27 years of the Washington Post, including almost 15 as the fact checker, I will be leaving July 31st having taken a buyout. Much as I would have liked to keep scrutinizing politicians in Washington, especially in this era, the financial considerations were impossible to dismiss. And again, many times his fact checking column were just a disaster area. Nolte's favorite example under Kessler's management of the Post fact checking column, when then Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina stated with 100% accuracy that she began her amazing business career as secretary, she was ridiculed as a liar with three out of four Pinocchios, even though the fact check agreed she started out as a secretary. Kessler's audaciously dishonest defense of Hillary's criminal mishandling of Benghazi was legendary. It took him 532 days to admit that Hunter Biden's laptop from hell was the real deal. During the 2016 presidential election, Republicans were fact checked 2 to 1 compared to Democrats. So again, Glenn Kessler, awful. And the fact that he is gone is, is a good thing for journalism and a good thing for fact as it currently stands. Meanwhile, in bad news, I gotta say there are many judges now that are just out of control, truly out of control. A federal judge named Indira Talwani, who I believe is an Obama appointee, has now issued an order to block the Trump administration from, from enforcing a policy that would prevent Planned Parenthood clinics from receiving federal Medicaid reimbursements if they offer abortion services, according to the New York Times. Now, again, this is not a, an action taken by a judge against the Trump administration. This is an action taken by a judge against a congressional bill. That is not the Same thing. She's not saying that Trump is exceeding his executive authority. She's saying Congress cannot cut off funding to Planned Parenthood on the state level via Medicaid, which is nuts. There is no legal basis for any of this. The lawsuit came in response to a provision introduced in the One Big Beautiful Bill. That bill imposed a one year ban on state Medicaid payments to any health care nonprofit that offers abortions and received more than $800,000 in Medicaid funding in 2023. Many clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood faced a choice between altering their operations and retaining millions of dollars in funding or facing a potentially catastrophic loss of revenue. Judge Tawani found this was easily ascertainable that it was targeting Planned Parenthood. So what? Okay, literally, so what? And so the idea here is that federal tax dollars should not go to reimburse abortion care because dollars are fungible. If you send them to a clinic and then that clinic performs abortions, the dollars that would have been spent on abortions are now being spelled spent elsewhere. Federal dollars coming in, free up dollars to be spent on abortion. That is what happens. And pretending there's like a line item. And as long as the federal government isn't directly subsidizing abortion, if you sign a federal check to Planned Parenthood, that doesn't mean more abortions. That's absolutely silly. Federal law already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for paying for abortions. Judge Tawani found the provision was designed to indirectly squeeze clinics into dropping such services, using Medicaid payments as leverage. Well, no, actually, it's just saying you cannot perform abortions and receive federal taxpayer dollars. That's all. That's all. She also then claimed that this was, in fact a violation of the First Amendment because Planned Parenthood's umbrella organization does political organizing. Okay, so this is insane. Again, this is insane. You what? You, you know, you. If the Democratic Party comes into power and they fund a bunch of organizations that are basically just blue front groups, those must be funded for the rest of time. Otherwise it's a violation of the First Amendment. This is crazy. Joining me on the line to discuss is Ilya Shapiro, Senior Fellow and Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. He is also the author of books including Supreme Disorder as well as Lawless the Miseducation of America's Elites. Ilya, thanks so much for taking the time.
- [44:44]
Ben Shapiro
Good to be back with you, Ben.
- [44:47]
Unknown Speaker
So why don't we discuss what exactly this federal judge is doing with regard to Planned Parenthood. What is the case and what is the judge ruling?
- [44:55]
Ben Shapiro
So Congress passed a law. This is not an executive order. Congress passed a law to defunding Planned Parenthood, and this judge is saying that that is unconstitutional for several reasons. First of all, that it's a bill of attainder, which is an odd argument. A bill of attainder is criminally prosecuting somebody. Targeting someone for criminal prosecution without due process doesn't really apply to a defunding bill. But anyway, equal protection that Planned Parenthood is being denied, somehow, it's equal treatment under the law and a, a violation of the First Amendment because Planned Parenthood engages in advocacy and that advocacy is now being restricted. I mean, it is crazy. Possibly the craziest district court order I've seen. Again, not against the Trump administration, against the government, against the duly enacted law in quite some time. I think this is going to be reversed pretty quickly.
- [45:48]
Unknown Speaker
I mean, I'm kind of astonished by the ruling itself. I can't even see what the patina of law would be to justify these particular claims. I mean, the result of a claim that the judge is making like this is that literally any organization cannot be defunded because they all have free speech rights, they all have the ability to speak on things. And so it. You can't name a single organization funded by federal taxpayer dollars that could not make a First Amendment claim under the rubric created by this judge, could you?
- [46:15]
Ben Shapiro
Absolutely. I mean, everyone engages in speech in some way, Everyone has a PR department, they issue press statements, what have you. Absolutely. And the bill of attainder thing is just so ridiculous. I mean, remember the TikTok bill that Congress passed in a bipartisan manner that was explicitly, that wasn't just kind of defining terms. So it only applied to one or several organizations that explicitly named these groups. And yet that kind of argument didn't fly at any level of the judiciary. So this is just the most lawless thing. And again, I can't emphasize enough so many of the complaints, rightly so, by the Trump administration of lawfare, by district court judges, injunctions, and all these things have been about executive orders. This is not that. This is a duly enacted law by Congress deciding its budgetary priorities. And here the judge is saying, well, for all these reasons, it's kind of a hand waving exercise. That can't be. I mean, it's very hard to steel, man, this, to put it in the, you know, the most solid terms. You're right. The judge is questioning Congress's policy judgment, saying, well, Congress can be anti abortion, but this actually doesn't help that goal because if you don't have Planned Parenthood, more people will get pregnant, things like that, because of contraception. Just, just weird policy arguments that aren't relevant to the, to the, to the legal decision.
- [47:36]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, Ilya, one of the things that probably should be done here is somebody should consider impeaching this judge. I mean really, like this is such a bizarre sort of interpretation of law that is beyond anything that either you or I have seen from the judiciary. Again, there's not really even an attempt to read this into the law. It's a political op ed that takes the form of a judicial opinion. I mean when do opinions, if they do ever rise to the level of this judge, should just not be on the bench anymore.
- [48:03]
Ben Shapiro
Well, we've been careful in our history not to impeach judges because we disagree with their opinions. In the early Republic there wasn't even an attempt to, to impeach a Supreme Court justice which ultimately failed in the Senate by one vote. What I so you know, I'm cautious about the impeachment process but just yesterday there was a bar complaint filed, a judicial complaint filed by the Justice Department against a different judge, Jim Boseberg of, Jed Boasberg of the, of the D.C. district Court. The same sort of thing probably should be done here, here and you know, let those authorities, let the judicial conference do its work. Perhaps ultimately the court of appeals or the Supreme Court will slap down the judge in certain ways. So there are certain steps that need to be taken before just going for impeachment right away. But I agree this is just, this goes beyond a simple disagreement over the law and it's pure judicial civil disobedience if you will.
- [49:01]
Unknown Speaker
That's Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow Director of Constitutional Studies at the Manhattan Institute. Go check out all of his work over at his account on x.com Ilya really appreciate the time.
- [49:10]
Ben Shapiro
Good to talk to you.
- [49:12]
Unknown Speaker
Meanwhile, on the foreign policy front, it is amazing. Despite all of the criticism of President Trump on foreign policy, President Trump is coming around to the right solutions the vast majority of the time. This is why Harry Ensign at CNN is pointing out that Republicans actually are trusted on foreign policy, which is kind of a rarity in this day and age.
- [49:30]
Ben Shapiro
The bottom line is Democrats in the.
- [49:32]
Unknown Speaker
American voters minds cannot hack it.
- [49:34]
Ben Shapiro
What are we talking about? Party trust to more on foreign policy.
- [49:36]
Unknown Speaker
Well the GOP holds an average 6.
- [49:38]
Ben Shapiro
Point lead in the month of July. Look at this. Fox News came out last week, plus 3 points for Republicans on foreign policy over the Democrats. You think that number is not high enough?
- [49:46]
Unknown Speaker
For you. How about the Wall Street Journal GOP.
- [49:49]
Ben Shapiro
Plus 8 points when they match congressional Democrats up against congressional Republicans. The bottom line is this. Despite everything that's going on in the world right now, Republicans are more trusted on Democrats when it comes to foreign policy and the world at large.
- [50:04]
Unknown Speaker
By the way, there is a reason for that, and that is because Joe Biden ran an awful foreign policy. President Trump is coming around to the right solutions. Yesterday he said he would give Russian President Vladimir Putin 10 or 12 days to reach a ceasefire with Ukraine or face more economic pressure from the United States. Here was President Trump pointing out that Putin has made no moves toward peace.
- [50:23]
Ryan Reynolds
I'm going to make a new deadline of about 10, 10 or 12 days from today. There's no reason in waiting. There's no reason in waiting. It's 50 days. I want to be generous, but we just don't see any progress being made.
- [50:42]
Unknown Speaker
Correct, Correct. Again, President Trump responding to reality. He said, quote, we thought we had settled numerous times. He's very disappointed, he said, with Putin, quote, and then President Putin goes out and starts launching rockets into some city, bodies lying all over the street. He said, you know, this happened on too many occasions and I don't like it. He said he was not so interested in talking to Putin anymore. Now, again, this is correct. This is correct. President Trump is coming to the correct solutions. Meanwhile, President Trump announced that he had negotiated a cease fire between Cambodia and Thailand. Here he was yesterday.
- [51:14]
Ryan Reynolds
You probably know I won't go into it very much because I don't know the final numbers yet. I don't know numerous people killed. And I was dealing with two countries that we get along with very well, very different countries from certain standpoints. They've been fighting for 500 years, intermittently. And we solved that war. You probably saw it just came out over the wire. So we solved it through trade. I said, I don't want to trade with anybody that's killing each other. So we just got that one solved.
- [51:47]
Unknown Speaker
Meanwhile, there's an enormous controversy, obviously, surrounding the distribution of food aid in Gaza. Understand that this is being created by Hamas and its allies over at the UN and its allies in the media. That does not mean that there's no starvation in Gaza. The media do a horrible job of coverage. They take all their information from the Gaza Ministry of Health. There are widely variant videos between Gaza markets which seem to be filled with food, and then pictures of people who seem to be very hungry. Mati Friedman, who is a reporter from Israel, writes for the Free Press that, frankly, there's not really a great way of knowing exactly what's going on in Gaza, he said, an attempt to understand the truth of the reports. I called several trusted colleagues, veteran Israeli journalists intimately involved in covering events here and concerned both with the health of our society and that of innocent Palestinians. It was clear in speaking to them that our plight as journalists is only marginally better than that of the average citizen. The consensus was that there were nearly no trustworthy sources regarding reality in Gaza, certainly not the Gaza Health Ministry, which answers to Hamas or Palestinian reporters intimidated by Hamas or the international organizations like the UN refugee agency UNRWA embroiled in various forms of collaboration with Hamas. The international press isn't the answer either. During my years as a reporter and editor for the Associated Press, I saw coverage altered by Hamas threats to our staff while this fact was concealed from readers. But neither can Israelis trust their own government, which has regularly misled the public about the wars of progress, about the shifting goals of the campaign, et cetera. So again, you know, the, the sort of informational gap is quite real. It is difficult to tell what exactly is going on or not. There's one study that came out that suggests that the food prices in Gaza have skyrocketed, which again may be true. It is also difficult to tell whether that's true given the fact that the Gaza Humanitarian foundation has been shipping literally millions of meals into. Into Gaza. Bottom line is this, here is what we do know. What we do know is that Hamas, their top demand in the negotiations right now, their number one demand is a restoration of UN driven food aid. Why? Because they are stealing it. They're stealing it and then they are reselling it for money or they are using it for their fighters. Right, that, that is what the. That, that is what Hamas is doing. The UN is complicit in that. The UN has openly announced they will not bring food into the Gaza Strip under the auspices of the idf. Why? Because if the IDF guards the UN while they hand out food, Hamas won't get it. And the UN wishes to help Hamas, which means the only actual solution to all of this is the ghf. We talked about this last week. The real solution to any hunger crisis in Gaza is to set up a humanitarian safe zone in the south of Gaza run by the Gaza Humanitarian foundation, protected by the IDF and funded by by other neighbors in the region, including the uae, Saudi, Qatar, Bahrain and all the rest. Right, that. Jordan, Egypt. That would be the actual solution. I mean, listen, a better solution would be for Egypt to open up its well fortified border, where it will allow zero Palestinians in, even temporarily, to set up a sort of way station on the other side of the Gaza border in the largely unoccupied Sinai Desert. And all of these things are eminently doable. And then if you don't get down to Rafah within a certain period of time and be screened for terrorism, moving all the. All the Gaza Hamas into jail or exile. If that doesn't happen, then the rest of the strip should be essentially declared a zone of uninhabitedness, because the rest of the Strip again, is rife with Hamas using civilians as cover. So move all civilians to. This is how counterinsurgency is typically done. By the way. Clear and hold is a typical counterinsurgency strategy. Moving everybody into a safe area where they are protected so they can receive aid from an organization not linked to Hamas would be the proper solution, because the alternative is Hamas continues to run the food aid, continues to terrorize the population, continues to shoot anyone who gets in his way. The one thing that we know for a fact is that Hamas is stealing the food aid. Here is video from yesterday of Hamas stealing food aid because Israel relented under gigantic public scrutiny and allowed UN Trucks to go in. What happened to those UN Trucks? Well, Hamas took them. And you can see in this red circle a Hamas fighter on top of the truck. And there he is pointing a gun at the Gazan civilians, basically saying, this is our aid. You will not take this aid. That is not the only video. We have another video of Hamas riding trucks stolen. You can see the Hamas fighters on top of the aid trucks literally firing their guns in triumph from the top of the trucks as those trucks are stacked with aid. So Hamas fighters are like, all over these convoys. This is a gigantic media propaganda operation run by Hamas, mirrored by the United nations and all of its allies to maintain Hamas's dominance of the Gaza Strip. That is what this is. Israel is allowing airdrops in. Israel has facilitated the entry of millions of meals in. This is unprecedented in wartime. This has never happened before. There's never been a situation in which one party attacks another party, and the attacked party has a responsibility to feed the civilian population of the party that attacked. That has never happened before in wartime in any way of which I'm aware. So again, could things be done better? Sure, but that involves an actual plan. That plan, I assume, will be some sort of safe harbor zone in the south of Gaza run by the Gaza Humanitarian foundation, not run by the United Nations. President Trump, by the way, is suggesting something very Similar here he was yesterday.
- [57:20]
Ryan Reynolds
We do have to take care of the humanitarian needs at the. On the, what they used to call the Gaza Strip. You don't hear that line too much anymore. You don't hear the Gaza Strip, but it is the Gaza Strip. And it's amazing that it's not being handled a little bit differently. We're going to set up food centers and we're going to do it in conjunction with some very good people, and we're going to supply funds. And we just took in trillions of dollars. We got a lot of money, and we're going to spend a little money on some food.
- [57:57]
Unknown Speaker
Okay. So again, the idea would be presumably that that money should be funneled through an organization that is not simply handing it over to Hamas. And meanwhile, as you can see, President Trump is in Scotland with the Prime Minister of the UK Keira Starmer. It is kind of amusing that President Trump made the prime minister of the UK he didn't meet him in London. He had him come to his golf club, Turnberry in Scotland, and there he proceeded to berate him about the mayor of London, the awful Siddiq Khan, whose apparently main concern in London is Islamophobia. Here is President Trump slamming Sadi Khan in front of Keira Starmer. Will you visit London during the state visit?
- [58:35]
Ryan Reynolds
I will. I'm not a fan of your mayor. I think he's done a terrible job, the mayor of London, but a nasty person. I think he's done. I think he's a friend of mine. Russia. No, I think he's done a terrible job, but I would certainly visit London. You.
- [58:58]
Unknown Speaker
He's like, tough. He's frontiers. I don't care. President Trump hilariously started talking about American immigration policy, how he shut the border and Keira Starmer of Labor tried to jump in and hijack it.
- [59:09]
Ryan Reynolds
If you're stopping immigration and stopping the wrong people, I, I give my hats are off to you. You're doing a. Not a good thing. You're doing a fantastic thing. So I know nothing about the boats, but if the boats are loaded up with bad people, and they usually are, because, you know, other countries don't send their best. They send people that they don't want and they're not stupid people. And they're. They send the people that they don't want. And I've heard that you've taken a much stronger stance on your.
- [59:36]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, we've done a lot of work stopping them coming. We just signed an agreement to return them and we've returned 35,000, in fact, under the first year of this Labour government, of people who shouldn't be in this country. So we're very pleased that we're getting on with returning people who've got no right to be here. Yeah. Again, I love the fact that President Trump has so shifted the conversation on immigration that Keir Starmer has had to jump on board. President Trump also went after the free speech problems in the uk. There have been widespread reports of people being arrested for simply making comments about radical Islamic immigration, for example. President Trump slammed that. And Keir Starmer then had to awkwardly stand there and try to defend Britain's crackdowns on free speech. Can you discuss the importance of free speech today?
- [60:20]
Ryan Reynolds
Well, free speech is very important. I don't know if you're referring to any place in particular. Perhaps they are, but we've had free.
- [60:26]
Unknown Speaker
Speech for a very, very long time here, so we're very proud about that now. That is not true. I'm not sure that Keir Starmer is very proud of free speech in Great Britain. Meanwhile, overall, as President Trump points out, his polls are up. He remains incredibly durable in his second term. He said this in response to questions about Jeffrey Epstein, which again, is at this point an op. When I say that, I mean that advisedly. There are people who have honest questions about Jeffrey. I will say this a thousand times. There are honest questions about Jeffrey Epstein, about informational flow, honest questions about why members of the Trump administration, particularly the Attorney General, retailed certain things that didn't end up materializing. Those are all open and honest and decent questions. They're open questions about where Jeffrey Epstein got his money and all the rest. Okay, all of that. Those are, those are fine questions. The people who are suggesting that President Trump is somehow engaging in a cover up, not only of Jeffrey Epstein's pedophilia, but of some sort of blackmail sex ring targeting the most powerful and rich people on earth. And Trump is then covering that up for some nefarious purpose. That part is an op designed to actually undermine the President of the United States. And the people who are implying it without saying it should be asked, really, if that's what they believe. Here's President Trump saying his polls are up, which is true.
- [61:40]
Ryan Reynolds
You know, when you talk about files, I just keep going back, and other people, too. Even the enemy says this thing is not correct because if we had it, we would have used it on the guy. It's a bad issue. They say it's a good issue for Trump. Do you know that my poll numbers are up four and a half points. Since this ridiculous Epstein stuff, my poll numbers have gone up four, five point and a half points because people don't buy it. Okay? People don't buy it.
- [62:11]
Unknown Speaker
Now, President Trump also added that the reason he stopped associating with Epstein was because of hiring issues.
- [62:18]
Ryan Reynolds
For years, I wouldn't talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn't talk because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help. And I said, don't ever do that again. He stole people that work for me. I said, don't ever do that again. He did it again and I threw him out of the place. Persona non grata. I threw him out and that was it. I'm glad I did, if you want to know the truth.
- [62:44]
Unknown Speaker
And President Trump also said he had never been to Epstein Island. People jumped all over his language in this particular clip. But again, like, come on, really?
- [62:53]
Ryan Reynolds
And by the way, I never went to the island. And Bill Clinton went there supposedly 28 times. I never went to the island. But Larry Summers, I hear, went there. He was the head of Harvard and many other people that are very big people. Nobody ever talks about them. I never had the privilege of going to his island and I did turn it down, but a lot of people in Palm beach were invited to his island.
- [63:19]
Unknown Speaker
Yeah, again, people are jumping on the word privilege there. You can see that he sort of laughs when he says that. He is saying it ironically. He doesn't mean privilege like he wanted desperately to go to Jeffrey Epstein's island. Come on, guys, like, like really, what do you think he's covering up? Seriously, this is what I want to know from all the people who keep claiming that Trump is covering something up. What is the thing supposedly that he is covering up? Who is the they in all this? You know, earlier on in the program, I said that there is a gap that's emerging now between the anti left and the actual traditional right in the, in the Republican Party. And that gap is very much emerging over things like Epstein, where a lot of people who have bought into the idea that the systems are corrupt, which many of them are. Or that they've been defaced. Many of them have been. Or that the institutions have been eaten from within, which is largely true. Many of those people are not interested in an actual restoration of many of those institutions. They're sort of in love with a narrative whereby everything in America is corrupt, no one can succeed. And that tends to horseshoe back around to the left. And that indeed is a problem. Name a particular issue and we can talk about whether that issue is soluble or not. Name a particular issue or particular bad guy and we can discuss whether that person is engaging in the thing you're saying they're engaging in. Use empty words like they without any antecedent, or suggest a conspiracy without any actual conspirators, or make an allegation without any actual content makes it very difficult to determine what is true and what is false. Which again is why I think that some of that is the point designed to undermine President Trump. Alrighty folks, the show continues for our members. Right now. We'll get to some actual impending problems, perhaps for Republicans in the Senate. Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member. If you're not a member, become a member. Use code Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us. We're just over a month out from the release of my brand new book, Lions and Scavengers. You can pre order a signed copy right now, but only@dailywire.com shop. It's not just a book, it's a rallying cries against the lies and the liars who poison our culture. The scavengers are not going to like it. Don't wait to secure your signed copy. These won't be available forever. Go to dailywire.com shop today.