Josh Hammer (17:23)

We've made a deal today where we are going to be sending them weapons and they're going to be paying for them. We, the United States will not be having any payment made. We are not buying it, but we will manufacture it and they're going to be paying for it. Our last meeting of a month ago was very successful in that they agreed to 5%, which is more than a trillion dollars a year. So they have a lot of money and they, these are wealthy nations, they have a lot of money and they want to do it. They feel very strongly about it and we feel strongly about it, too.

Charlie Kirk (17:55)

Now here the situation is a little bit different than what Biden did, but I'm Going to give you my thoughts, which is it's not a direct, just weapon transfer to Ukraine. At least somebody is purchasing them. Now we have to make sure this actually ends up happening, and I believe it will. So NATO or Europe is basically going to be an intermediary arms dealer with the United States that will buy the arms from the United States, hopefully generating some revenue and then bringing them and sending them to Ukraine. Now, I want to see an end to this Ukrainian Russian war. Personally, I don't want us to send any more arms to Ukraine. But at the same time, I want you, if you agree with me in principle, what would you do if you were President Trump? He's in a very difficult position here. So let's walk through this, because I've done a lot of thinking about this. So President Trump started by trying to warm up the relationship between Vladimir Putin and America. Good phone calls, kind of talking, like, more friendly. Remember, Joe Biden had that relationship dead. That relationship was dead to rights. We didn't even have a backchannel. And right out of the gate, there was a very bullish trend, and he gave Putin a huge leash. And there's no better way to tick off President Trump. And honestly, it would tick me off if I was in the chair. It would tick you off if you were president where you have a great conversation with a foreign leader. Oh, yes, everything's great. Let's do a deal. And then, boom. Vladimir Putin is bombing churches on Palm Sunday, which did happen. Now Russia will say, well, you know, there's been assassination attempts against us, and we're responding in that capacity, that regard. Okay, it's a war. There's always, I guess, a couple sides to this. But some open advice for Vladimir Putin, don't play Trump as a fool. This is not Joe Biden. This is not Barack Obama. And so President Trump has tried outright diplomacy multiple times. Now, if you think about it, President Trump does not want to see the Russian army march all the way to Kiev on his watch. I don't think anyone wants to see that. That would not be good. So it's a very difficult balance. It's a very difficult balance because, of course, Ukraine has not been forthright. I mean, this guy is the greatest salesman since P.T. barnum. He shows up to America, you know, dressed like an uppity foreigner in a black T shirt, and he ends up with $60 billion. I mean, Zelenskyy's the greatest salesman we've ever seen. President Trump wants to see the war end. He doesn't want to see the war lost. And as someone who, honestly I'm not, I'm kind of like, I don't want to see more arms to Ukraine. I don't. I've said that repeatedly. I said it under Biden. I have a great deal of compassion and understanding for President Trump here. And I'm not just saying that because he's a friend and I know him. And if you disagree with me, then email me what you would do if you were president. Cuz this is not an easy one. This one's a toughie. Tired of hearing that fossil fuels are ruining the planet? Well, here's what the headlines won't tell you. We're living in the safest, healthiest and most prosperous time in human history. Since 1980, global extreme poverty has plummeted from 42% to under 10%. Meanwhile, life expectancy and incomes have soared. And this transformation didn't happen in spite of fossil fuels. It happened because of them. From powering clean water systems and and food supply chains to driving industrial growth and life saving infrastructure, fossil fuels have been the quiet force lifting billions out of poverty. So while activists blame fossil fuels for everything under the sun, the data tells a different story. Fossil fuels have made the Earth a better, safer place for people to live. I'm Charlie Kirk and I want you to know the facts. So don't be fossil fooled. Get the full picture@oilfacts.com, brought to you by NASDAQ listed Prairie Operating Company, a high growth, low cost producer of safe and responsible American energy. Oilfacts.com that's oilfacts.com oilfacts.com so President Donald Trump is doing rationally, the most important thing, of which there is really no downside in the pursuit of diplomacy. If you think about it, Vladimir Putin thinks that he understands domestic American politics. And here's Vladimir Putin's perspective. He's not feeling Russian angst, as we've explained on the prior show, because he's getting all of his troops in the rural parts of Russia, not from Moscow or St. Petersburg where the Russian elites or oligarchs live. So it's basically very poor Chechnyans that are dying in the war and are just being used as cannon fodder for Vladimir Putin's agenda. So Vladimir Putin is making a bet. And here is the bet that Vladimir Putin is making. He is betting that America does not have the stomach to keep financing or to keep sending American weaponry. Almost all of Vladimir Putin's political calculus is based around the first principle that America domestically is done with this and he's going to seize on that and he's going to take advantage of it. So President Donald Trump is saying, no, your first principle is incorrect. Play cut 294.

Tucker Carlson (23:10)

Will these be Patriot missiles specifically or.

Alex Marlow (23:12)

Patriot batteries that you're planning? And when do you.

Josh Hammer (23:14)

When everything. Patriots, it's all of them. It's a full complement with the batteries.

Alex Marlow (23:20)

And when do you expect them to.

Tucker Carlson (23:21)

Arrive in Ukraine, sir?

Josh Hammer (23:23)

Well, we're going to have some come very soon, within days, actually, because a couple of the countries, countries that have Patriots are going to swap over and will replace the Patriots with the ones they have.

Charlie Kirk (23:34)

So President Donald Trump saying this, he now has a leverage point against Vladimir Putin. Oh, really, Mr. Putin, you're going to tell me that you want to do a deal and you're starting to go bomb children's hospitals or whatever? I mean, again, it's a war. Ukraine's doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. Russia's doing stuff they shouldn't be doing. I'm not getting too into the details of it, by the way. It's a very confusing war to follow. Seven thousand people died last week and we act like it's okay. Oh, yeah, fine, 7,000 people died. And we just kind of shrug our shoulders. We kind of roll our eyes over all that. President Donald Trump continues in cut 293, saying that he'll impose very severe tariffs of the 100% on Russia if no deal is reached. Ply cut 293.

Josh Hammer (24:23)

I'm disappointed in President Putin because I thought we would have had a deal two months ago, but it doesn't seem to get there. So based on that, we're going to be doing secondary tariffs. If we don't have a deal in 50 days, it's very simple and they'll be at 100% and that's the way it is. That couldn't be more simple. It's just the way it is. I hope we don't have to do it.

Charlie Kirk (24:45)

Now. Here's the argument that some are making. They're saying this is a problem for NATO or Europe to be in buying weapons because they want to bring Donald Trump and America into this conflict. But I actually don't share that view. And I think President Donald Trump has beyond earned our confidence and our trust after what happened with Iran. I think President Donald Trump has shown he does not want a war against Russia. He does not want a hot, kinetic war. He doesn't. And he didn't want one against Iran. He doesn't want a Quagmire. So I don't share that view. Do I think that we could potentially be stuck with a funding problem and a relentless kind of armament problem? Yeah, I could see that. Do I do. Could I see this war going on longer than we would like it? But let me repeat, if you are in my philosophical camp, which I bet a lot of you are, and you're kind of fatigued with the war in Ukraine, you don't want to keep on financing it. You're kind of like, what are you guys even fighting for another hundred extra miles so another 500,000 people can die? What would you do differently? And if your answer is that we're just going to pull out completely, you run a major geopolitical and political risk that Ukraine will no longer exist as a country. Now, some people hold that view. That is a firm view. Some people say that, hey, if Russia wants it, Russia gets it. Now, the counter I don't like is, well, then Russia is going to march all the way to Paris. No, they're not. Actually. Article five will prevent him from even stepping foot into Poland. That's not going to happen. The argument again, the whole kind of slippery slope argument, that, oh, Vladimir Putin's going to march tanks through Warsaw and then, next thing you know, he'll be running Brussels. No, Ukraine is different. So the question is, then, the important question is not about Brussels or Paris or Madrid. The more important question is, are you okay with Ukraine being conquered by Russia? Completely. And that is a very complicated question. Now, are you okay morally, or do you want to get involved militarily? I'm of the opinion that this is not our fight and this is not our war. But President Donald Trump has to manage a global economy as well. He wants to keep the dollar as the world reserve currency status. This is not an easy one. We need to aim for a ceasefire. And I think President Donald Trump has that as an ultimate destination. And I also think President Donald Trump dismisses some of the more radical, clamoring people. Oh, yeah, he's going to roll tanks all the way into Prague. No, he's not. Just. Just stop it. That's not gonna happen. Will he potentially take over Ukraine? And would it be a gut punch to the European psyche and to continental Europe? Yes. And so he's threading the needle. And so Putin basically is not taking what Trump was saying seriously. Cuz Putin was saying. Now, he didn't say it, but he was acting as if, well, Trump, you have no cards. Well, now Trump does have some cards, actually, and that's why he's doing the full complement. Putin may be misreading the influence of some of the MAGA portion of the country that wants no involvement in Ukraine. That's why I think Putin's first principle is incorrect. And so Donald Trump says, oh, you think you understand where we're at? Well, now I'm doing a full compliment for Ukraine. Do you want to negotiate now, Mr. Putin? So I have all the confidence that President Donald Trump is going to keep us out of any sort of kinetic, dragging us into it. I have no concern whatsoever. The reason why Iran, I had so much concern. There was a lot of other reasons why Iran is because we didn't know the rationality of Iran. Russia, I think, doesn't want it either. That's the other thing. Russia does not want a hot war against America. But now President Donald Trump, this is key. Has shifted the responsibility to Europe. That is key. Okay, I want to now get to another story here, actually. Let's just play some of the best moments from the Student Action Summit while it's still fresh. We had some amazing speakers. By the way, we have our Student Action Summit straw poll results coming out soon. Let's play cut246 from Tom Homan. One of the greatest accomplishments from this administration that needs to be repeated on a daily basis is how we now have a hermetically sealed border and the invasion is over. It is a incredible accomplishment. Plate cut 246 tonight as I'm talking.

Tucker Carlson (29:21)

To you, we got the most secure.

Charlie Kirk (29:23)

Border in the history of this nation. In the history.

Tucker Carlson (29:32)

Illegal, Illegal immigration down 96%.

Alex Marlow (29:36)

That means 96% less people coming.

Tucker Carlson (29:39)

When 96% less people coming. How many women aren't being raped by the cartels?

Charlie Kirk (29:43)

How many children aren't dying making that journey?

Tucker Carlson (29:46)

How many pounds of fentanyl is it.

Charlie Kirk (29:47)

Getting to the country to kill Americans? What they've been able to accomplish, what President Trump has been able to do at the southern border. He can golf for the next couple of years and still call this presidency a success to stop the invasion of foreigners into the United States of America. Now it's time also for mass deportations. And we are getting mass deportations. We had Kristi Noem, we had Tom Holman. I spoke to them both publicly and privately. And it like a commitment, an unspeakable resolve to the mass deportation agenda. It was an honor to have our good friend Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense SecDef Man, I've seen motorcades in my life. That is the closest thing to A presidential motorcade. When Pete Hegseth pulled up to our event, he came in with 43 people. It's amazing, but he's still the same person. He was still the same person. Humble, strong, fertile, fortitude, excellent resolve. Here is Pete Hegseth at the Department of Defense. One of the best rated speeches. Play cut 248.

Tucker Carlson (30:52)

We're going back to gender neutral, colorblind.

Alex Marlow (30:57)

Merit based performance standards.

Charlie Kirk (31:06)

We do readiness, we do accountability.

Alex Marlow (31:09)

We do war fighting.

Charlie Kirk (31:10)

We do lethality. We don't do social experiment experiments.

Alex Marlow (31:14)

We don't do politics.

Tucker Carlson (31:16)

I don't care in my formations.

Alex Marlow (31:18)

I mean, I have my political views and you have yours, but I don't.

Charlie Kirk (31:22)

Care in my formation if you're a.

Alex Marlow (31:23)

Republican or a Democrat. Do you love the country?

Tucker Carlson (31:28)

Have you sworn ill to defend the Constitution?

Charlie Kirk (31:30)

And you know, we had dozens of young men, I think some young ladies, but mostly young men that said they wanted to join the military because of Pete Hegseth's speech. They have hit their recruitment goals so early, they need to go to Congress to ask for more money to satisfy the recruitment goals. And under Biden, the recruitments were record lows. Recruitment. Military recruitment is a pole test of national morale. When you are hitting your national recruitment numbers, when you are hitting your military recruitment numbers, it is a leading indicator for national revival, for national revitalization. We also hosted a debate, Josh Hammer versus Dave Smith, about Israel. But let's go to this one here, which also went very, very viral, I could tell you that, which is Tucker Carlson smashing the push for Amnesty. Play cut249. What do I think about amnesty for farm workers? I think it's the most grotesque thing I've ever heard. Are you joking? Amnesty for farm work? We have like 60 million illegal aliens in the country. The country bears no resemblance to the country I grew up in. And it's not better. It's worse. No, it's worse. So I'm not gonna sit for another lecture from anybody telling me we need to import more people to write code or pick grapes or any other task, period. It hasn't worked. The country hasn't gotten richer. It hasn't become more unified. Those words should burn on the tongue of anyone who utters them. How dare you talk like that. Amnesty. This was the most successful student action summit in history. We made a lot of headlines. We had a lot of spirited debate, a lot of discussion. Was a phenomenal success. Private student loan debt in America totals about $300 billion. Why refi. Refinances. Private student loan debt and they do not care what your credit score is. Many clients aren't even able to make the minimum monthly payment on their private student loans when they first contact yrefi. Go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com youm don't have to ignore that mountain of student loan statements on your kitchen table anymore. So go to yrefi.com do you have a co borrower? Well, why Refi can get them released from the loan and you can give mom or dad a break. Go to yrefi.com can you imagine being debt free and not living under this burden anymore? So go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com and let's face it, if you have distressed or defaulted private student loans, there's no better place to go than Yrefi. They provide you with a custom loan payment based on your ability to pay. They're not a debt settlement company. So check it out right now@yrefi.com may not be available in all 50 states. Go to yrefy.com that is yrefy.com joining us now is Alex Marlowe, editor in chief of Breitbart.com, host of the Alex Marlowe Show. Alex, great to see you. We were just with each other a couple days ago in Tampa, Florida. Remind our audience, walk them through what this event was like for you.

Alex Marlow (34:31)

It was an amazing event for me, Charlie. Congratulations. You guys are the centerpiece of the political universe right now. And that's the point. We're a free idea, a free speech country. We should be a movement that is routinely checking in on where we stand on various issues. It's one of the things I admire most about President Trump and it's why I was so enthusiastic about guys like, you know, Robert Kennedy, non traditional Republican, being a part of Trump's cabinet. It is the spirit of challenging ourselves to be sharp on all the ideas. And your conference has just become the absolute nucleus for that. So it's there is if you go to these things and you just want it to be Kumbaya agreement all the time, then you're just being so lazy. And that's some of the vibe I'm getting online is just outrage that you guys would have discussions about certain things and just, no, no, thank you. Please stop. Count me out of that.

Charlie Kirk (35:19)

Yeah. So what would you have to say to people that they saw a speaker they didn't like and then they try to blame me for having that speaker because they didn't like that speaker. And by the way it goes all. It's all across, you know, it's on both. Every possible garden variety of that. How should we approach that question of platform and of running an event like this? You have something to say about this? Running Breitbart for as long as you have? Please. I'd love your commentary on this.

Alex Marlow (35:46)

Yeah, I'm like the number one authority on this thing. So let me tell you, I can only speak for myself here, Charlie, but once you tell me I cannot have a person that I've chosen as editor in chief of Breitbart2 platform on my platform, I have no other choice but to have them again over and over again. So you're actually hurting your own cause by suggesting that you can't have X, Y or Z person speak, especially if you do so in a public way, because then my. I don't have any other moves. My only move is, if we're playing chess here, is to platform them again and again and again. And so if you really want to get through to me, that's just not the way to do it. And yet I did see that a lot online, Charlie, telling you, well, we can never do this again. Well, then, what's your reaction? Your reaction is probably going to be, well, now they're just going to be the centerpiece of the whole thing, because you can't tell me what to do. Charlie, you didn't do this for 10, 12 years. Have you done Turning Point to have people chirping online to say that, to try to control what you're doing and who you're platforming and which voices you want to feature. That's not why you built this. So I know this is someone who built something similar and was told the same stuff. So I find it to be something. It'll blow over. People will calm down. But overall, the vibe of the event was very exciting, and I think it is. We're a vibrant movement with a lot of super interesting, smart people who are constantly challenging each other to bring the heat. I watched the whole debate last night on the plane with Josh Hammer and Dave Smith. They're so. They're both so sharp. It's like, I agree with Josh way more than I agree with Dave, but they both had commanding presences. There was the right amount, I think, of emotion because it's an emotional topic without it being too emotional. And they were bringing all this detail, in fact, that. That I didn't know all of it. And I read this stuff 24 7, so I thought it was a total treat. And it's not something you're getting anywhere else. So why are we saying, oh, this is unique, this original, no one else is doing this. Oh, well, then let's just stop doing it? No, that's the exact wrong way to approach media.

Charlie Kirk (37:32)

Yeah. And honestly, I don't want to give too much credence because I think the criticism rises to the surface. The audience loved it. I've gotten hundreds of hundreds of messages and thousands of comments thanking me because I moderated. I think I have very strong views on this stuff, and I'm very much in Josh's view. I think Dave brought up some points on the neoconservatism stuff that I'm fully in alignment. But his anti Trump stuff, obviously I don't agree with. But what would you say when people say, well, you can't platform inform that person, even though it's in the scope of a debate?

Alex Marlow (38:04)

Yeah, I completely disagree with that. And I'll tell you why. Because I learned so much about Dave from this, because it's the most I've heard him speak. And to be honest with you, I didn't find his arguments overly persuasive. But I felt like that was actually comforting to me, that I felt like, as someone who's mostly pro Israel, very much a Zionist looking at this debate, I did not feel overly intimidated, but I got to understand where he's coming from. I'm very empathetic and sympathetic to someone who's coming from the sort of Ron Paul wing, where Ron Paul's been vindicated again and again over the years. And if that's sort of your baseline and you're just going to assume that, basically I'm taking that he's my North Star, and then I'm going to pick and choose from there. It helps me understand where people are coming from. How am I going to understand where he's coming from unless if I'm not one to seek out his content? Unless someone like you is moderating a forum like this, it just, it makes perfect sense to me. And the key to media, the key to getting people's attention right now is you have to do something unique. You have to do something original. And where else are you getting a debate like this? I haven't seen one in forever.

Charlie Kirk (39:02)

Well, thank you. And by the way, it is one that our students especially are seeking clarity on. Yeah, they don't really know how they stand on these issues. They don't really, because they're told one thing. And what I was. The biggest takeaway is like, Charlie, thank you. I Have more clarity of how now I'm going to think about this. Their mind is not going to be made up in an instant. These things are culminating over periods of time. And again we have Josh Hammer coming on later in the show. I encourage everyone to watch it. It's on our YouTube channel, we're posting it on our podcast, it's on our X feed. It already has millions of views. The way I moderate it though, because I watch a lot of debates and I participate in a lot of debates. What ends up happening is debater A and debater B start talking past each other and you end up discussing a nuanced portion of the rabbit hole that nobody in the audience cares about. So they were talking about like something in like a prime minister of Israel in 2002. Like guys, this is. No one knows what you are talking about, okay. Or the barracks bombing in 1983. So it's the moderator's job to try to bring it back into a place where the audience can actually follow it. Otherwise they're like, no, the 16th point you made is incorrect. No, my 16th point is right. And you miss number one, two or three.

Alex Marlow (40:15)

Yeah.

Charlie Kirk (40:15)

And so I also, I can't stand when, you know, there's interruptions of debates.

Alex Marlow (40:20)

Right.

Charlie Kirk (40:21)

And it's just, it's very important to try to keep decorum. And Alex, wouldn't you say though, this makes it a lot different than the Democrats. Would you ever find a Democrat conference where they would have a debate like this on in front? I don't think so. Right.

Alex Marlow (40:38)

So if you wanna go back into my history in the conservative movement, I've been, I think, I don't think it's overly, I know it's self praise, but it's, I've been, I think had some of the most longevity and effectiveness in the conservative movement over the last few decades. It all started when I was UC Berkeley and I thought I was a libertarian. But at UC Berkeley there's only one conservative club, the College Republicans. And I just showed up because I thought, I think I'm a political guy, I think I'm a conservative, I'm going to go. And they would do debates amongst themselves. They would have the Ron Paul libertarians who were sort of no, no war, very limited government. And then you would have the George Bush style Republicans who were huge government, every war they agreed on nothing. And yet somehow we were in the same club. And I found that to be utterly fascinating. And so if that's the moment we're in, it's, it's fine. With me, it's I'm a pro Israel guy. I tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt on a personal level, but I don't mind being challenged. And if you do, then grow up. Stop being a baby.

Charlie Kirk (41:34)

Yes. And doesn't it make us stronger? And look, I have a lot of sympathy for the Ron Paul stuff. There's so much stuff that Ron Paul said that what it did is it made me at least reconsider certain foreign policy doctrine and dogma and definitely made me less neoconservative. But I don't agree with everything Ram Paul said to legalize all drugs. And you know, come on, that stuff is silly. But I want to just kind of get to a point here, which is that here's a question then, Alex, then where do we draw the line? Who then do we not platform? What criteria then would you submit? Again, I'm running the event. You're a great advisor. What would a matrix criteria be for such a thing? Here's where my criteria is. Either you're a good faith actor or bad faith actor. It's very easy, it's self evident to use a Jeffersonian phrase.

Alex Marlow (42:21)

Right.

Charlie Kirk (42:21)

If you're a self evidently bad faith actor, you're not going to get a platform from me or our organization. Alex.

Alex Marlow (42:28)

Yeah, here's the thing that I would say to you in private trail. I'll try to say it exactly the same in public as I would say in private. A lot of your power, if not all of your power, is because you've built a lot of credibility within conservative politics, which is legitimate power. And that when you weigh in on something politically, when you're leading your herd somewhere politically, it makes a difference and you don't want to waste that for just for a few extra clicks. And we are in a media economy where attention seeking behavior is rewarded right now, whether it's good or bad attention, it is rewarded in the marketplace, in this sort of podcast marketplace that we're in. And you have to pay attention to people who if they're tipping a little bit into the I'm just trying to get attention and clicks at the expense of substantive arguments, at the, at the expense of seeking out truth and what is productive for the movement not just over the next three weeks, but over the next 30 years, then I feel like it's probably not worth the time. But that said, you can always check yourself by trying something new. And I always remind myself of this at Breitbart News if I feel like I'm too set my ways. I'll try to do something different just in order to try to challenge myself and see what it's like and to test waters. So you're free to do that. You should feel emboldened to make mistakes even. But, but overall, if you feel like you could be eroding some of the trust people have built in you politically, then I feel like you think about.

Charlie Kirk (43:48)

Again, this is for me to decide because I'm in charge and yeah, yeah, they could say whatever they want. I have to make the decision. Are you seeking to be a statesman or a philosopher or are you a performer or an actor? Which in the ancient virtues were the lowest of all the ancient virtues. So again, if we have the appearance over lots of period of time that you're just like trying to basically be a court jester and you're a bad faith person to just try to get clicks and there's not deeply held beliefs or can be explained with prudence or wisdom or at least have some sort of admission or reconciliation towards wisdom, then you know you're not going to come on stage. Criticizing is hard. Building is hard. Coalitions are hard. But Student Action Summit was a major success. Charlie Kirk here. Crime is skyrocketing. You may already own a firearm, but before you face the financial and emotional weight of pulling the trigger, consider Burna. Burna's less lethal launchers fire tear gas and kinetic rounds designed to incapacitate attackers for up to 40 minutes, giving you time to escape and call for help without deadly consequences. I use Burner. My family all has them and and now meet the new compact launcher. An amazing product. Sleek, slim and hits like a sledgehammer, but the size of a smartphone. It's perfect for concealed carry, comfortable, discreet and confidence building. It fires at 400ft per second with 41 joules per square inch of stopping power. That's enough force to halt a threat. Cold about the legal and moral complexities of lethal force. What I love about Burna is they're proudly American. Over 80% of their compact launchers components are sourced in America and each unit is hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Best of all, Burna is legal in all 50 states. No background checks, ships directly to your door. Trusted by hundreds of police departments and government agencies around the world. Visit Byrna to learn more. That is by r n a.com Alex, you were around the conference in Tampa. What did you learn from the students? What did open your eyes about how they're feeling, what they're sensing from a political standpoint? Because it was buzzing with youthful energy that Which I wish most of our leaders would take time to seek to understand. Alex Marlowe.

Alex Marlow (45:56)

Yeah, it's really important to understand. This is the. So they want to be reached, they want to be talked to, they want to be respected. And one of the reasons why is because they're leaving these online lives and they don't get that physical interaction. I mean, it. Just seeing people, it's such a pleasure for them to see the people who are their favorite characters in. In the. Because this is Charlie, we know we're witnessing the greatest movie of all time, the Trump era of American politics. We've never seen anything like it. It's the most entertaining thing ever. And these are their characters, and they see them show up in person and they're talking to them and tailoring messages to them. It just really delights them. So it's really important for them to do this. And I'm glad that you keep getting these great rosters of speakers. But they're also so much smarter than. I mean, I'm not exactly an old guy, but when I was on the campuses 20 years ago, 18 years ago, whatever it was, I didn't have a fraction of the information as the normal person does who's just going around these campuses because of the Internet, because of the access to information. So these are incredibly smart people, and they're very moldable and so. But they have to be respected, too, because they like agency, they like dignity. So, I mean, it really is terrific to get to understand what's important to them and what interests them and what draws them into the political fray.

Charlie Kirk (47:06)

What would you say? Because there's, like, a couple major issues. Aid to Ukraine, mass deportation. Slash some not President Trump whispering amnesty. What were some of the biggest issues that you were hearing about? I know Epstein got a lot of attention. I don't wanna talk much about that. Okay. I think we've exhausted it. I told people in the audience, look, I am trusting my friends in the administration to proceed. The ball is in their court. Cash, you're the man. Bongino, you're the man. Pam, great friend. Ball is in your court. Take it, run with it. I have the full faith. I think all that. All that is said is needed to be said this last week and just repeating the same thing over and over again. But what else? What was like, the most shocking thing that you wish an average older conservative could learn from what you saw at the event or the conference?

Alex Marlow (47:53)

Yeah, but I think the Epstein thing, what's important about it is not. Is that's worth mentioning. Is that the transparency thing is a big deal and authenticity and feeling like you can trust the government is a big deal and over promising and under delivering is going to affect newer voters to the coalition. And I'll tell you Charlie, for my audience, I had put a lot of cold water that we were ever going to get great answers on Epstein. I figured they were either too complicated to release and they could really interfere with the lives of innocent people or there wasn't it wasn't as bad as people thought is. I mean we knew it was bad obviously, but that stuff was was out there. So I was always very skeptical we'd get much. But it's the over promising from certain members of the administration that things are going to come out. That's the real problem and that's the point is the authenticity and the transparency really makes a big deal. They do not want to go and fight useless wars for other countries. That is flat out. And that's why it is. I think that's a very important pressure because I think the way Trump handled the Iran situation was perfect. But I think a World War 3 or ground war is totally would be intolerable to the whole nation. So it's good to see that. And I do think there is a deeper concern that the system is rigged to favor a few people, the very, very top. And that is something that the right is not. I don't think we're grappling with that. And you brought this up as much as anyone, Charlie, that the if we don't figure out a way to message on this issue, we run the risk of seeing the Mamdanis rise who have terrible ideas. But you say it with a smiley face and maybe you say it persuasively and it could get through to some low information people.

Charlie Kirk (49:29)

And if we do not have more young people be able to own homes and stop renting, political radicalism will rise. Political radicalism will set in to the nation and the country. Final question here. Alex Marlowe, Biden auto pen. You've covered Biden a lot. I gotta let you riff on this.

Alex Marlow (49:50)

Yeah, it's. This is exactly what we thought we were getting when we had heard that this was the best case scenario in terms of people who think the Biden administration was basically illegitimate. When you see that he did not approve many of the names pardoned with the auto pen, this is where the legal apparatus, if worked effectively, can start unraveling parts of his administration. Because if we can determine that was in fact illegal and should be the president supposed to sign this stuff. Whoever came with this auto pen, it is for certain things. For certain things, maybe they'll determine it was okay. But for certain things, this is absolutely illegitimate. This could open up some of those investigations to try to get justice for President Trump and for the American people who got railroaded by this guy. So I'm not surprised, but I'm very heartened that we now have attack vectors in terms of trying to unravel some of the horrible stuff Biden did.

Charlie Kirk (50:42)

Alex Marlowe, check it out. Breitbart.com does excellent work. Alex, thank you so much.

Alex Marlow (50:47)

Thank you, Charlie.

Charlie Kirk (50:50)

Joining us now is Josh Hammer. Josh, great to see you again. We were on stage together yesterday. I guess to make it fair, we should have Dave Smith also on the show, but we could have Dave back on at another time. But Dave, I do want, Josh, I do want to take this opportunity just to promote the debate for those that haven't seen it, to recap it. So, Josh, I want to get your opinion. Then we're going to play some pieces of tape. And then, Josh, I want to give you an opportunity to maybe finish some points that you might not have had time to do so. But first, Josh, your impression, your experience at the Turning Point USA high profile Israel debate.

Tucker Carlson (51:24)

Well, first of all, Charlie, thank you for the invitation to appear at the debate and thank you for moderating. You moderated an outstanding debate. I told you in person afterwards that I thought it was 10 out of 10. You did a fantastic job there.

Charlie Kirk (51:34)

Thank you.

Tucker Carlson (51:35)

Look, it's a very emotional topic and emotions run high there, but there were a lot of substantive points on both sides. One of the things that I want to do, and now that we've already seen what happened, I think it's very clear in retrospect that it was a deliberate, one of, one of many deliberate tactics on my end to try to make sure that the people there understand and the audience watching at home and around the world that MAGA in America first. And the Trump doctrine of foreign policy simply does not mean what libertarian isolationists like Dave Smith think that it means or what they think it ought to mean. The Trump doctrine of foreign policy is a nationalist realist foreign policy. It is a third way foreign policy between the equally absurd extremes of neoconservatism on the one end and isolationism on the other end. And Charlie, that was a theme that I tried to hit over and over and over again through the course of this debate. It was a very lively audience. The audience was super engaged there. All sorts of applause lines. I Thought for both of us the occasional boo at times as well. But it was an incredibly enriching and rewarding experience. I'm deeply happy that I did it.

Charlie Kirk (52:35)

Yeah. And so I want to play some pieces of tape, but I want to congratulate both you and Dave. Usually on Sunday, the rule at work, the rule at Turning Point USA events is Sunday, we'll be lucky to have like one third of the room filled. It's just the way it is. People fly home. They're like, okay, they had a long night the night before, but it was packed. I mean, it was the most packed closing to a summit we've ever had, outside of having Trump or something like that, that obviously. So let's just play some pieces of tape here that have gone viral. But first I want to go to a piece of agreement that I think is important. I want to first play cut 257, where I throw it down and I say, look, you can criticize the Netanyahu government. Great. Dave. Josh, you know, you can have a view on Iranian intervention, but we're not going to put up with this Jew hate stuff. It's not going to happen. We're not going to put up with it. Play cut 257. There is a rise of, I just think, some disgusting stuff online. I'm not blaming you for this. I'm not one of those people. Right. But what do you have to say? That there's this like dark Jew hate out there and you see it and I see it. I hate it. It's. It's not good.

Tucker Carlson (53:46)

Yeah.

Charlie Kirk (53:46)

And everyone in this audience, guys, don't get yourself involved in that. I'm telling you, will rot your brain. It's bad for your soul. It's bad. It's evil. I think it's demonic, Josh. I think that was an important point, Dave. Agreed. And it really kind of fenced in where this is what I think good faith argumentation versus kind of the slop that we see emerge far too often online.

Tucker Carlson (54:10)

Yeah. And this is the critical distinction. Look, there are so many parts of U.S. israel relations, of U.S. involvement in the Middle east more generally, U.S. involvement in this, in the 12 day war against Iran. I think all this is totally fair game. What should the level of US aid to Israel, what should it be? Should there actually be aid? Dave and I actually agree that aid should be phased out. We disagree on the timeframe, but we broadly agree that US aid to Israel ends up being something of a mutual bear hug that, in my judgment, actually ends up undermining both the United States and Israel in the mid to long term. So there was actually no serious small amount of agreement when you kind of go between the lines there. But this clip that we just saw, Charlie, is so important. And throughout your entire career, you've just been such a stalwart friend of the Jewish people, defender of the Jewish people. Charlie, you and I are friends. We talk a lot offline. And, you know, I told you that what you go through on college campuses, when you have these crazy people that have gone down these rabbit holes on social media that are talking to you, Charlie Kirk, a young evangelical Christian, about what is in the Talmud. First. First of all, my heart breaks. And this is where we are in the year 2025, that a young conservative Christian is being asked to defend the Talmud. It's just an utterly absurd thing on its face. It is just totally absurd. But more importantly, you do an amazing job with it, an absolutely amazing job of defending the dignity of the Jewish people, the dignity of the Jewish state of Israel there. So God bless you and thank you for all you've done throughout your career to defend the Jewish people and the Jewish state. I think the crowd and everyone watching at home saw that yet again yesterday.

Charlie Kirk (55:41)

Thank you for saying that. And that is such a good point. And look, some people are, oh, Charlie, how dare you. Platform. Can you respond to that, Josh? Because they're saying, why did you. Platform Dave Smith, by the way, man, I think that's ridiculous. But it was a debate, obviously. I think that we actually get stronger through debate. We should be unafraid to have those kind of discussions. How would you respond to that, Josh?

Tucker Carlson (56:05)

So, first of all, this actually was not my first time debating Dave Smith, Charlie. I actually debated him back in February at Princeton University in New Jersey as part of the Steamboat Institute's Campus Liberty Tour, I think is the exact name for that tour. So this is my second time in just six months debating him. So if people are blaming Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA for throwing Dave Smith into a debate, and they probably have other organizations to blame as well. Look, Dave Smith, for better or for worse, your mileage may vary. I obviously am not a fan, to put a mildly up of what the guy says. I think a lot of it is egregiously wrong, to the point at times of just being utterly, offensively wrong. But he has a platform, and people, especially a lot of younger people, really, really, really tend to do glom on to what he says and to take what he says seriously. And to the extent that we're debating Legitimate substantive issues. What is the nature of US Israel relations? What should US Israel relations look like? I think that is entirely legitimately fair game. Now Charlie, it would have been very different if we had gone there on that stage and you as the moderator had said, okay Josh and Dave, why don't you debate whether Israel is a Nazi enterprise committing a Nazi esque holocaust in Gaza, God forbid. Or let's debate whether Israel is an apartheid state. I mean there are some things that I think definitely should not be subject to a legitimate debate, especially at a high profile, highly influential conference like TPUSA's Student Action Summit. But that's not what we did on stage yesterday. And I'm really just quite pleased with how it went.

Charlie Kirk (57:31)

You know, one of the biggest lies being sold to American people right now is that you're in control of your money, especially when it comes to crypto. But the truth, most of these so called crypto platforms are just banks in disguise, fully capable of freezing your assets the moment some bureaucrat makes a phone call. That is not what Bitcoin was built for. That's why I use Bitcoin.com I just did a major transaction on it. They offer a self custodial wallet, which means you hold the keys, you control your assets. No one can touch your crypto, not the IRS or not a rogue bank, not some three letter agency that thinks it knows better than you do. This is how it was intended by the original creators of Bitcoin. Peer to peer money, free from centralized control, free from surveillance and free from arbitrary seizure. So if you're serious about financial sovereignty, go to bitcoin.com, set up your wallet, take back control. Because if you don't hold the keys, you don't own your money. Bitcoin.com freedom starts here. I want to play one more piece of tape here, but now I want to get. Let's just play this here. This is towards the end and the agreements and let's just go through. You and Dave both agreed on a sunsetting of aid to Israel that the United States should decouple. And I've, I've said this for a while by the way, BB Netanyahu has also said this, that if Israel is betting on the domestic support of the American body politic, that is a risky support, risky bet. Things can change over time. Let's go to the agreements. Let's go to cut254. I want to just summarize. This was time well spent. Both Dave and Josh agree on some plan to wind down US Israel Aid. That was an agreement, correct? My. The timeline you could debate about. Number two, they both say every human's made the image of God and we should not trivialize when, you know, people are killed. Also, I think we all agreed October 7th was awful, it was terrible and should be talked about more. And it needs to be emphasized. We also agree this Jew hate stuff has no place in public discourse, period, end of story. And I don't like it. It's disgusting and we need to call it out when we see it. And finally, I think the fifth is that I hope we demonstrated and both our participants got a little lively at times, that this is a debate worth having, that it's better to have this out in the open than silence people and censor them and call them names instead. This is how we solve our problems. Give it up for Josh and Dave one last time, everybody. Thank you. So, Josh, comment on the agreement.

Tucker Carlson (59:58)

So, you know, we talked a little bit about, about, about the aid, Charlie, but I'll just kind of reiterate my, my basic point here, which is that, you know, U.S. aid to Israel, I've been criticizing this arrangement for the past decade. In fact, aipac, first of all, AIPAC is not the boogeyman that a lot of people think that it is. We had this conversation on stage yesterday. They simply are not anywhere close to as powerful as I think a lot of people think that they are. The easiest way to know that is that AIPAC failed to stop Barack Obama's nuclear deal back in 2015. It was their number one priority of the entire decade and they failed. But nonetheless, despite that point, I'm not personally a fan of them because they exist effectively in large part to get these large scale and annual aid appropriations. Roughly $3.8 billion in the most recent aid package every year from the US to Israel. Now, in my opinion, that aid ends up being harmful to both countries. From the United States perspective, it does end up being a crony capitalist bit of the military industrial complex that President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about in his farewell address. You end up essentially subsidizing Boeing north of Grumman, very large fat cat defense contractors, people, you know, the kind of companies that Lindsey Graham lobbies for. You, frankly, don't need any more money flowing into their coffers. But from Israel's perspective, you know, they should understand, I think, Israel, that the more that they are reliant on foreign aid, the more that you embolden other countries that are not, in this case Israel to essentially wag a finger. And no, you can't do XYZ thing or else we're going to cut off your aid. We saw that time and time again from the bottom Biden administration in particular after October 7th. And if you actually believe in Zionism, Charlie, Zionism is this word that has been tarred and feathered by the Jihadis, the Kaffir clad radicals on campuses. Zionism is a very simple and actually beautiful concept. It is the notion rooted, I would argue in the book of Genesis no less, that the Jewish people have a God given ancestral biblical right to their, to their homeland. That's literally all that Zionism is. So if you believe with that very simple rudimentary proposition, it stands to reason that the Jewish people actually should determine that and that they should not be reliant on anyone ultimately other than themselves to the extent possible there. So I think that this aid arrangement ends up undermining both countries interests in the mid to long term. Again I think Dave and I disagree very much on the timeframe. I wouldn't, I wouldn't cut that off God forbid in the middle of an active seven front war the likes of which Israel has been facing since October 7th. But I definitely think that in the mid to long term it would be a good idea for both countries. And just really briefly on the Genesis 127 point, Charlie, in my book Israel and Civilization I talk about how Genesis chapter 1 verse 27, the divine image imperative, bazel melchim we would say in the Hebrew imago DEI for our Catholic friends in the Latin. This is the foundational ethical, moral imperative of all of Western civilization. Literally everything in fact. I argue that Thomas Jefferson never would have been able to write the words that he wrote in the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. Well where is he getting that from? The 14th amendment sweeping claim of equal protection in section one, the 14 man. The equal protection clause. Where is that coming from? Martin Luther King's speech in Washington, the Civil Rights act in 1964. All these sweeping moral assertions of genuine human equality in the American legal and moral order. It has its root. That root is the Hebrew Bible and that root is Genesis 1:27. So Hebrew. Yes, we obviously all care about the dignity and the humanity of every single human being across the world. And it's very important no matter what conflict we're discussing, whether it's Gaza, whether it's the Yemeni civil war, anything there. And I do think it's curious by the way that a lot of people tend to assert this concern when it comes just to Gaza, but tend to be a little silent when it comes to Yemen or Syria or Boko Haram in Nigeria and so forth. So I will call them out for some hypocrisy there. But I try to be consistent in trying to believe in Genesis 1:27, what that means for all conflicts all throughout the world.

Charlie Kirk (63:43)

Josh, what points do you wish you would have made or that you would have made more completely had you had more time?

Tucker Carlson (63:48)

Charlie, I would have liked to spend a little more time. To be clear, this is not your fault. It's just the nature of how these debates go. But I would have liked to have taken a little more time to explain the proactive humanitarian measures that the Israeli military takes in Gaza to prevent civilian casualties. There was a lot of exchange, a lot of accusations. Dave Smith and people who agree with Dave Smith tend to oftentimes accuse Israel of doing terrible things, of slaughtering babies, of indiscriminately just opening fire. Now, on the debate, which I agree, everyone should go ahead and check out the debate, I did talk a little bit about how we actually have some numbers when it comes to civilian to combatant death ratio, 1 to 1.5, as crunched by John Spencer, the head of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, a number that he says is the lowest in the entire history of recorded urban warfare, literally ever. So the most humane. But I would have liked to explain a little bit more about how the IDF, going back at least as far as the 2014 war in Gaza, arguably as far back, I think, maybe as even the prior conflict, 2012, they will literally drop leaflets out of the sky onto buildings. They will individually call up apartment buildings and stores and houses and say there is going to be a military operation here because there is a Hamas facility headquartered, as the case may be, in the mosque where you are, in the housing area where you are there. So we're going to have to take care of this. So you have 30, 60 minutes, 2 hours, 4 hours, whatever it is, to basically get the heck out of dodge. They do this all the time there. So look, in many ways, Israel is, the idf, along with the US army, is the most moral war fighting machine in the modern history, history of the world. So these continued allegations of just effectively just trying to turn the old blood libel smear and then turn it on the Jewish military when it comes to Gaza is really just a frankly despicable line. I would have liked to have taken a little more time to explain why it simply is not the case there, because Again, they go above and beyond, Charlie, Sometimes, frankly, even some folks in the US Military have looked what Israel does. And I've heard some veterans say, wow, I mean, we would never do such a thing there. So, you know, we complain a lot about how Barack Obama put overly restrict restrictive rules of engagement on our own boys here in the US Military. Israel goes so far, arguably, one might even argue, but perhaps at times too far to impose ultra, ultra, ultra strict rules of engagement on their own forces, all trying to basically appease these nefarious and scandalous allegations of indiscriminately slaughtering children. None of which is even remotely true.

Charlie Kirk (66:12)

In closing here, Josh, what would you say is the takeaway of how young people are viewing this issue and what you maybe learned throughout the debate on a better way to keep framing it to win over younger people?

Tucker Carlson (66:24)

Charlie, look, you and I are in our 30s. At least I think you're in your 30s. You know, we're 31. Yeah, I'm 36. So we're effectively the same age. And we grew up in the context and in the immediate aftermath of the failed regime change, moralistic boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan. And for younger millennials and Gen Z who grew up in this context, they rightfully are skeptical when it comes to US Military involvement overseas. I think that Operation Midnight hammer, Trump's 12 day war, the 37 hour B2 bomber runs in Iran, could potentially be an inflection point in showing to young people that not every use of American military force. Trump did the same thing with Qasem Soleimani and Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi, the head of isis, by the way, back during his first term. I think he has shown yet again with this extraordinarily successful assault, surgical strike in Iran, a strike, by the way, that would not have been possible were it not for the idf, essentially neutralizing the Iranian air control and missile launchers and all of that there. But with this strike, I think that Donald Trump has highlighted for young people for maybe the first time in their lives, what a truly surgical strike. Nationalist realist. Bomb the crap out of our enemies who want to kill us and then get the heck out. What that kind of foreign policy can actually look like. Charlie, it is the Trump Doctrine in action, as I've been arguing for the past month. And I'm just proud to call this man Commander in Chief because again, he fulfilled multiple campaign promises. With one strike of the blow, he has set Iran's nuclear ambitions back by many years on the one hand, and two, he did so without starting a war without a single American casualty.

Charlie Kirk (67:56)

Check out the Josh Hammer show and check out newsweek.com Josh thank you so much. Thanks so much for listening everybody. Email us as always, freedom. Charliekirk.com thanks so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories.

Alex Marlow (68:07)

And news you can trust, go to charliekirk.

Charlie Kirk (68:09)

Com.