Summary of "The Charlie Kirk Show" Episode: "How Pfizer Rigged the 2020 Election"

Introduction

In the June 3, 2025 episode of The Charlie Kirk Show titled "How Pfizer Rigged the 2020 Election," host Charlie Kirk delves into a provocative discussion alleging that Pfizer manipulated the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election by intentionally delaying the release of its COVID-19 vaccine trial results. The episode features insights from journalist Alex Berenson and commentator Steve Hilton, focusing on the intersection of public health and politics.

Key Discussions

1. Allegations of Pfizer's Election Interference

Charlie Kirk initiates the conversation by referencing an email from Alex Berenson that sparked the episode's main topic. He asserts that Pfizer's actions during the 2020 election had significant political ramifications.

Notable Quote:

"[22:59] Charlie Kirk: ... Pfizer was now the most proven interferer of an American presidential election of my lifetime."

Alex Berenson expands on this claim, suggesting that Pfizer delayed announcing their COVID-19 vaccine trial results to influence the election outcome in favor of Joe Biden. He argues that the positive results, which could have boosted public confidence and benefitted Trump’s campaign, were withheld until after Election Day.

Notable Quote:

"[18:38] Alex Berenson: ... Pfizer essentially interfered in the 2020 election by almost certainly intentionally withholding its results of the main MRA vaccine clinical trial until after the election."

Berenson further explains that the delay was facilitated by the FDA's sudden demand for additional safety data, pushing the vaccine's rollout to mid-November instead of October. This, he claims, deprived Trump of potential electoral gains that timely vaccine news could have provided.

Notable Quote:

"[21:56] Alex Berenson: ... the FDA then essentially uses that as an excuse to say, we want two months of safety data. ... this gives us control about when we actually announce that the vaccine is working."

2. Impact on California's Sports and Governance

Before delving deeper into the Pfizer discussion, the episode touches on another contentious issue: transgender athletes competing in female sports in California. Steve Hilton criticizes Governor Gavin Newsom’s handling of the situation, portraying it as an example of ineffective Democratic governance.

Notable Quote:

"[03:33] Steve Hilton: ... Gavin Newsom agrees. Because that's what he told you, Charlie. He said it was, quote, unquote, deeply unfair. So what's he done about it? Absolutely nothing."

Hilton argues that Newsom failed to act on legislation (AB 1266) that he deems unconstitutional, aimed at preventing biological men from competing in female sports and accessing girls' locker rooms. He uses this as a parallel to illustrate broader Democratic mismanagement.

Notable Quote:

"[14:07] Steve Hilton: ... this shows the body language, she's like, I'm not too crazy about this whole situation."

3. Pfizer's Motives and Internal Politics

Continuing the Pfizer narrative, Berenson suggests that internal conflicts and political biases within Pfizer influenced their decision to delay vaccine announcements. He points to Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla's alleged anti-Trump sentiments and the role of Jonathan Zettleman, an independent data monitor with Democratic affiliations, in assessing trial data.

Notable Quote:

"[28:31] Alex Berenson: ... Albert Borla in 2022 said some very negative things about Donald Trump."

Berenson contends that these internal dynamics, combined with FDA pressures, led to the strategic postponement of vaccine data release, which had direct implications for the 2020 election.

4. Broader Implications and Future Predictions

Charlie Kirk and Steve Hilton extrapolate the Pfizer incident to a broader critique of Democratic dominance and its impact on California's governance. They argue that monopolistic party control leads to policies that undermine fairness and public trust.

Hilton emphasizes his candidacy for governor as a means to rectify these perceived injustices, citing support from working-class Latinos and Trump voters within California.

Notable Quote:

"[14:07] Steve Hilton: ... specifically the Latino community in California who've had enough of it. It's the largest group in California. ... We got to get change in California."

Insights and Conclusions

• Election Influence: The primary assertion is that Pfizer's delay in releasing vaccine trial results strategically impacted the 2020 election, favoring Joe Biden over Donald Trump.

• Political Bias: Internal political biases within Pfizer and external pressures from the FDA are portrayed as key factors in the decision-making process that led to the alleged election interference.

• Governance Critique: The discussion extends to a critique of Democratic governance in California, using the handling of transgender athletes in sports as an example of broader policy failures.

• Future Implications: Steve Hilton positions his gubernatorial aspirations as a corrective measure against what he perceives as Democratic mismanagement and manipulation.

Conclusion

This episode of The Charlie Kirk Show presents a controversial perspective linking Pfizer's actions to the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election outcome. Through the contributions of Alex Berenson and Steve Hilton, Kirk explores themes of corporate influence on politics, perceived Democratic overreach in governance, and the implications for future political landscapes. While the allegations presented are serious, they remain speculative and would require substantial evidence and corroboration to substantiate.

Disclaimer: The views and claims expressed in this summary are based on the content provided from The Charlie Kirk Show episode and do not reflect verified facts. Listeners are encouraged to consult multiple sources and conduct independent research to form a comprehensive understanding of the topics discussed.