Unnamed Reporter (6:11)

For ages, hot molten steel has been the lifeblood of Johnstown, vigorously pumping dollars and jobs through the city's veins. But now the pulse of the community is in cardiac arrest. Bethlehem officials aren't making any more comments than what's contained in this press release. They're sorry, but it's simply not cost effective to run the mill any longer.

Charlie Kirk (6:33)

It does hurt, and there's a dramatic spinoff that's going to come from that. And there's going to be a lot of problems that have to be solved.

Unnamed Reporter (6:40)

In part, Bethlehem cites fierce foreign competition and the national economy for their demise. But for some Bethlehem employees, it's hard to look past the shocking news.

Will Tebow (6:50)

Don't rely on a corporation that don't want you in a sense, and they don't care.

Charlie Kirk (6:56)

You know, you're only a number jobs left and drugs came in, factories closed and communities shattered. We thought we were getting the better end of the deal. Free trade. Our leaders told us George H.W. bush was president when that happened, and William Clinton took office soon after in January of 1993. Neither actually decided to fix the raping of the heartland. J.D. vance ran for the U.S. senate and eventually became the Vice President because he is a son of the forgotten family of the Midwest. He is a son of the forgotten worker of the UAW. J.D. vance understands the shared lived experience of the factory workers of Appalachia. When President Trump was doing in the Rose Garden, he did not have to do this. He could have done what every politician did. Oh, I'm in my second term. I'm not running again. Forget this. I don't actually have to deliver on the promises, what I said I was gonna do. He could have coasted like Obama. He could have coasted like George W. Bush. But let's go through the list. Reagan, he opened up free trade, which destroyed the heartland. It's true. Reagan was good with a lot of stuff. He was terrible with this, he did some tariffs, but not nearly enough. Bill Clinton accelerated. George H.W. bush was terrible. George W. Bush was awful. Barack Obama terrible. Joe Biden, he's the first president in the post World War II based order to say enough. Because President Donald Trump feels an obligation to the people that actually put him into office. He made a promise. He made a pledge. And, and to fulfill that pledge and to fulfill that promise requires moral clarity that we have not seen from an American president since probably Dwight D. Eisenhower. This is J.D. vance, who understands the ramifications, the weight and the heaviness of exactly what President Trump was contesting for in the Rose Garden speech known as Liberation Day. Play cut121.

J.D. Vance (8:58)

There were two conceits that our leadership class had when it came to globalization. The first is assuming that we can separate the making of things from the design of things. The idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things. You would open an iPhone box and it would say, designed in Cupertino, California. Now, the implication, of course, is that it would be manufactured in Shenzhen or somewhere else. And yeah, some people might lose their jobs in manufacturing. They could learn to design, or to use a very popular phrase, learn to code. But I think we got it wrong. It turns out that the geographies that do the manufacturing get awfully good at the designing of things. Now, we assume that other nations would always trail us in the value chain, but it turns out that as they got better at the low end of the value chain, they also started catching up on the higher end. We were squeezed from both ends.

Charlie Kirk (9:56)

President Donald Trump announced a solution to what JD Vance diagnosed as the problem. I'm gonna tell you the exact tariffs that he announced to me. A baseline 10% tariff on all US imports. That's big. Everybody. You are seeing the redesigning and the restructuring of the artificial intelligence economy. You are seeing the restructuring of the geopolitical hemisphere that America will lead. The Western Hemisphere, the Northern hemisphere that we are in, that we live in, is going to be dominant and self reliant. Reliant on China no more. You're seeing the recalibration of exactly how we view economic matters. And it's been long overdue. Because the deal post World War II is we don't need to make stuff, we can just consume stuff. We could trade a bunch of money and hedge against it. Maybe a little real estate economy and we'll build software, not hardware. And it has resulted in the crippling of our Great nation. You are witnessing the reorganization and the reorientation of the wealthiest country on the planet to make sure that we remain the wealthiest country on the planet. If pain is affecting your life, make 2025 the year of feeling Good again, the year of moving better, sleeping better, feeling more alive. And do it with Relief Factor. Relief Factor is a daily supplement that fights pain naturally. It doesn't just mask pain temporarily helps reduce or even eliminate it. Over a million people have turned to Relief Factor. Feel the difference it can make in your Life. Give their three week quick start a try. It's only $19.95, less than a dollar a day and just takes a phone call. Call 1-800-For relief. That is 1-800-For relief. Remember, every day you feel better is a day you live better. So wherever you're hurting back, neck, joints or muscles, make 2025 the year of feeling good again. Try Relief factor right now. That is 1-800-for relief. 1,800-for relief. I want to get into the specifics of exactly what President Trump is issuing as far as reciprocal tariffs and tariffs across the board. But understand you are seeing a historic reorganization of the global and the American economy, and it's going to come as a shell shock. And there will be market volatility, there will be turbulence. It's basically like taking cough syrup. It doesn't feel good, but it is good for you. It's necessary. We have been on borrowed time. We have been on borrowed future promises. And you are not a nation if you do not make stuff in your Nation. Let's play cut122.

J.D. Vance (12:33)

The second is that cheap labor is fundamentally a crutch. And it's a crutch that inhibits innovation. I might even say that it's a drug that too many American firms got addicted to. And so I'd ask my friends, both on the tech optimist side and on the populist side, not to see the failure of the logic of globalization as a failure of innovation. Indeed, I'd say that globalization's hunger for cheap labor is a problem precisely because it's been bad for innovation. Both our working people, our populace, and our innovators gathered here today have the same enemy. And the solution, I believe, is American innovation.

Charlie Kirk (13:15)

So the US Trade representative has chronicled every tariff and every trade restriction on the United States. President Trump has said they calculated an effective average tariff on US Goods. If you combine all direct tariffs and all other trade restrictions, he says we are then retaliating by tariffing other countries that amount directly but cut in half with a floor of 10%. So you might say, what does that mean? A lot of tariffs. That's what that means. It's going to be a lot of tariffs with China and they could reciprocate. And I'll be very honest, it might be harder to go buy piles of plastic that you do not need. Do you want to be reliant on the Chinese Communist Party? Do you want to be subservient to a foreign land? Are we a colony or, or are we a country? And I can tell you who's cheering this right now. The autoworkers in Michigan, the welders in Wisconsin, the people that showed up in record enormous numbers to vote for President Trump are enthusiastically giving a standing ovation for this right now. And do you know how you avoid a tariff? You make your product in America. And understand, if President Trump was just doing tariffs, it's a left hand, right hand situation. On the left hand, you say just tariffs. If he was only doing tariffs, it'd be a little rough. But he's doing the brilliant second move. He's doing the brilliant right hand that makes it all happen. He's doing tariffs plus tax cuts, deregulation and drool baby drill. So when you pair those two together, all of a sudden tariffs make a lot more sense. And he's so smart to do this. So in the spring he announces tariffs, which he can do with his unilateral authority, get the tough stuff out of the way, take the pill, everybody. Maybe it's not as bad as you think. And then the all encompassing strategy is boom. On the second part is a massive reconciliation bill of tax cuts, of no tax, on tips of drill baby drill of balancing the budget. President Trump is also offering tax deductions on interest on car loans, on American made cars. So when you then look at the entire picture and you are a foreign company, you have to ask yourself a very simple question. Do you want to be able to access the American consumer? What President Trump is doing is he's saying, hey, in order to access the American consumer, you gotta make the stuff here. Because the American consumer is the golden prize on the planet. Let me say that again. The American consumer is the golden prize. We consume more than any other nation. We are a consumerist economy. We buy and we buy and we buy and we go out to eat. The Japanese are not like that at all. They have a deflationary problem. They save their money under pillows, basically. That's why almost nothing goes up in downtown Tokyo. They have a deflation Problem. They got to keep on printing money and going through quantitative easing. And in America, it's the exact opposite. We have high leverage and huge money velocity and investment and risk taking and entrepreneurialism. So we are the golden prize. We are the top accomplishment. If you are a Dutch company, a German company, an Argentine company, a Colombian company, you can never reach global international success if you cannot get into the US Market. But now, in order to reach the US Market, you have to make that good in the United States of America. Employ American labor, not just say, hey, I want to access the American market. Thanks so much. Let's trade some dollar bills. I'm going to bring all the profits back to Bogota. I'm going to bring all the profits back to Brussels. I'm bringing all the profits back to Copenhagen. I'm bringing all the profits back to Amsterdam. Meanwhile, all we get in return is a pile of plastic. No. Instead we say, if you want to be able to do that, make the good in Knoxville, make the good in Marshallton, Iowa. Make the good in Flagstaff, Arizona. Employ American labor. China has now taken the most extraordinary step of building in Mexico to avoid tariffs and access America's prized market. We are the largest market in the world. We're gonna start acting like it. Hey, Charlie, Kirk here. Ever see your dog slowing down or having health issues and wonder, what can I do to make them better? Well, my friend, add Ruffgreens to your dog's food for 90 days and you'll see changes that will amaze you. Guaranteed. Invented by naturopathic doctor Dennis Black, Ruffgreens wants to invite you and give your pup the Ruffgreens 90 Day Challenge. In the first 30 days, you'll see shinier coats and increased energy. By day 60, your dog will have a stronger immune system, less shedding and improved joint function, all due to to live nutrients you've added to their diet. And at 90 days, better digestion, reduced inflammation, improved heart health, and you might even have reduced their cancer risk. Fetch a free Jump Start trial bag for your dog today. Go to ruffgreens.com, just use promo code Charlie. That is roughgreens.com promo code Charlie. And just cover shipping. You don't have to change your dog's food to improve your dog's health. Just add a scoop of rough greens, that is ruffgreens.com several issues to discuss here with a really good guest. Will Tebow, director of the American Military Project at the Claremont Institute and also an army veteran. Will, welcome to the program. Will we Complained while Biden was president that there were separate fitness standards in the military for men and women. If a woman wants to be in the military, she should have to do the same amount of push ups, the same amount of pull ups, and run at the same pace as a man. In battle, the enemy does not shoot less or deploy less IEDs, or fight softer if he finds out that it is a female combatant versus a male combatant. Tell us about the announcement that Pete Hegseth has made that women must now be able to have the same strength and fitness standards as men in the military. Tell us.

Will Tebow (19:22)

That's exactly it, Charlie. It is finally common sense again at the Pentagon for men and women to be evaluated based on the same rubric, Right. What is it that, frankly, the defense establishment in both parties have told us for over 10 years now, men and women deserve the same opportunities in combat that they do in the rest of life. And so long as everyone passes the same standards, well, then they should have that opportunity to serve in these brutal roles. Well, we are finally taking a step towards that being a reality after about 15 years of meddling, you know, with this delusion, you know, now when a man or a woman are evaluated based on their fitness, they're evaluated on the same scale. You know, before this week, a woman had to do about 42 push ups to get an A on her fitness test, while a man had to do 84 push ups. All the while, we were told that that man and that woman were able to do any combat job in the same capacity, even though they're being judged by the same standard. It was this bait and switch that, frankly, both sides of the aisle would tell the American people. And Pete Hexseth has finally fixed that by saying, when it comes to these, you know, gruesome, you know, excellent, driven jobs, that it requires the same standards. So we're not playing identity politics with the infantry.

Charlie Kirk (20:46)

Yeah. So just to get into more of the details of how it was. Yes, thank you. You guys found it. Great job. Put 44 up on screen. This, by the way, this entire rubric was so memory hold. It was really hard to find this. Very hard. So if you are a woman in the U.S. military, again, this was a little bit goofy. So you guys have to help me understand. They did this. They also made the chart in, like, this backwards way. It's very difficult. So, guys, help me understand this. So if you are a woman for push ups, a female, in order to get the most amount of points, had to do 53 push ups. Where a male had to do 57 pushups. Am I reading that correctly? I believe I am, yes. Where in order to get the next threshold of points. Yeah, this is all based on age. So basically the accommodation, again, so there's an age bracket here. It's very complicated. So. And by the way, they got rid of pull ups completely. It looks like they just got rid of pull ups. But the running is the most dramatic, which I think is one of the most important parts of physical, of military preparedness and fitness, where the man has to be able to run in 13 minutes and 22 seconds. The female can be two minutes slower than a man in a battlefield under the Biden physical fitness standards. The deadlift, this one I find to be so flummoxing. So to get a max score on a deadlift, a man needed to be able to deadlift 340 pounds, a woman 230 pounds. So will explain to me, you're in a battlefield in Yemen, you're in a battlefield in Iraq. You're in a battlefield. And basically a woman under Joe Biden would not be able to lift an average weight of a soldier and still be able to be on the front lines. Am I understanding this correctly?

Will Tebow (22:41)

Precisely, Charlie. And that's what the deadlift was put in the Army Combat Fitness Test to measure the ability of a soldier, again, we were told of any gender to lift a heavy weight off the ground, like, say, the body of your fallen comrade, and then carry it out of harm's way. It is brazen, as far as I'm concerned, to say that there is this equal standard for all when, just as you showed it was a different standard. I'm pretty sure you were just kind of reading off some of the minimum standards. And that's not even, you know, in consideration for army combat rules. In, you know, it's important to note, and you mentioned this, there was even a point where they changed the test. It was the leg tuck, close to a pull up that proved, even with a gender segregated score to be too, quote, discriminatory for women. So you had senators from both sides of the aisle and female army generals who demanded that the Biden administration and the army under the Biden administration take out the. Take out that event from the army combat Fitness test. So when we say that, yes, it may be the same test that measures people. Well, it's been a test that's been altered in order to meet the realities of gender disparity in physical performance.

Charlie Kirk (23:59)

So, you know, grading on a curve, is that fair to say? Basically, we have A grading on the curve for military preparedness.

Will Tebow (24:07)

Precisely. That's exactly what it is. And it's a curve for our most serious roles. You know, if you. If you asked yourself, hey, who would I rather drag my son or daughter's body out of combat? If you had to choose out of a hat, it would be a man or a woman. Anyone would choose a man if they had to choose right. It's the perfect case of where the exception proves the rule here. But it's about what the military is. The military is not a bastion of equal opportunity. It is not a place where you necessarily deserve a fair shot at the job that you might think you deserve. It's a job where only the best is needed and where masculine virtue is absolutely necessary. And there's no greater way of laying that disparity clear than in the physical fitness test. But it is where we were told the most brazen lies. And it's why, although this policy change, of course, by the defense establishment is kind of tossed aside and said it's just an issue of identity politics, that's not true. It is at the core of what it means to be in the military, and that's to maintain physical excellence and to be capable of going to what we called in the army, the limit of advance with your unit, no matter the challenge ahead of you. That's what the Army Combat Fitness Test measured. And we're finally one step closer for it to being a genuine test of physical excellence and not just a pass fail metric. You know, before you can include all other, you know, characteristics of identity politics, let's hear it.

Charlie Kirk (25:34)

In Pete Hegseth's own words, let's play cut 295, please.

Pete Hegseth (25:37)

Here at the Defense Department, we are restoring the warrior ethos, and that means we gotta be fit to fight inside all of our formations. That starts with standards and going back to basics. So for decades, the military I joined, there were different male and female physical standards because men and women are different, and that's understandable. But there were certain jobs, combat MOS's, that were only for men. And so you had a male Standard Then in 2015, under the Obama administration, against the advice of the military services, opened up all those combat moss to males and females, fine, if that's their decision. But they never changed the standards in a lot of those roles. So you still had higher standards for men than for women. A lot of those combat moss. Some changed it, but not all did. We're fixing that, Will.

Will Tebow (26:27)

Right. And that's, that's the point in it. One thing that I think is worth making explicit again, under the Obama administration standards became mere pass fail metrics for the bare minimum of what it took to serve in some of these units. Even when I joined the army, what the fitness test was, it was a means of determining who is the best and who is the rest, from first to worst. And if you were first, you got whatever job you wanted and you filled out the units by order of merit from there standards have not been that since the policy change that Secretary of Defense Hegseth describes. That's a fundamental difference when we're measuring our military on pass fail minimum metrics as opposed to genuine excellence in the pursuit of being the best. You know, I'll also say he glazed over this too. You know, military generals, uniformed generals recommended against this policy change even back in 2015, about 10 years ago. You know, I would be hard pressed to think that there are many two, three and four star generals who would put their career on the line and recommend against such a policy change today. You know, as I said at the start, there were many generals who lost their mind when it became clear that that women weren't performing as well under the first iteration of the Army Combat Fitness Test. And so with with help from Democrat senators, the army changed that test. So let's also use this as an occasion to ask serious questions about the military leaders who are implementing this policy. In many cases, these are the same leaders who carried forward the Obama policy and for different units. And now we're expecting them to all of a sudden faithfully execute Trump administration policy. We need to be really careful about how that gets implemented.

Charlie Kirk (28:20)

Go to yrefi.com that is yrefy.com, private student loan debt in the United states totals over $300 billion. About 45 billion of that is labeled as distressed. Yrefi is not a debt settlement company and they work with each borrower individually, tailoring each loan to each borrower's specific situation. You will not be calling a faceless call center. Go to yrefi.com just call 888 yrefi34. Log on to yrefi.com youm can even skip a payment every six months up to 12 times without penalty. Go to yrefi.Com if you go to Yrefi you can read testimonials from other people who have been where you are and how they have escaped. Go to yrefi.com why refi refinances distressed and defaulted private student loans, which are different from federal loans go to yrefi.com they do not care what your credit score is. That is why refi.com yrefy.com if your private student loan debt is keeping you up at night and ruining your life, it doesn't have to just call yrefi yrefy.com yrefi is not a debt settlement company. So go to yrefi.com, call 888 yrefi34 or log on to whyrefi.com may not be available in all 50 states. Okay, I want to get into this, but I do want to play the second part of Pete Hegseth's tape here. Very important. Play cut 296.

Pete Hegseth (29:38)

We're ensuring that any combat position across any of the services, and the services are evaluating that, has the same standard for men and women, which means anybody can join. But the standard is to meet what it takes to do that combat job. Rigorous physical standards so that your sons and daughters, those that join our military, have the best possible units, the most lethal units. So this is a standard review looking at combat units, looking at men and women. No standards will be lowered, only at the highest level. And we look forward to all our best warriors joining those units. It's a review that's important. Long overdue, and the kind of thing we promised inside the Trump administration Will.

Charlie Kirk (30:20)

Tebow continues as army veteran and director of American Military Project at the Claremont Institute. Put cut 325 up. Under the Biden administration, there was a celebration of pregnant Air Force pilots. Pregnant Air Force pilots. That's what the military has become. Of course, we're all for people having families, but the military should be to crush our enemies. Will, what percentage of women are gonna make it through these fitness standards that are now equal for men and women?

Will Tebow (30:48)

Perhaps a handful. But the point is, what does this do to the culture and the unit cohesion of these units? You know, frankly, Charlie, I can tell you firsthand that even if it's just one or two women in a. In a large unit, that is kind of a reorganizing principle based on something other than lethality and readiness. The whole framework for how a unit trains and fights is different because I was in the infantry when it became gender integrated and there was working groups, there were new resourcing requirements. You know, time in the woods where we would spend, you know, three weeks in the field and not really think about it too much, were all of a sudden unique because of, you know, the. The different kinds of demands that men and women need when they're you know, supposed to live in austere environments and, you know, I don't. Obviously a lot won't make it and the vast majority won't and there might be some that do. But does that mean that it's worth it to change the fundamental character of a war fighting formation? Again, not a McKinsey consulting class, not a Harvard Law School class, but an infantry platoon, a platoon that is meant to fight in a war no matter the consequences and no matter the conditions. It's been a while since we've had sustained combat that looks like that. And I fear that we may naturally fall into this trap where we think, you know, 21st century values merged with 21st century war fighting. We will just assume that it works that way and that, and that all will be the same, even if it's just a few elite, you know, great, excellent women who can meet these standards. Frankly, my wife was one of those women who could meet those standards and she served alongside special operations units. That's how we met. But she would be the first to tell you that, you know, again, the exception doesn't prove the rule in her predilections or, you know, willingness to serve does not mean we need to change the fundamental character of previously all male war fighting units. I think there's still some more questions to ask here.

Charlie Kirk (33:03)

Will Tebow, Excellent. Yeah, I mean, look, it does beg a deeper and broader question. Should women be in combat units? And that's a deeper question. And at least from the fitness standards, at the very least, in order for that question be answered, you have to at least be able to have the same fitness standards. So let's just start there. This, this is just a very simple common sense way. That's a controversial question and there's plenty of supporting roles, but if you can't even do the physical stuff, if all of a sudden your fellow Marine has his leg blown off and you can't put that Marine on your back to be able to, you know, hike a mile with him, to be able to get necessary immediate medical support because you had a special deadlift accommodation, you should not be in a combat role. Will, thank you so much. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us. As always, freedomarliekirk.com thanks so much for listening and God bless.

Will Tebow (33:54)

For more on many of these stories and news you can Trust, go to charliekirk.com.