Wired In: Killing Time & The War on Data Centers

Summary

---

Wired In: Killing Time & The War on Data Centers

Podcast: Wired In (The Daily Wire)
Host: Cabot Phillips
Air Date: July 15, 2026

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Cabot Phillips and guests offer sharp analysis and lively debate on the day’s major topics in politics and culture. Main stories include the push to make Daylight Saving Time permanent, New York’s ban on new data center construction, Pentagon health policy shake-ups, new fertility research forecasting possible population declines, and the political implications of these trends. The episode features spirited expert discussions, memorable moments, and a listener Q&A session.

---

Major Segments and Key Discussions

---

1. The Push to Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent

Guests: Brent Scher (Daily Wire Editor in Chief), Tim Rice (Daily Wire DC Bureau Chief)
Timestamps: [00:30] – [10:30]

Main Points:

• Congressional Action:

  • The House has voted to make Daylight Saving Time (DST) permanent, ending the biannual clock changes—pending Senate approval and President Trump’s signature ([02:43]).
  • Scher notes, “The House...made that decision, I think correctly, to keep it permanent. But we are one step closer to never changing the clocks again” ([03:36]).

• Debate Over Pros/Cons:

  • Scher supports permanent DST, enjoying more evening daylight with his children ([03:54]) but acknowledges trade-offs (“I don’t want to pick [my kids] up when it’s dark out...I love a long summer evening and this makes them forever.” [05:00]).
  • Some cities would see sunrise pushed back to as late as 9am in deep winter, raising concerns for parents' and children's safety ([04:26]).

• Time Zone Radicalism:

  • Scher provocatively suggests abolishing time zones, arguing, “It should be the same time everywhere. And we should just free our minds and understand that” ([06:22]).
  • Phillips jokes, “I’m waiting for the Think piece to come out from the New York Times saying the racist history of time zones...” ([07:13]).

• Historical Backlash:

  • Phillips recalls the 1974 two-year permanent DST test, with public approval plummeting from 79% to 42% within eight weeks—Congress quickly reversed the policy ([08:26]).

• Health and Safety:

  • Both mention the adverse health and accident upticks around time changes—more accidents, heart attacks, and disrupted circadian rhythms ([09:45]).

Notable Quotes:

• “President Trump is not the best guy to ask on this though, because he doesn’t sleep.” — Cabot Phillips ([03:36])
• “Stop messing with us every few months and like changing things.” — Brent Scher ([10:04])

---

2. Senate Confirmation for Attorney General Nominee

Guest: Tim Rice ([10:57] – [15:18])

Main Points:

• Hearing Dynamics:

  • Nominee Todd Blanche, Trump’s personal lawyer, faces scrutiny over conflicts of interest and ongoing cases ([11:44]).
  • Democrats focus on Blanche’s Trump ties; Republicans focus on Epstein files and DOJ political weaponization ([11:44]).
  • Blanche maintains composure, pushes back on out-of-line questions ([12:44]).

• Confirmation Prospects:

  • GOP Senators (notably Kennedy, Tillis, Cornyn) weigh concerns; confirmation appears likely but not guaranteed ([14:12]).

Notable Quotes:

• “Kennedy seemed very—his main issue was Epstein and he seemed pretty satisfied by Blanche’s answers.” — Tim Rice ([14:12])

---

3. Pentagon’s Testosterone Policy

Host & Guest: Cabot Phillips and Tim Rice ([15:18] – [18:23])

Main Points:

• Policy Details:

  • War Secretary Pete Hegseth initiates mandatory testosterone deficiency screenings and treatment for service members age 30+ ([15:29]).
  • Framed as a performance and health measure, not a culture war issue ([16:00]).
  • Rice praises the alignment with traditional military support for soldier health.

• Historical Parallel:

  • Comparison to WWII practices—US wins wars by better caring for its soldiers ([16:40]).

• Political Contrast:

  • Phillips jokes that a similar policy under previous administration would have been framed for trans issues ([18:23]).

Notable Quotes:

• “The United States military giving its soldiers the best things available...this is well in line with the United States military giving its soldiers the best things.” — Tim Rice ([16:40])

---

4. State Ban on Data Centers: NY’s New Moratorium

Panel:

• Judge Glock (Manhattan Institute)
• E.J. Antoni (Heritage Foundation)
  ([21:24] – [34:22])

Main Points:

• New York’s Action:

  • Governor Kathy Hochul signs a one-year moratorium on large-scale data center construction (“making New York the first state in the nation to hit pause on this emerging technology” — Cabot Phillips [21:24]).
  • Cited as environmental/public health precaution and aesthetic concern.

• Policy Critique:

  • Glock calls it “very unfortunate...when there’s plenty of parts of New York that could fit a data center...no human, maybe just a couple cows, is going to see them” ([22:03]).
  • E.J. Antoni highlights data center tax benefits to local governments reducing residential property taxes ([23:08]), but acknowledges noise, utility impacts.

• Solutions:

  • Both experts suggest local, not state-level, regulation—addressing sound and appearance via building codes and location choice ([25:18], [25:30]).

• Political Calculus:

  • Despite GOP leaders courting data center investment, Antoni cites polls showing 70% of Republicans wouldn’t want a center nearby—making it “case by case” ([26:52]).

• Myth-Busting:

  • Glock debunks claims about excessive water/electricity use, attributing utility hikes more to renewables mandates than data center load ([29:20]).

• Geopolitical Angle:

  • Phillips and Antoni note China’s potential interest in slowing US AI innovation via anti-data center advocacy ([31:58]).

• Precedent Setting:

  • Glock expects more states to follow New York with similar moratoria (“Oh, definitely...this is just the first domino to fall” [33:15]).

Notable Quotes:

• “The one big misconception is on water use...Data centers use less than half a percent of U.S. water.” — Judge Glock ([29:32])

---

5. America’s Fertility Crisis: Population Collapse Fears

Guest: Peter Forshall Brooks (Institute for Family Studies)
([34:22] – [43:56])

Main Points:

• Forecasts Challenged:

  • Brooks & Lyman Stone’s research suggests the US population could start shrinking by 2054—far sooner than the official 2080s/2090s estimate ([35:34]).

• Ongoing Decline:

  • Fertility rates continue to fall, with some countries like South Korea bottoming out near 0.7 ([36:47]).

• Why It Matters:

  • Beyond economics, there are mental health, purpose, and social ramifications ([37:54]).
  • Economic impacts include fewer taxpayers and workers—threatening pensions, social service viability, and broader prosperity ([37:54]).

• Births and Ideology:

  • Conservative-leaning women have above-replacement fertility, liberals about half that. Brooks notes it’s unclear whether political worldviews will be inherited consistently ([39:33]).

• Celebrity Impact:

  • Research shows that if a favorite celebrity has a child, fans’ childbearing desires go up (“If your favorite celebrity has an extra child, your child desires on average are going to be 0.15 higher.” — Brooks [41:08]).

• Policy Ideas:

  • Brooks suggests a national fund for future parents, seeded at birth, to offer significant support to the next generation ([42:34]).

Notable Quotes:

• “The consensus opinions have always been optimistic and they’ve always been wrong...if you do that [extend the trend], then U.S. population will actually peak in 2054.” — Peter Forshall Brooks ([35:34])
• “People still want to have children and then they’re not having them. So there’s a meaning issue that happens there.” — Brooks ([37:54])

---

6. White House and National Security Updates

Guest: Mary Margaret Olihan (Daily Wire White House Correspondent)
([43:58] – [58:28])

Key Stories:

• ICE Traffic Stop Policy Reversal:

  • Trump reverses ICE’s pause on traffic stops following fatal shootings; policy initially enacted without informing the President ([45:05]).
  • Olihan reads direct quotes from ICE sources (“hopefully they let us stop soon...It was a lot harder to make arrests under the pause.” [45:05]).

• Air Force One Leak Investigation:

  • Reports suggest officials were required to hand in phones to find Air Force One leak sources ([47:06]).
  • Trump “very, very angry” about leaks on security deficiencies; some uncertainty remains about details ([47:06]).

• J.D. Vance on Joe Rogan:

  • Coverage of Vice President J.D. Vance discussing the Epstein files, Trump team “mishandling” records release, and taking shots at Gavin Newsom for debate performance ([49:20]).
  • “He said he [Newsom] was white as a ghost.” — Mary Margaret Olihan ([51:30]).

Notable Q&A Moments:

• Favorite D.C. Activities:
  • Mary Margaret: “The Occidental...best martini in D.C...And walking the waterfront.” ([53:07])
• Do You Dress Up for Church?
  • “Wear your Sunday best. Why would you not dress up for Jesus?” — Olihan ([54:38])
• Have You Ever Been Pushed on the Job?
  • “I’ve been pushed so many times on the job. I had no idea...crowds, protests, hostile people, even in the briefing room.” — Olihan ([56:17])
• MSNBC Incident:
  • Brent Scher once pushed and insulted, including a racial slur and “dusty blank loafers” jab, by a former MSNBC correspondent at a debate ([57:04]).

---

Memorable Quotes & Moments

• “I want to get rid of time zones altogether. They are an old unnecessary thing.” — Brent Scher ([06:17])
• “If this story had happened three years ago and you had Lloyd Austin under President Biden saying we’re going to be giving testosterone to our service members, it probably would have been to trans service members.” — Cabot Phillips ([18:23])
• “China does not want us innovating when it comes to AI. Ej, do you think that’s a compelling point...?” — Cabot Phillips ([31:22])
• “If your favorite celebrity has an extra child, your child desires on average are going to be 0.15 higher.” — Peter Forshall Brooks ([41:08])
• “Why would you not dress up for Jesus?” — Mary Margaret Olihan ([54:38])
• “She started insulting him. She called him a racial slur. She told him he was wearing dusty blank loafers, then told him he looked poor.” — Cabot Phillips (about Brent Scher ([57:04]))

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:30]: Episode open, topics overview
• [02:43]: DST House vote explained
• [06:21]: Time zone abolition debate
• [08:26]: 1974 permanent DST experiment backlash
• [11:44]: Senate AG hearing details
• [15:18]: Pentagon testosterone program
• [21:24]: NY State bans new data center construction
• [29:32]: Data center water and electricity myths
• [35:18]: Fertility collapse research summary
• [41:08]: Celebrity impact on fertility
• [45:05]: ICE traffic stop policy reversal
• [47:06]: Air Force One leak probe
• [49:20]: J.D. Vance on Joe Rogan (Epstein files)
• [53:07]: Listener Q&A with Mary Margaret Olihan

---

Episode Takeaways

• Congress may soon end clock changes, but debate persists on the societal and health trade-offs.
• New York’s moratorium on data centers spurs debate over progress, environment, and geopolitics, with implications for national and local politics.
• The Pentagon is proactively pursuing health optimization, while past and hypothetical political framing highlights evolving culture war themes.
• US fertility decline may accelerate population collapse as soon as 2054, impacting economics, politics, and society; solutions are political and cultural.
• White House coverage underscores new fault-lines in law enforcement, confidentiality, and political communication.
• Panelist rapport, humor, and personal anecdotes (such as being “pushed” by rivals) deliver both insight and entertainment.

---

This summary distills each segment, highlights key debates, memorable quotes, and serves as a comprehensive resource for those who missed the episode.

Transcript

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

This summer, Prime Video takes you back before Legally Blonde, before law school, and into the world of Elle woods in high school. Set in 1995, this Gemini vegetarian knows exactly who she is until her family moves from Bel Air to Seattle. Packed with iconic fashion, 90s nostalgia and a throwback soundtrack, Elle proves one law school was hard. High school was harder. From the world of Legally Blonde, watch Elle, a new original series only on Prime Video. Watch now.

[Cabot Phillips]

Good evening, everybody, and welcome to Wired In. I'm Cabot Phillips, coming to you live from Daily Wire hq. We are now on day one of Parasite Watch here at Wired In. If you watched the show yesterday, I ate Taco Bell live on air to see how dangerous this new parasite is. If I have to run off set in the next hour, we will have our answer. But in the meantime, we've got a lot to get to. The days of adjusting your clocks twice a year may soon be over, as the House just voted to make Daylight Savings Time permanent. We'll tell you what comes next. New York State just became the first to ban the construction of new data centers, a move that was celebrated by some and slammed by others. We'll talk with people on both sides of that debate. We'll also hear from a researcher about a remarkable new fertility study that says our population could collapse far sooner than expected. Pete Hegseth just announced his plan to give us service members testosterone injections to create the high T Department of war. Those are his words, not mine. We'll tell you what's going on at the Pentagon and as always, stick around until the very end of our show for the live listener, Q and A. If you're a Daily Wire member, get your questions in the chat. I'll answer as many as I can. If you're on Apple or Spotify, why don't you go sign up right [e-mail] subscribe and join in. All right, let's get to it. Roll that graphic. And just a reminder for you lovely folks at home, Wired In Live is now streaming live at 4pm Eastern Monday through Thursday. Get your daily coverage of the news happening right now. Hear from all the experts and join our live chat. Become a [e-mail] subscribe. All right, let's start things off here in studio with the big story, Daylight Savings Time. It may be gone. Let's bring in Daily Wire editor in Chief Brent Scher for the latest. Brent I never had strong feelings about Daylight Savings Time until I had toddlers and seeing the way that it wreaks havoc on their Sleep schedules has made me far more interested. We're gonna get your take on this, but first just explain what actually happened in Congress here.

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

Yeah.

[Brent Scher]

What happened is it passed in the House. And what passed? And I think this is interesting, it's permanent daylight savings. It's not getting rid of daylight savings is keeping the clocks exactly where they are right now. This is far from a done deal. It obviously now needs to go to the Senate and then to Donald Trump. The Senate is where it's a little questionable because everything's questionable in the Senate. It's really close on party lines, although I don't actually see this as a full partisan divide on this. But Donald Trump has said he wants to stop changing the clocks. He had always said he's not sure whether permanent or getting rid of it is the right move. The House kind of made that decision, I think correctly, to keep it permanent. But we are one step closer to never changing the clocks again.

[Cabot Phillips]

President Trump is not the best guy to ask on this though, because he doesn't sleep. So I don't really know how this affects him that much.

[Brent Scher]

That's a really good point. And he's always changing time zones. He could go across the ocean and just be fine.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah, he's, he's impervious to time zones. I want to get your take though. Is this actually a good idea?

[Brent Scher]

I think it's great. I love daylight. I love having later evenings in summer. On the kid part, what I actually love is more I hate in the winter during daylight savings time, dropping off my kids at school when it's still dark out and then picking them up in the evening when it's still dark. I like having daylight with my children and obviously days are shorter in the winter, so there's not going to be as much. But I love a long summer evening and this makes them forever.

[Cabot Phillips]

I understand that. Of course there's going to be a trade off. I was looking at the chart that they have on the sunrise during the winter. The latest sunrise in the winter under this new plan would be you've got 9am in Louisville. That's when the sunrise is here in the, you know, in Tennessee it's going to be around 8:30. In Nashville, Sunrise, New York City, 8:20. Washington, 8:27am the list goes on. Does that concern you? I mean, we've heard from a lot of parents when their kids go to school, they say, hey, I don't really want it to be pitch black at 7am when my kid is walking to the bus stop. Do you think That's a valid criticism.

[Brent Scher]

Yeah, but look, I mean, the same thing is I don't want to pick them up when it's dark out. I get my kids at, you know, five o' clock every day or sometime in that range and it's already dark even once they're in a bigger kid's school and I'm getting them at 3:30 during the winter, it's already dark. My big push here in Nashville and man, I can't believe that we're still on the central time zone because Nashville is way more in line with the Eastern time zone. Even during permanent daylight savings time, our longest day of the year, the sun is going down at like 8 o' clock at the very latest. There are some parts in, you know, in New York, where I'm from, or up in Michigan and I mean, we're on the same time zone as Dallas. Yeah, the central time zone is just so wide. And in that southern part of the country it gets even wider. I would love to be on the eastern time zone, but I'm a self. I'm aware that I'm actually a time zone radical. I was debating with Michael Knowles, Ben Shapiro and Andrew Clavin this morning on Friendly Fire. Friendly fire. I actually wanna get rid of time zones altogether. They are an old unnecessary thing. The history of time zones is that 25 countries got together in 1884 to decide time zones. And they decided that Greenwich and England should be central Prime Meridian time zone. It was because at the time all of the nautical maps were centered on London. Because it was, you know, the big shipping center of the world. We live in a different time. I'm not saying that everybody should, you know, work a 9 to 5, whether you work in New York or LA. But I'm saying that the time. Since we're all talking to each other, I could text somebody in Hong Kong right now in two seconds. You talk to people in California and New York every day, especially us in the news business. It should be the same time everywhere. And we should just free our minds and understand that in California we kind of work a 12 to 8, not a 9 to 5. Again, I'm crazy.

[Cabot Phillips]

I'm waiting for the Think piece to come out from the New York Times saying the racist history of time zones and it was about centering white culture and that time zones are from a bygone white supremacist era.

[Brent Scher]

It really is funny. I went through the history to prepare for friendly fire. Today, those 25 countries, two of them abstained. France wanted the center to be Paris. The United States actually voted for England because all of our maps and like we had done our railroad to coincide with their Times. In the 1880s, most important thing in the world. But everybody just went to England. Today, time zones actually only exist in her head in the background. We're all, all of our phones and everything is operating on Universal time, whatever it's called. And I'm not saying we should operate on that Eastern time zone. New York City, the financial, cultural, everything. Center of the world should be the main time zone. And everybody else should live on it.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah. We'll let the comments section decide if you are correct on this one.

[Brent Scher]

America first.

[Cabot Phillips]

I will say I think that this could be a case of people not actually knowing what they're asking for. Because as I'm sure you're probably aware, back in 1974, Congress actually passed a similar initiative where they were going to do a two year test where they made daylight saving time permanent. At the time when they passed that, 79% of Americans approved of that plan. Eight weeks into the plan, it was now February. Eight weeks into that plan, approval had dropped to 42%. And Congress just scrapped it. And they said, okay, sorry, that was a mistake. People hate this. Let's go back. Why would it be any different this time?

[Brent Scher]

I'm really curious. What I'd say is the world has changed a lot in those times. I mean the communication between different time zones and all that has changed also. We're no longer as agriculturally centered as we were in the past where it was really important that high noon actually remain high noon.

[Cabot Phillips]

And we've got a lot more street lights these days than we did in the 70s.

[Brent Scher]

Exactly. It's just a very different time. Although I must say, and you just remind me, that is my least favorite part of the day. The clocks change and it gets darker. There are always more accidents on the road. Cause nobody's like turning on their lights and remembering that it's dark now when you leave.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah, there's actually a pretty significant uptick also in the day after daylight saving or the clocks jump forward or jump back. There's a significant uptick in heart attacks as well. And there's actually. You can quantify it. It's been proven, it's science that people actually die every year. It throws off circadian rhythms and things of that nature. People get less sleep.

[Brent Scher]

I think that's why. Look, I think permanent daylight savings time is the right answer. But no matter what, I think just keeping the clocks locked on something, the circadian Rhythms will adapt and we will find our way. Stop messing with us every few months and like changing things.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah, well, I am. I'm still not convinced on your time zone abolition movement.

[Brent Scher]

One day everybody will come down eventually.

[Cabot Phillips]

You weren't radical. You were just early on that take. Exactly. Brent Sher, Dailywire editor in chief, thank you very much. Of course, we're going to turn now to a man who I'm sure will have some opinions on this. It's Daily Wire, D.C. bureau Chief Tim Rice. Tim, you've been listening to Brent. Is he a radical, crazy human being? I'm going to look at my side camera because I've got Tim Rice on right now. Is Brent insane?

[Tim Rice]

Brent's. I don't really feel strongly about this issue, but I can attest Brent's been on this hobby horse for as long as I've known him. He might not be insane, but he's definitely a true believer. I agree with him. I don't really care what we do. I just don't like the change. I think we, as long as we pick one and stick to it. I agree with at least that point. I don't really care about all the other dorky stuff that he said, which is saying something coming from me.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah, exactly. You're not a. You're not a hope and change guy, Tim. In D.C. the big news today was the Senate confirmation hearing for Attorney General nominee Todd Blanch. What is going on? What did we see on the Senate side? Were they grilling Blanche? Was it a friendly sort of reception he got? What happened?

[Tim Rice]

Yeah, I'd say it was sort of a tepid grilling. You know, obviously Democrats are gonna grant, especially Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are gonna grandstand. So we had a lot of kind of fiery questions from Dems, some of which are legitimate, just, you know, presented in kind of annoying ways. The biggest one, I think, being Todd Blanche's ties to Donald Trump as his personal defense attorney. Right. Which is not to say, again, there are Democrats who ask it, saying, you like the president. You can't be a good attorney general. Well, it kind of stands to reason that the person the President has nominated for the Cabinet, the president likes in some way. But there are ongoing cases that Todd Blanche represented the President in before he was back in the White House. These are cases that the Justice Department will now be involved in. I think that's a reasonable thing for members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to ask. Whether or not they asked it, you know, chill ways or professional ways is another thing. And then, of course, There were unprofessional things. Maisie Hirono asked if he'd ever sexually assaulted somebody, which is something she asks every Republican nominee at this point. I think it was Sheldon Whitehouse asked him if Cash Patel was an alcoholic, which was really one of the only times you saw Blanche kind of fight back. He was mostly very composed, but he said, that's a ridiculous question, Senator. And then obviously a more friendly reception from Republicans. Although Republicans had a lot of questions about the Epstein files. Cuz this is a thing that matters to Republicans just as much as Democrats. So I would say there it's more of a tough but fair reception. John Kennedy from Louisiana really asked him a lot of questions about Epstein. And again, I think he came prepared. Right. This is Todd. Blanche has been deputy. He was the deputy Attorney General. He's been acting Attorney General for about six months. And we are also basically halfway through President Trump's second term. Which means unlike Pam Bondi, who went through these hearings at the front end and sort of had to articulate the vision of the Trump Justice Department in the second administration, Blanche really could come in and lean back on. I'm experienced, I've been doing this for a while. And we as an administration have a clear plan of action.

[Cabot Phillips]

That's a great point, Tim. Do we think he's gonna get through? We know there have been some senators on the GOP side on the fence. We would assume that the Democrats would vote largely against him. Maybe Fetterman might vote to support his nomination, but there are other Republicans. John Cornyn, Kennedy, Thom Tillis. What are we seeing from them? Do we think he's going to get through?

[Tim Rice]

Yeah. So I think we can firmly count Kennedy in the yes camp. Kennedy seemed very. His main issue was Epstein and he seemed pretty satisfied by Blanche's answers. Now, we also have a second part of this hearing tomorrow, so big asterisk. I'm going to wait and see. You know, sometimes with rfk, for instance, was the one that comes to mind. Most recently he had a pretty tepid first day of his hearing and then an explosive second hearing. So Cornyn is the one that I'm most looking at. I think Tillis and Cornyn are mostly worried about the January 6th stuff and the weaponization fund, which Blanche came in prepared. He addressed it in his remarks. He was questioned about it. He assured the panel that the weaponization fund is no more. This was just something that Senate Republicans across the board really didn't want to have to deal with as a political issue. Heading into the midterms so we'll see. I mean, Tillis I think probably winds up swinging into the yes category. Cornyn is on his way out, so that's a real wild card there. But no, ultimately I think that he will make it out of committee, even if it's narrowly. Then the question is can he get a full floor vote, which we'll see.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah. Tim, let's jump across the Potomac to the Pentagon. Pete Hegseth, War Secretary making some news today. Let's play this announcement.

[Tim Rice]

I'm authorizing a new screening program for testosterone deficiency for our service members, ensuring you have the right testosterone levels to operate at your absolute best. Because it's well established science that as we age, testosterone levels often naturally drop. Under the supervision of our world class medical professionals, war fighters age 30 and

[Cabot Phillips]

older are going to be tested annually

[Tim Rice]

as part of their periodic health assessment.

[Cabot Phillips]

Guys, to our audience, in solidarity with our armed forces, Tim and I are going to inject ourselves right now with a shot of testosterone. Guys, go ahead, bring it in. Tim, we got someone in your home. Just kidding. Clearly we don't need that. You guys can look at us and see we don't need that. He brings up a good point, though. There have been people on the left mocking this, saying it's silly. The point from Hexath and others has been, hey, testosterone dips as you get older. If there's any little thing we could do to give an advantage to our war fighters. Testosterone makes you more resilient. It makes you quicker to respond to treatment and less likely to get injured. Gives you more endurance and stamina. Do you think this is a positive thing, a good use of our Pentagon budget?

[Tim Rice]

Yeah. I mean, unless they spend a gazillion dollars on it and it doesn't work, which is always a possibility with the federal government. Pentagon, no exceptions. But no, I think this is, honestly, not only is it a good. But I think this is, it's very well in line with the way the United States military has stayed dominant as long as it has. You read books like Victor Davis Hansen's book the Second World wars, where he really gets into why, why did the Allies win? And in that book and again in others, a lot of the conclusions are just that the United States treated their soldiers better. You know, for In World War II, the Nazis were just taking a bunch of 16 year olds, juicing them up on meth and sending him out to die. Whereas the United States was giving things, again, radical things in World War II, like dry socks, vitamin C, you know, clean water. Right So I think that now the science has advanced. This is well in line with the United States military giving its soldiers the best things available to them. And I also think it's a reasonable approach to an aging service, which, again, is just sort of the way that things have evolved. You know, it's reason a 35 year old today is going to be way happier, healthier than a 26 year old who fought in Korea just because of everything else that has changed in our society. But testosterone levels are one thing that hasn't changed and if anything, have gone a little bit down. So again, sort of fine tuning, figuring out how to make these soldiers not just the strongest and best war fighters, like the Secretary said, but like you said, Cabot, make care for them, make sure that they can recover from surgeries or injuries. Better be a little bit quicker, safer on the battlefield. So, I mean, you know, I'll keep the rest of my powder dry until we see how it goes. But as an initiative, I think it's great.

[Cabot Phillips]

I have a buddy in the military right now. I talked to him today and he said, hey, all my friends and I were talking about ways that we can lower our testosterone before we go in for this test to make sure that we qualify, because we all want to get jacked. We want to get this. I'll also point out, if this story had happened three years ago and you had Lloyd Austin under President Biden saying we're going to be giving testosterone to our service members, it probably would have been to trans service members. It would have been some form of. It's an LGBTQ affirming measure. Very different. Notice Pete Hex, that they're saying this is for our male war fighters. That's who we're giving tea. And before we go on the topic of Joe Biden, I know that you're a big reader and I have good news for you, Tim. You're going to get to read President Biden's new memoir. Let's play the trailer that he put out today. Since I left the presidency, I've had a lot of people ask me, joe, what have you been doing? I've written a book about my time as president. It's called Promise Me America. It's coming out in November and it's available for pre order now. I love how they put subtitles on because you generally, you can't really understand him fully. I mean, he's slurring his words.

[Tim Rice]

It's available for pre order now.

[Cabot Phillips]

I'm just wondering how many takes there were. I, for one, was Shocked that he's releasing a book. I think he was probably shocked by the news too. Oh, you guys wrote me a book. Great. What do you think? You're gonna be reading it?

[Tim Rice]

So. Yeah, I usually don't read politician memoirs. They're always ghost written and just kind of like political tools. I haven't read any of Joe Biden's books. I skimmed through them as a reporter. Right. We have to encounter these things. But I'm probably going to sit down and read this one just because it's such an absurd exercise. I don't know whether it's Dr. Jill needs more money for her shoe budget or Hunter needs more money for art lessons or whoever. I don't know who in Biden world thought this was a good idea? No one. This is. He's done. It's the end. It's not even like Bill Clinton or George Bush or Obama. Right. Who left the presidency in their early 60s or late 50s. So it's okay. Let's get a memoir about our time in the White House and use that to fuel your speaker circuit and your post presidency career. I don't say this is a dig. I say this is an accurate reflection of his age and his health. Joe Biden is not going to have that much of a post presidency. So why someone decided this was a good thing, I can't imagine what is going to be in this book or Howard is going to read, but boy, am I excited to find out.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah, I'm with you on that. I also, I just can't wait to see who they throw under the bus. I'm sure the blame will be cast far and wide. We'll bring you back. You can give a little book review for us in a couple months. Tim rice, Daily Wire D.C. bureau Chief, always great to have you, man.

[Tim Rice]

Thanks, Cabot.

[Cabot Phillips]

Well, this morning, Democratic Governor Kathy Hochul signed an order placing a moratorium on large scale data center construction, making New York the first state in the nation to hit pause on this emerging technology. Supporters of the move say data centers are not only an eyesore, but also bad for public health and the environment. But critics say the ban will hamper American innovation and that fears over data centers are unfounded. Here with more on that debate is Judge Glock, director of research at the Manhattan Institute, and and E.J. antoni, chief economist at the Heritage Foundation. Gentlemen, it's great to have you both. Judds, we'll start with you. What do you make of this push from Governor Hochul to ban new data center construction?

[Judge Glock]

Well, first let me Just point out that they are an eyesore. I don't think that's enough reason to ban them. But you look at the things, they're big, ugly concrete blocks. In recent years, they've been drawing a little more squiggles on them to try to make them a little more palatable to the American public. But, yeah, they're not pretty things. But as I've written elsewhere, that's certainly not a sufficient reason to ban them, certainly across the whole state, when there's plenty of parts of New York that could fit a data center in and no human, maybe just a couple cows, is going to see them on an average day. So it's very unfortunate New York is certainly not leading in data centers or in a lot of different contemporary technology industries. So it's very unfortunate they're going ahead and looking to ban this completely for a year. The only other thing I might point out is that Governor Hochul was facing legislation that would have had probably a slightly more comprehensive ban on data centers in this executive order was a way to head that off. But still, it's very unfortunate for the state of New York.

[Cabot Phillips]

E.J. what do you think?

[E.J. Antoni]

Well, as far as the look of these buildings go, I mean, my goodness, you need to go back and look at things like sewage pumping stations from 100 years ago. These things were beautiful, okay? We used to make things. It doesn't matter what the building was for. We used to make things in this country that were beautiful. America was supposed to be Art Deco, for crying out loud. I see no reason why you can't simply solve things like that with things like local building codes, for crying out loud, which still exist in a lot of places. And I see no reason why you couldn't get data centers to essentially fall under that umbrella. So that issue aside, look, there are a lot of positives that come from these data centers, but there are negatives, too. And I think if you're going to do any kind of real cost benefit analysis, let's look at both. Let's look at the positive and the negatives. One of the positives that a lot of people don't talk about is the fact that these things tend to, in a lot of municipalities, pay so much in property taxes that residents have actually seen in places like Northern Virginia. Sometimes they see their property taxes go down because again, you're getting so much tax revenue from the commercial side. You don't have to get as much from the residential side. But again, these things come with costs. There's obviously a lot of electricity that has to be consumed. There's a lot of noise pollution that comes from that. But let's look at what a lot of even free market economists have said. When you have things like noise pollution or even water or air pollution, whatever the case may be, you can impose a cost on the emitters of that pollution, who will then take steps to remit that pollution. In other words, look at all of the sound insulation you have on something as simple as an automobile today. You could use similar technology to soundproof AI data centers. Now, it's going to be an additional cost, and I think there's a good argument made to be I think there's good argument to be made for imposing that additional cost on those AI data centers. But again, I think that kind of balanced approach where you look at the costs and the benefits is very different from just an outright ban on these things.

[Cabot Phillips]

Judge, do you think those sorts of policies would be, as someone who thinks this is crazy to do is more supportive of building these new centers? Do you think that what EJ just described would be a reasonable middle ground?

[Judge Glock]

Yeah, I mean, the two big problems with data centers that are semi legitimate is one, yeah, they're pretty ugly, and two, they emit kind of a low buzzing noise. And that's not ideal. You know, I did a big piece on Loudoun, Virginia, which is the global epicenter of data centers, really far outpaces any other place in the world in terms of the number of data centers in the county, even more than Beijing. And you know, you stand next to these data centers and you close your eyes, you really listen. You can kind of hear like a low buzzing if you're pretty close by. I wouldn't like it if I live right next door, but that can be solved by moving the data center just a few blocks down the road, a little further away from homes. And on the visual stuff, I would like to believe there's some building code out there that can make these pretty. But you know, in the end, if it's a local county councilor, Lord forbid, some state legislature or engineer at the state level imposing a building code, I don't think they're going to figure out how to make them beautiful in the end. They're big concrete boxes and I'd like to make them a little prettier. But I think the companies are just going to have to learn they're going to have to do a little more than put squiggles or the new trend is fake windows. They put some fake windows to make it look like it's an office building. But again, these are relatively minor issues and most of them be solved by just pushing it like a mile or two down the way.

[Cabot Phillips]

EJ in response to this push from Governor Hochul, we've seen a number of Republican lawmakers say, hey, if you guys don't want the business in New York, we'll take it in our state. But if you look at the polling, even among Republicans, Gallup had a poll recently where around 70% of GOP voters said they would not want a data center near them. Do you think it's a political misstep for the GOP to be the party that is kind of saying, come on in, bring your data centers here?

[E.J. Antoni]

I think it really has to be on a case by case basis. If you're in a municipality, for example, where you simply don't have the excess generation capacity to really power one of these things, and it could very realistically end up with higher costs for consumers, I think that's an important consideration. Now, I should point out that it's not simply the data center's fault. Right. There's supply and demand and you got to talk about both. One of the big issues we're dealing right now with right now in terms of electricity supply is a leftover from the Biden administration. We have all of these green energy mandates that have added things like solar and wind capacity to the grid, which are unreliable. They're also very expensive, even though they're heavily subsidized. And we've taken off things like nuclear, like reliable coal, dispatchable natural gas that you can ramp up and down very easily to meet demand. So we've been getting rid of the power we need and we've been adding the power that's not particularly useful. So you're kind of getting this one, two punch in some, not all. In some electricity markets where the lower supply supply met with the higher demand, both of those things are going to put upward pressure on prices. So there's only one place prices are going to go and that's up. But again, I think it's important you have a balanced conversation here. This isn't simply just, well, we built data centers and electricity prices go up. No, the electricity prices were going up before the first data center was ever, even before construction was even started on the first data center. But the last thing I'll say here on the power conversation is I think small nuclear reactors, modular reactors, have a big role to play here because of the nature of data centers. You don't have to put them next to a User. You can, as Judge was saying, put them a block down the road. You can put them 1,000 miles down the road. You can build these things up in Alaska, by the way, the cooling costs are gonna be a lot cheaper up there. You can build a small modular nuclear reactor right there on site to power the thing. And it solves, I think, a lot of the problems.

[Cabot Phillips]

Judge, on this conversation of power usage, you've written about how you think it's a bit of a misconception that these things require some enormous amount of power. Can you elaborate for us a bit on that?

[Judge Glock]

Yeah. So there's two big red herrings around data centers. And we talked about the semi legitimate complaints about noise and just the fact that they're a big concrete box that doesn't look too pretty. The one big misconception is on water use. This actually traces back to just a fundamental kind of error in a book a few years back, someone who just misread a table. And now that number about data centers using some absurd amount of US Water has been rocketing around the Internet. Data centers use less than half a percent of U.S. water. And that stuff still does come from the sky, so we still have plenty of it. I wouldn't be too concerned there. And the electricity stuff. Yeah. If you look across the different states in America, the states that have been building the most data centers actually still have some of the lowest power rates in the United States. Places like Texas, places like Virginia, and states like California, which are building the fewest number of data centers, or some of the lowest rates in the United States, they have the highest power. And those states have actually been increasing their power costs much more rapidly than the data center growth state. So it doesn't seem like these data centers are driving up costs. What's driving up costs? Like for me, in Virginia, it's not the data centers. There's a little part of my bill, electricity bill that I see every month that says offshore wind writer, that says I got to pay five, ten bucks or whatever to pay for this offshore wind facility they they're putting up. So that's the real reason, as EJ also pointed out, for the increasing power cost. It's the increased renewables, the increased mandates. It's not these data centers which are often building their own power sources, often building on site generators, and often paying for all the expansions of the grid and whatnot. So it's really a red herring and it's led to a lot of unfortunate confusion.

[Cabot Phillips]

I'm on the fence about this topic just to Be completely honest. And oftentimes when I'm on the fence on a topic, I start to think, okay, who are the people that oppose this the strongest or support this the strongest? What do they stand to gain? And I think a compelling argument here is that China has a huge incentive for us to crack down on data centers. China does not want us innovating when it comes to AI. Ej, do you think that's a compelling point here, that you hear that, hey, China is doing everything they can to try and get us to slow the roll when it comes to this technology? And should that give us pause when it comes to supporting these types of bans?

[E.J. Antoni]

I think it's important context here to remember that every technological advancement, it doesn't matter what it is, if it's, you know, whether it was the Iron Age, whether it was the steam engine, the internal combustion engine, you name it, nuclear energy, right? Every time you get one of these technological advances, it doesn't just have civilian applications, it also has military applications. And each one of those things becomes the new arms race. And obviously, I think the most recent and obvious example would be nuclear power. But today it's not nuclear. It is AI. It is these new digital kinds of technologies. This is the new arms race. And if China wins that, it's going to have pretty devastating consequences for us here in America. And so I think it's really imperative that we win that arms race and not the ccp. In fact, there's been some reporting. I've had some trouble verifying it myself, but I have seen some allegations made in different reports that supposedly it's actually the CCP financing some of the groups who are the most opposed to data centers.

[Cabot Phillips]

Judge, one final question. Do you think that this is just the first domino to fall? Is this going to become the new rallying cry for Democratic governors? Are we gonna see more states follow suit?

[Judge Glock]

Oh, definitely. Like, we've already seen a very pretty substantial push in Maine. We've seen a lot of pushes elsewhere. The moratorium is supposed to be sort of a middle path. We're not banning them completely. We're just going to study it. I don't know what these legislators or governors think they're gonna come up with in the next six months or a year that's going to change their mind on data centers and what to do about them. But that. But that's the supposed response to that kind of polling that you pointed out, which shows a lot of opposition to data centers, but kind of to EJ's point in the END. I think the best way to let this happen is not just case by case, but city by city and county by county. We're a big country. We got 3,000 counties. We got 19,000 cities or towns. Some are going to want them and some are not. And as long as these big states don't step in and just kind of ban it across the board, you're gonna find some places that are really excited to get them and some that are a little less. And that's probably gonna work out for the best.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah. Well, this is a debate not gonna go anytime soon. Some of these governors kicking the can down the road a bit with these moratoriums. But I certainly think that this is going to be a huge topic of discussion, even more so moving forward. Gentlemen, thank you guys both for joining us. We really appreciate it.

[E.J. Antoni]

Thank you.

[Cabot Phillips]

That was E.J. antony and Judge Glock. If you're watching Wired in live on the Daily Wire plus app, thank you very much. If not, that is where you should be. That is how you get push alerts when we go live. Breaking news as it happens. And the latest smart investigative reporting team. The Daily Wire plus app is free and available now on the App Store. Google Play, Apple tv, Roku, Samsung LG and more. Well, if you've been watching this show for any period of time, you've heard me talk about falling fertility rates. Most folks are by now aware that Americans are having fewer babies than ever before. But many people still view the decline as a vague concern to be dealt with by future generations in the far off future. But new research suggests that a dramatic population decline could be coming far sooner than expected. Here with more is Peter Forshall Brooks, researcher with the Institute for Family Studies. Peter, great to have you on. Welcome.

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

Thanks for having me. Great to be here.

[Cabot Phillips]

So first, Peter, what is the conventional wisdom when it comes to America's population decline? When is the kind of consensus about when it's going to start really falling? And do you think that that consensus is correct?

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

So the consensus is optimistic. The consensus opinions have always been optimistic and they've always been wrong. So for the past 10, 15 years, official projections, they keep going, well, look, fertility is falling, but it's going to steady off, it's going to flatline. And so you see these forecasts that keep saying, well, actually it's just going to be 1.8 forever, it's going to be one point forever, it's going to be 1.6 forever, and it keeps falling. And so on their projections, US population should maybe peak in the 2000-80s, the 2000-90s. What Lyman Stone and I did is we went, well, let's suppose that the downward trend will continue just for a moment and see what will happen. And if you do that, then US population will actually peak in 2054. So that's not that far away, that's a generation away. Yeah.

[Cabot Phillips]

And how dramatic of a decline are we talking about if the rates do continue to decline? Earlier you said 1.8, 1.7, 1.6. Just for context, that's the fertility rate. That's the average number of children that the average woman in America is having. How rapid would that decline be? What would that look like?

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

It depends how you project it. So some might argue that we're even too honest, too honest to optimistic, because we're saying, well, we expect it to be a sort of slowing decline, which a lot of people would say, and maybe it will bottom out at 1.1. For example, that's one forecast that you can make. If it continues at a linear decline, because it's been going down in a straight line since about 2007 in the US so if it continues on a linear decline, well, then there's no bottom. It just carries on dropping. And we see in South Korea, their fertility rate fell to about 0.7. It's gone up a bit since after they did serious government policies to support it. But that was their lowest point. So theoretically it could carry on falling even below one.

[Cabot Phillips]

And what sort of impact would that have? Just let's say economically, what does a population decline mean? Because I've talked about this in the past. I've seen comments from folks saying, well, what's the big deal if our population goes down? Why is that a problem? Can you just walk us through the ramifications?

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

Sure. Well, so I think there are huge economic ramifications. I also think we shouldn't forget that this is a human meaning issue, a human flourishing issue, because a lot of people want to have kids. That was the only thing we found. Desires for having children have not changed that much in recent decades. And so people still want to have children and then they're not having them. So there's a meaning issue that happens there. People feel less sense of purpose and there's an increased risk of depression if people don't have kids. There is research saying that. But I want to answer your question. So in terms of the economic ramifications, it's very serious because every country relies on a working age population paying its taxes to function, and every stock market relies on a working age population working in the companies. And so even if you had a tiny government, this would still be a problem because you would still need workers to pay your 401ks. So it's a huge issue to have an aging population. You're going to have a lower economic engine.

[Cabot Phillips]

And one of the things I've noticed in reading Yalls research over at the Institute for Family Studies, I would encourage everyone go check it out. They do fantastic research, very accessible stuff. One of the things I saw was the discrepancy in birth rates based on political affiliation. So we see conservative identifying women are actually above replacement level when it comes to their birth rates. Liberal identifying women are somewhere around half of where conservative women are. What sort of impact is that going to have politically?

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

This is an open debate that we did not touch on directly on the report because the question is how well does political ideology or political views, how well do they get passed down the generations? And that's something we're going to have to see. So they are heritable, but some of it is genetic how conservative or liberal you are. But it's not like 100% right? It's I think something about 40% their heritability. So there might be a change. Society might start becoming more conservative. But we're going to see and obviously that's also going to depend on how people are brought up. So if everyone is brought up in a way that they end up having certain worldviews as well and they and potentially end up running into the same pitfalls in terms of issues of not forming the families they want to have, this issue won't necessarily just correct itself. So it's not clear that we'll have a kind of self correcting, high fertility conservative future. We can't take that for granted.

[Cabot Phillips]

We talked on the show last week about Taylor Swift getting married and I had kind of a fun conversation with one of our commentators about how if she has a baby, could this set off a baby boom. And I was kind of laughing thinking, yeah, wouldn't that be funny? But in this particular study you guys just released, you actually found that there is a notable impact when it comes to people's favorite celebrities having children, actually leading them to desire more children of their own. Can you walk us through those numbers?

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

Yeah, it's pretty incredible. So if your favorite celebrity has an extra child, your child desires on average are going to be 0.15 higher. And you might think, well, 15% of a child isn't much. But that is a lot. That's what just one celebrity has an extra child and you only 15% more likely to want another one. That's a kind of big association. And we've actually got some more research which will be coming out in the future where we look at trends over time in history. So when societies suddenly have celebrity culture, where everyone tries to keep their love life secret and their family life secret, fertility starts falling. So we're going to be releasing more on this and it really looks like people look to celebrities and culture really matters.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah, for better or worse, when people look to celebrities to get their political views or to get their religious views, many times I'm thinking, what a disaster. But if they're influenced to have more babies because their favorite celeb has them, I say you go on, you follow that celebrity. That's a good thing. One final question, Peter. I know you guys, you think very deeply about these things and you guys are passionate about, you know, if nothing else, encouraging people to preserve our civilization and our species by having more kids. What sort of role should policymakers play here? What are tangible policy solutions to encourage that?

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

Sure. So the culture issue is obviously very important, as we've discussed, but there's a question of, well, what do we want government to do? A government can do things that are a bit icky or a bit goofy. So it's not obvious what the right step is in that department. And we're going to be thinking a lot about that in the coming months. What we suggested already in the report is for less than a year of public schooling, you could invest a fund in children born today that they can access when they become parents. And that would be worth tens of thousands of dollars when they become parent. So for a reasonably small amount of spending now, we can create huge financial support for the next generation of parents. And that fund would self fund after a generation. So it's a generation of spending. This is not a permanent big state measure. A generation of spending. And then you can have this great financial support for new parents for the future. So we're really trying to be future looking, sustainable looking and go, well, look, we can still support people to have the families they want to have.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah. It's a fascinating and very important conversation. Peter, thank you so much. We'll have to get you back on. You teased that new study you guys have coming out in the near future. We'll have you back on for that, but really appreciate your time.

[Peter Forshall Brooks]

Perfect. Thank you very much.

[Cabot Phillips]

All right, everyone again, go check out Institute for Family Studies. They do fantastic research on this topic. But for now, let's get back to Washington, D.C. where we've got Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan standing by. Mary Margaret, how are we doing today?

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

I'm doing great, Kevin. How are you?

[Cabot Phillips]

I'm great. I'm a little jealous of you because as I always tell everyone, I read every single comment in our live chat from our Daily Wire members. And I notice every time you come on, people are just lavishing praise on your makeup that day or your hair or your outfit. And it's like every new style for your hair. I don't know that people are like, oh, it looks crazy. No one ever does this for me. No one ever does this for Tim Rice or Brent. You're getting a little favoritism in the chat, and I don't know how it makes me feel, but I'll give you your flowers on that front. Let's get to some actual news, though. Let's start with this story on ice. We discussed yesterday on the show. The agency put a pause on agents conducting traffic stops after those two fatal shootings this month, but President Trump seemingly was not a fan of that policy. What happened?

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Yeah. So the president put out a truth social post this morning, and our colleague Jenny Terror was all over this story. So I'm literally pulling up her work on it as we speak. What we're hearing is reports that the president wasn't notified before ICE paused its vehicle stops, which is interesting, Cabot, because this was a big, big deal. Not something that you would expect would happen right before. Not something that you would expect to happen before the president has actually been notified, especially given kind of the controversy over the slowing or the hastening of deportations of Mark Wayne Mullen, all of the transitions we've had recently with Kristi Noem, with Tom Holman's leadership. So Jenny was reporting earlier today. She had multiple ICE sources telling her that they're celebrating after Trump ordered the agency to reverse, reverse its traffic stop pause. I'm gonna read to you one of the quotes that these guys told her. They said, hopefully they let us stop soon, adding that it was a lot harder to make arrests under the pause. They also questioned to Jenny whether Trump was consulted before the pause was ordered. Now we're hearing that that, in fact is what happened, that he wasn't alerted. And another source told her he's not sure how they didn't consult Trump about this before they sent out guidance to every field office. So not a great day for the leadership of our immigration enforcement operation right now. You Know the president, this is one of his main campaign promises. He is avidly interested in the deportation situation. And so this is obviously going to be a very high profile discussion, at least at the White House. And I think we know Mark Wayne Mullen and Tom Homan are going to be very strong part of those conversations.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah. Now, elsewhere today, we saw a CNN report that some White House officials were ordered to hand over their phones as part of an effort to identify folks who might have leaked information to the press about Air Force One. What are you hearing on that front? Did that really happen and what does it mean, if so?

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Well, we haven't gotten confirmation from the White House that it did in fact happen. But the story is very interesting. It is from cnn, but as far as I know, it appears to be well sourced. What they're saying is that Susie Wiles and Cash Patel orchestrated this investigation last week into basically who in the government could have leaked information about supposed security deficiencies in the new Air Force One, which is gifted from Qatar. What they're reporting is that Trump was very, very angry about news reporting about potential security deficiencies in this new plane, which he's really excited about. And he even invited the press to go on a little tour of Air Force One. I wasn't in the press pool that day, unfortunately, but my friend Reagan Reese, who's at the Daily Caller, she got to go all throughout the plane and see it. They weren't allowed to bring phones or anything, but according to them, it's beautiful. It's very bougie. It's kind of a state of the art new plane, but it appears to not be as secure as the old Air Force One. Kash Patel and Susie Wells orchestrated this investigation into who leaked that, especially while the president was on an international trip and could have been put in danger. So what we're hearing from CNN is that some officials were asked to turn over their phones to investigators on White House grounds. I haven't been able to confirm that yet. We will definitely let you guys know if we do confirm it, but not a small matter. And if I were those officials having to turn over my phone, I would be a little uncomfortable.

[Cabot Phillips]

Are you a little bit worried that some of your sources may have had their phones taken and that that your name is gonna start popping up on the phone while they have them?

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Listen, Kevin, I don't ask anything that I would be embarrassed about being heard, so. Well, we're good on that front.

[Cabot Phillips]

Good answer. You could be a lawyer also, in addition to a reporter. Last week, you Got to have a lengthy conversation with Vice President J.D. vance. Basically you got the scoop on Joe Rogan. Cuz Joe Rogan sat down with J.D. vance today. But like I said, you got to have the chat first. What did he say on Joe Rogan's podcast, which I must admit it's the biggest podcast in the world for now until Wired in continues to grow. But what did he have to say?

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

So this is really interesting. I'm actually, I'm trying to listen to the entire interview. I'm only about halfway through, but I obviously caught the highlights. Biggest big picture conversations that he had. One major comment that I thought was really interesting was actually on the Epstein files. And we're working on a story on this as we speak. Actually, when I finish Wired in live, I'm gonna finish that story. But the gist of it is that on this Joe Rogan podcast, JD Vance talked about the Epstein files. And obviously we know this is a major, major news story. Many, many people, including our Daily Wire audience, still have many questions about the Epstein files. I certainly do. The Vice President said today that he does too. And he told Joe Rogan that he thinks that the Trump team basically mishandled how they rolled out the Epstein files. He also talked about his concerns about intel ties related to these Epstein files and what that could mean for the people who were implicated. So very interesting. The Vice President has talked before about how he is a conspiracy theorist. He jokes about that. We saw reporting about that before. But I think at the end of the day, the way the Vice President described how he looks at all this stuff is that he's genuinely interested in and some of these very high profile, quote unquote conspiracy theories. And when you look at how he talks about it, Cabot, for example, he told us last week that he believes that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie Kirk. You think that that's the evidence is there to show that Tyler Robinson killed Charlie. But at the same time he's really interested in the people who radicalized Tyler Robinson. So I think the people who wanna portray the Vice President as a conspiracy theorist, well, maybe he's interested in aspects of some of these conspiracy theories, but I don't know that we could compare them to Candace Owens, for example, in the way that she views the Charlie Kirk case. So I think a similar situation here with these Epstein files where he's really interested in what was going on and the ties to individuals who were implicated in the Epstein files. But a very interesting tidbit there. And then I did also want to note that the Vice president took some jabs at Gavin Newsom. I found this really interesting, especially considering that that many people will joke about how these two could be presidential contenders against one another. He brought up Newsom's comments where he very offensively suggested to black people that they were stupid just like him. Gavin Newsom. And he also, the Vice President, also brought up the night of Joe Biden's debate and how J.D. vance was there. He was in the spin room. He wasn't the vice president yet, but he talked about going into the spin room and being prepared to defend the president just as a friend and as a senator. And seeing Gavin Newsom in there, he said he was white as a ghost. Kind of really taking in the fact that their presidential nominee was not fit to be on that stage and had done such a abysmal debate performance. A little more to that effect, too. We see a little more candid JD Vance on the Joe Rogan podcast. He swears a little more. He's a little more comfortable. It is several hours in length, so just an interesting podcast overall.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yeah, I know that Joe Rogan also likes to share some whiskey with his guests. I do wonder if the Vice President partook a little bit with that. Guys, I have good news for everyone at home. Typically, the Q and A portion of our show is only for Daily Wire members, but we've got a few minutes to spare for this show. So let's say that we give our Apple and Spotify audience a little bit of Q and A. I'll do my traditional Q and A at the end just for the Daily Wire members. But I dropped a little thing while you were talking. I said, all right, guys, get your questions in for Mary Margaret. And the questions are exploding, so let's just get right to some of them. Mary Margaret. Okay, Brick Flag wants to know what is MMO's favorite thing to do in D.C. when she's not working.

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Oh, well, one of my favorite places to go is the Occidental. It's near the White House. It has an amazing martini, best in D.C. and a beautiful patio. So if you can ever come during the warm months, best place to be. And it's a cool place to kind of people watch and see Trump officials going in and out. But I also, you know, I love to walk on the waterfront anywhere around here. I think it's so beautiful. And if I have free time, you will probably catch me hang out with my friends at any of these local watering holes or out with my family.

[Cabot Phillips]

Not in D.C. yeah, I would say based on your Instagram account. Many of your weekends are spent with your 10 siblings. 10 siblings, right?

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Yes.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yes. With your 10 siblings. It looks like a lot of fun. I will answer also this question. My favorite thing, very underrated in dc, the monuments at night. Go see the national monuments at night. That's my favorite thing.

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

They called it monumenting.

[Cabot Phillips]

There we go. I'm learning new. That seems very Gen Z of you. Not millennial. Let's see some other ones. Oh, Jacob wants to know if you're going to eat Taco Bell live on camera with me. I ate Taco Bell on the show yesterday to test the parasite theory. Would you eat Taco Bell on the show?

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

No, I wouldn't. And I'm so sorry for your wife, Cabot. That's an unfortunate thing to do.

[Cabot Phillips]

Emma will not be happy about that. This is an interesting question. Expressive Zonkey. Are you guys more wear your Sunday best or come as you are for church services?

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Ooh, wear your Sunday best. Why would you not dress up for Jesus? That's my question.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yep, I'm with you. I'll wear a sweater or a button up. I'm not like, to the suit phase yet. Although I will say I went to very casual churches for years and I don't know, there's something about, as you said, you know, taking part in something that is, you know, reverent and dressing well for it. That's not to say we should never turn someone away because of what they're wearing, but as you said, oh, totally. Wear your best for Jesus. There have been a number of questions people want to know. People want to know about your fitness regimen and how you stay active even with all of the travel.

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Wow, thanks, guys. You're making me feel fit. So I walk a lot. I like to walk a lot around here. I'm occasionally in different seasons of life, a runner. I like to pick up some weights every now and then, but I don't know that I'm the fitness guru here. I'd love your tips as well, if you have any tips for staying active on the road. I think I try and generally just, you know, get my 10,000 on, even on busy days, my 10,000 steps. And then on those busy days, that's kind of all you can do. So we try and eat clean.

[Cabot Phillips]

I'm not the one to ask because, yes, I do. I do lift weights. However, I was bragging on the show recently that I got into running and I got ahead of myself after a month and a half of running. My knee, my left Knee has started to kill me. And apparently that's a thing for people who, like, first get into running. They get it right into their kneecap. So I gotta figure that out. I got a little cocky. Oh, no, this is a kind of funny one. Have you ever been pushed on the job? I know that it can get a little testy when you're reporting.

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Gosh, I've been pushed so many times on the job. I had no idea how much I would be pushed when I signed up to be a reporter. I've been pushed in crowds, at protests. I've been pushed by hostile people. I've had people blow whistles in my face so hard that they're stuck. Spit got all over me. I've had people push me because they were angry at what I asked them. I've also been pushed in the briefing room by normally civilized people, especially foreign reporters. They get a little pushy, little shovey in there. One time I had a man standing so close to me in the briefing room that another man threatened to hit him if he didn't move. That man was very nice to me. I appreciated that because the other man just wasn't making space for me. So, yes, I have been pushed many times, and believe me, I can push back. And I have done so love that.

[Cabot Phillips]

I will say I have not been pushed very often. Our editor in chief, Brent Sharer, who was on the top of the show, I have seen him be strongly pushed by a former MSNBC correspondent. I'm not going to name her. I don't know if I'm allowed to name her. She pushed Brent at the Kamala Harris Donald Trump debate. She pushed him very hard, and she started cussing at him. And Brent was like, whoa, what are you doing? You need to chill out. And she started insulting him. She called him a racial slur. She called him a racial slur. That is a real story. And then she insulted his shoes. She told him he was wearing dusty blank loafers, and then she told him he looked poor. That's a real story. That was an MSNBC former MSNBC correspondent. So it can be dangerous out there.

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

I feel like Brent would love that. I think Brent would thrive off of that. And he would love the story to tell, too.

[Cabot Phillips]

Yes, he was absolutely loving it. And the best part of the story, I was interviewing Bobby Kennedy Jr. During this story. When this happened, and this happened five feet behind me, I could hear the entire thing. And I was trying to use my peripherals to figure out if there was a fight happening behind me. But, you know, Brent. Very well.

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Psychotic.

[Cabot Phillips]

That does fire him up. Anyways. All right, we will let you go. Just a little sample of what you get in the Q and A portion if you become a Daily Wire member and you get to throw your questions in the chat. Mary Margaret, thank you so much as always for making time for us.

[Mary Margaret Olihan]

Thank you for having me.

[Cabot Phillips]

That was Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan. And this has been Wired in. If you guys are on Apple and Spotify, I will see you tomorrow. If you want to keep the show going even more, I'm gonna go do my normal Q and A with our Daily Wire members. Go to dailywire.com subscribe, get in on the action. I'll see you guys tomorrow.