Loading summary
Transcript111 lines
- [00:00]
Cabot Phillips
Big banks don't want to fund your
- [00:02]
Congressman Andy Ogles
business, but Cardiff does.
- [00:04]
Cabot Phillips
My name's William Stern.
- [00:05]
Jonathan Swan
In 2004, I founded Cardiff to make
- [00:08]
Cabot Phillips
funding faster and easier for small businesses. In less than five minutes, your business could qualify for up to $500,000 deposited same day, and there's zero impact to your personal credit. Get started by going to Cardiff Co Dailywire.
- [00:26]
Jonathan Swan
Again, that's Cardiff Co Dailywire. Cardiff Borrow better choice hotels get you
- [00:32]
Tim Rice
more of what you value. Comfort Inn.
- [00:36]
Jonathan Swan
It's calling your name.
- [00:39]
Tim Rice
Save on the stay. Oh, and free waffles are yours to claim.
- [00:43]
Cabot Phillips
Book direct@storieshotels.com welcome to WIRED IN. I'm Cabot Phillips, coming to you live from Daily Wire hq. It's been a wild news day, so let's just get right to it. The Supreme Court issued a number of highly anticipated rulings this morning on gun rights, deportations and asylum. We'll get you up to speed there and tell you about the big case that is looming on birthright citizenship. We'll also talk with a New York Times reporter about his new book on the Trump administration that is flying off the shelves. And we'll be joined by a congressman pushing for the denaturalization of fraudsters, felons and welfare. And at the very end of the show, we're going to be joined by a Daily Wire guest who is behind our meme operation. So stick around to the very end for that one. And of course, I will also be getting to your questions live at the very, very end. So start dropping those questions in the chat right now. And if you're watching on Apple or Spotify, head over to DailyWire.com subscribe to become a member and get in on the live chat. All right, let's end the week strong. Roll that graphic, baby. 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, insight into why it matters, and hear from experts who are actually a part of the story. Become a member and join the live chat@dailywire.com subscribe. Well, let's get to a man who is certainly a part of the story, a part of every story in America, because he is just a Renaissance man. It's Daily Wire DC Bureau Chief Tim Rice. Tim, great to see you, brother.
- [02:25]
Tim Rice
Good to see you, Cabot, as always.
- [02:27]
Cabot Phillips
Let's just jump right in. We've had 36 hours now to digest the results of Tuesday night's elections in New York, where we saw three Socialist candidates win Democratic nominations. They are almost all certain to be elected to Congress this November. So you're going to get to see them up close and personal working on the Hill. What has the reaction been from Democratic leadership and just rank and file members on Capitol Hill?
- [02:51]
Tim Rice
Yeah, it's a fantastic question, Cabot, because look, this is not the first time that we have had a radical leftist mayor of New York City who gets elected in a sweep and sort of attains the national spotlight. And all of a sudden media elites and Democratic hopefuls say, this is gonna change things. Right? Bill de Blasio was going to change things. He was a socialist. He wasn't married to his wife. They called her the first partner. It was so woke and then obviously that fizzled out. And ultimately the conventional wisdom is, look, these people, obviously New York, it's the city that never sleeps. It's one of the most important cities in the country. Of course these leaders are going to have an outsized national impact. But at the end of the day, they're mayors, right? They're municipal officials. What this election showed us is that Zoran Mandan is maybe the first exception we've had to that rule in a very long time. Not only does his endorsement matter, not only are his candidates winning, but they're following their shot, right? He's sticking with it. It's not just. It was not a half assed endorsement. He's sticking with these guys. He built a slate. They were running ads together. And so the reaction among Democrats here in Washington is, my God, this is working. He is actually, again, Democrats are always, I think both parties are, but Democrats certainly, right. They're always looking for, I like to say, the next Barack Obama. They're always looking for this next local politician who comes up in a Chicago or New York or Austin, Texas or Los Angeles or whatever. Someone who could be the next standard bearer. I think Democrats in Washington and across the country are very excited about Mamdani now in a way that they weren't a week ago, because there is momentum here. He is proving to be an effective political actor, not just in, again, as I said, not just that his endorsement matters and that his candidates can win, but that he is clearly interested not just in the rhetoric, not just in participating in the national conversation and kind of throwing his thoughts in the way Bill de Blasio did, but in being a kingmaker, in backing candidates, in trying to have an influence on the Congress and in Washington. So, I mean, listen, I was never one to discount Mamdani. He was obviously a formidable politician as his rise from kind of obscure assemblyman to mayor of New York showed. But that election really cements like, this is a guy who we're going to need to keep paying attention to on the national stage.
- [05:11]
Cabot Phillips
You used the word they're excited to describe how Democrats are feeling. And I understand the excitement of having a new fresh face that clearly is resonating with, you know, broad coalitions. But are Democratic incumbents excited? Are they worried at all though about what this means for the direction of their party? That they're going to get eaten up by this base who they can never appease because they can never go far left enough unless they're a socialist, right?
- [05:36]
Tim Rice
So, I mean, I think it's kind of a both and right. I think there were certainly incumbents, I mean, Dan Goldman, who just lost to one of Mamdani's, you know, who was who two years ago, right, Was one of the most radical leftist members of Congress screaming constantly about how Trump was a criminal and all, you know, we needed to abolish the police and abolish, Defund the police and abolish ice, who, you know, very rapidly was eaten by his own revolution because Dan Goldman had the temerity to say that we shouldn't be anti Semitic, right? And so for that he had anti semitic graffiti scrawled on his office and he got voted out of office. So I think that for members who are going to fall to the Mamdani wave, yes, they are certainly not excited. But I think that if you look above that, if you look at the Chuck Schumers, the Hakeem Jeffries, the Nancy Pelosi's, even in her dotage, the Democratic Party, whether it wanted to or not, basically turned the keys over to the leftists, right? This was part when they let Bernie run for president, when they let AOC and the squad become national figures, when they let Kamala take the spot from Joe Biden, the Democratic Party has basically been ceding control to its leftmost wing for about 10 years now and has been losing electorally because of it. So I think at this point, even the most establishmentarian Democrats are excited that, look, I think they clearly felt they passed the point of no return on. We're never going to go back to a moderate Democratic Party, right? There's no more third way, no more Blue Dogs, no more Clinton Gore Democrats. But how do you win? The only way out is through. They finally found a way through. AOC will maybe be the way through, but Bernie wasn't the way through. Rashida Talib wasn't the way through. Kamala wasn't the way through. Maybe Mamdani is the way through. Maybe AOC in 2028 is the way through. So I think for Democrat elites, even if they don't agree with the policies, even if they sort of yearn for the days of a more moderate, centrist Democratic Party, I think they're at least thinking, well, thank God we figured a way out of this boondoggle.
- [07:44]
Cabot Phillips
As you said, the Democratic establishment did let Bernie run for president. They didn't let him win, as we know, back in. In 2016, where they were certainly meddling to do everything they could to rig that primary. Tim, what are you hearing from Republicans, though? Is there excitement over, hey, this is going to be great in states that are very far from New York, but we can run on these candidates saying, look what the Democrats are trying to bring to Congress, or are they fearful saying, yeah, you'd like to think that this might help us in the general, but if these people actually get in office, it's scary. What's the vibe you're getting?
- [08:18]
Tim Rice
I think, yeah, I think right now it's very much the former. We're seeing the phrase Mamdani's party blow up overnight. I mean, it's something we've written about at the Daily Wire, our opinion columnists have opined about. This is something we're seeing the Republican Party and Republican lawmakers and commentators. Everyone on the right is sort of rushing to affix the Mamdani branding to the Democratic Party. Right. And I think, especially when you look at the kind of radical nature of the candidates who just won the primaries, whom he endorsed, people who sort of celebrated not just, you know, not to say that this doesn't matter, but, you know, not just like saying free Palestine, but celebrating kind of terrorist activity in the United States, jihadism at all costs. These are truly radical people. This is not just. Again, it seems six years ago, AOC calling for a Green New Deal and Medicare for all seems almost quaint by comparison. Now that we have these people say, you know, America probably deserves the fall. So, yes, Republicans are very anxious or rushing to lock in this branding. But I do think there is that little bit in the back of the mind of this is gonna be great branding unless we start losing to these people, at which case, at which point this is something to be very afraid of, because if this becomes a more effective political strategy than our branding of the Democratic Party as this extremists, right, then that's a real problem, not just for Republicans. Electorally, but before the country because their stance now is America is bad. I think, yes, Republicans have a window to seize this moment and defeat these people as anti American. Kind of unpatriotic folks. But if that doesn't work, if the electorate buys their message more than Republicans message, then I think that's a huge wake up call for Republicans. I don't really know what the solution is there. How do you get elected as the pro America candidate if voters want anti America?
- [10:18]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah, Tim. Lost in all the noise Tuesday night, understandably, was the fact that a member of America's most famous political dynasty was on the ballot and got smoked. Tell us about that
- [10:32]
Tim Rice
Jack Schlossberg. Jack Kennedy Schlossberg, as he insisted on being named on the ballot in New York, lest people forget. Yeah. Came in like second to last place in New York's congressional district. Truly a circus of a district. Also featured friend of the show, George Conway, one of America's most deranged never trumpers, who came in actual last place after pouring millions of his own dollars into his race. Schlossberg was interesting because he sort of used his Kennedy cache to get noticed, but then became famous and popular in New York because he was just another kind of like Upper west side Democrat. Right? He was hip and trendy and rich and handsome. And then as it came time for the primary, he retreated to the Kennedy playbook, which was basically just walking around the district shouting I'm a Kennedy to anyone who would listen. And believe it or not, at this point, I mean, Jim Garrity at National Review said it best. I think he said on Twitter, hopefully this puts the Camelot myth to bed once and for all. Right. I mean, you know, the last time Ted, he said, the last time Ted Kennedy wanted a Senate election, the iPhone and Instagram hadn't been. Hadn't been created yet. They didn't exist. Right. So even though we have this breaches of the Kennedys into our lives, the Kennedy mythos is clearly not enough to guarantee election to Congress. And so it's funny, this guy probably would have. I don't know if he would have won, but he would have done better had he just run as Jack Schlossberg, rich guy from Manhattan whose mom ran an art gallery, and not as Jack Schlossberg, John F. Kennedy's grandson.
- [12:12]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah, I zoned out a little bit during your answer, but I came back when I heard you say this guy who's hip, trendy, attractive and wealthy. I tuned in because I thought, I thought you were talking about me. And then I realized you weren't. I should have been paying closer attention. I can't help but wonder, just moving forward, if there is an appetite in America with the electorate for these political dynasties because there's been such blowback against the elites and against, you know, people who are viewed as out of touch, Donald Trump notwithstanding, obviously. But I think the age of the political dynasty might be coming to an end. But, Tim, that's a conversation for another time. I'm not to let you go, but great to have you on, as always, my friend. I hope you have a great rest of the week and a great weekend. We'll see you next week.
- [12:57]
Tim Rice
Have a great weekend, Cabot. Always a pleasure.
- [12:59]
Cabot Phillips
That was Daily Wire D.C. bureau Chief Tim Rice. The Supreme Court has been busy this week. They handed down a number of consequential rulings this morning on everything from mass deportations to gun rights. And they are still discussing the big birthright citizenship case that is going to set a huge precedent and matter a lot to the president, Donald Trump. And as much as I would love to pretend to be a constitutional scholar, let's say we bring on an expert to explain to us what's actually going on with the court and what's at stake with these cases. And thankfully, we've got Dr. Matthew Spalding, professor in Constitutional government and dean of the School of Government at Hillsdale College. Dr. Spalding, thanks for coming on.
- [13:39]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Great to be there, Kevin. Thanks for having me.
- [13:41]
Cabot Phillips
So a number of rulings coming down today, but again, we're still waiting for the big case, which is birthright citizenship. For people who have not been following this story as closely throughout the summer, can you just explain how we got to this point and what is actually at stake here?
- [13:58]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Look, a lot is at stake here, and it actually goes beyond that immediate, the case having to do with birthright citizenship. The broader question actually is tied to what we're gonna be celebrating here next week, which is the 25th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence has actually a lot to say about what it means to be a people and what it means to be a citizen. And indeed, it's that argument that is the deep fundamental mooring that I think puts into question the idea of birthright citizenship. Look, the notion that one becomes a citizen merely by virtue of where you were born is actually an old, if not medieval or feudal concept. It was under the King of England in the time before the American Revolution that if you were born in the realm of the king, you were a subject to the King, that's what birthright citizenship means. Well, that's not how the American system works. The American system work grows out of primarily, first, broadly, what it means to be a people. And that's defined by experiences, background, historical circumstances, common language, all sorts of things we normally associate with what it means to be a people. But in America, there's this additional quality which we see plainly expressed in the Declaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be self evident, we hold certain principles in common. And what that means is doesn't matter where you're born, the question is, do you become an American? Which means the process is important, which means naturalization is important, which means following the law is important, which means time and language and all the things we talk about is a citizenship question become important. And it means becoming dedicated to this country and becoming a citizen. And it's not ethnicity, it's not birthright or birthplace, it's not bloodline, it's whether you become an American. And there are certain parameters to that, there are certain rules to that. It's gotta be done according to our consent. But that's a different way of thinking, which is why I think the, the concept of birthright citizenship actually violates the very premise of the American founding in the Declaration of Independence.
- [16:27]
Cabot Phillips
I completely understand President Trump's vitriol towards birthright citizenship. When you see stories like we broke a story at the Daily Wire where there were Chinese nationals who had set up illegal businesses in America and they would open up these homes for pregnant Chinese women, they would come into the United States under the guise of being tourists, they would live in these homes, essentially never leave these homes, oftentimes give birth in those homes, get the citizenship for their children and then fly back. So obviously, I don't think our founding fathers had any idea that that sort of thing was going to be happening.
- [17:01]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Think about what that actually does. That's an egregious example. But what it does is it gives away our immigration policy to someone else, that it's no longer under our control, why is that any different than in complaining that we are taxed without our consent? Immigration policy is no longer based on our consent. If someone can come over here and by their own conditions, under their own circumstances, make themselves an American citizen without any of our rules, or without going through any process, and then claim that as a matter of right under the Constitution, that strikes me as a deep fundamental violation of the whole concept coming out of the Founders. Now, how that's gonna play out this particular case, the way the case is set Up. It's in the 14th Amendment, which means Congress actually has the power of legislation here. That's a little more complicated. But I think that the principle of it. And they claim that somehow this is among our fundamental rights. I mean, no other country in the world does this. In the United States, there might be one or two others, but I mean, no country in Europe, no one has birthright citizenship. This is oxymoronic. It makes no sense. And yet there's this claim, because I think there was actually a wrongly interpreted Supreme Court case. Supreme Court back in the 1860s when the Commonwealth Arc case was. Was not clear. They left it ambiguous, and we've somehow turned it into this fundamental right. So I think we're just in a really bad spot. We're suffering from the consequences of it, and we're trying to rectify it. And it's not clear how this is gonna play out. But I have to give them credit for going to the Supreme Court to try to clarify this.
- [18:48]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah. I do have a question on your interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
- [18:54]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Yeah.
- [18:54]
Cabot Phillips
Because critics have said, look, it's plain as day in there. And I'll just go ahead and read it from Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Do you see any wiggle room there? Or do you feel like that's pretty cut and dry? What's the language there that gives you hope that this could be constitutional?
- [19:20]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Meaning that birthright soon could be constitutional or the argument against it.
- [19:23]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah, the argument against it.
- [19:25]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I would say two things. One is, what was the 14th Amendment written to correct? Which was slavery. And these slaves were here and did not have a citizenship, so they wanted to create that. So anyone born here. But the key line here is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The problem with someone born in another country is they're subject to another country. They are a citizen of France or Mexico or Venezuela, whatever the heck it might be. They are not subject to our jurisdiction. Subject to jurisdiction does not mean following stop signs. Right. It's the combination of the two things. You can be born here. Let's say someone is born of parents who are already citizens, and they become citizens by birth. Yes. That occurs because their parents are American citizens. They are raised here. But someone born in another country, coming here, that citizenship is what the child inherits and receives automatically. So they're not subject to our jurisdiction. So this is why we have forever had laws called Naturalization, immigration laws. You had to come through a different way. You can become an American in theory, anybody can be an American. We're not opposed to that. But you've got to come through a process. You've got to go through the hoops. There's a legal process that has to be done legally and honestly. But you've also then got to become American by being naturalized. That's why we have that whole process in the first place. Why have that process if somehow you can just automatically become an American by stepping one foot over the line and giving birth to a child? The notion that people want to be Americans, I respect that. I understand that. That's what makes America great. But you've gotta become an American in cooperation with us, which means by these rules and by consent. The notion you have it, you can claim it by right of your own, and we have no say in the matter strikes me as a deep, just a practical problem, but also a violation of all the principles we have in our founding, especially the Declaration of Independence.
- [21:47]
Cabot Phillips
Well, it is a fascinating case, one that the White House is watching very closely and all of us watching as well. Dr. Spalding, thank you so much for your time. Really appreciate your insight.
- [21:57]
Dr. Matthew Spalding
Great being with you. Happy 4th of July.
- [21:59]
Cabot Phillips
All right, thank you. Same to you as well. All right, guys, it's time to roll out the Wired in red carpet. Get that red carpet ready because we are now joined by reporter royalty. Our next guest is the co author of the new book Regime Change, which is topping every bestseller list. I'm slightly jealous of him for that fact. It's New York Times White House reporter Jonathan Swan. Jonathan, great to see you, man.
- [22:22]
Jonathan Swan
Thanks so much for having me. Really appreciate it.
- [22:25]
Cabot Phillips
I would like to say I'm just having you on to talk about your book, but I really just want to gloat about the fact that the United States just stomped your Aussie countryman in the World cup last week.
- [22:35]
Jonathan Swan
I knew you were going to do this. Yes, well, you know, I'm a citizen now, so I can pick a side.
- [22:42]
Meg Brock
Right.
- [22:43]
Jonathan Swan
I kind of can say I was on the US Side as well.
- [22:47]
Cabot Phillips
Okay, I'll consider that. We'll see what President Trump has to say about that. Denaturalization.
- [22:53]
Jonathan Swan
Yeah, yeah, I've heard jokes.
- [22:56]
Cabot Phillips
Exactly. It's rough. In all seriousness, congrats on the new book. Plenty has been written about the Trump administration. So for folks at home who are saying, hey, it seems like there's a new book about the Trump administration every other month, what is different about this book? And what's made it so successful compared to the others?
- [23:16]
Jonathan Swan
Well, I don't know what's made it so successful. It's funny not to get too much into sort of like the nonfiction book market, but as I've learned in the last year, it's sort of been declared dead. And a lot of these books have not really sold in the last few years for some reason. This one has kind of been crazy. I would like to think it's because Maggie and I really got inside the room. And I think people are still hungry to know how the country's being run, how decision, big decisions are being made. And the book really covers the whole waterfront, from major foreign policy decisions to the economic decisions, economic program, immigration, you go across the gamut. So we really just tried to get people inside those rooms, the Oval Office, the Situation Room, and show people how it's done. And, you know, there is also a genre of book that's sort of a polemical kind of genre. This is. This is not that. This is a reported book. And I think. I think a lot of people, if you're interested in how the country is being run, you know, you may disagree with conclusions that we reach at different points, but I think people will find it interesting. I hope they will, anyway.
- [24:31]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah, I've been fascinated by many of the anecdotes that have come out. And you've been covering this administration for the last over decade plus now. You have incredible access. But I'm interested, the first 18 months of this current term, which you cover in the book, how do they compare to his first term? In your view? What have the biggest differences been between the two terms?
- [24:54]
Jonathan Swan
I think it's almost unrecognizable. And remember, so I covered the first term where Maggie and I both covered the first time Trump came into office, the first president that we've ever seen elected who had never had any public service whatsoever, military or government. And so he really came in without knowing Washington, without knowing how things worked. And he hired, you know, surrounded himself with essentially a team of strangers. He selected people, in many cases, based on, you know, one meeting, two meetings, James Mattis to run the Pentagon, Rex Tillerson to run the State Department. And if he'd had more familiarity with Washington and with some of these figures and their pedigrees, he would have realized that they were people who viewed Donald Trump as dangerous and detestable and saw their own roles as protecting America, protecting the world from Donald Trump. So he was surrounded by people in the first term? Not entirely. It's more nuanced. It's not completely black and white. But there were a lot of people who. And I know this from talking to them directly. I'm not gonna say who, but, you know, use your brains. Who held him in contempt, who mocked him behind his back, and who constantly saw their jobs as stopping him from doing certain things. This time around, he is surrounded by people who believe in him, who like him. In many cases, they were people who went through the 21 through 24 period with him. And that had a really galvanizing effect. I would even say, in some cases, a radicalizing effect, because, remember, Trump got indicted four times. The core group of people that stayed around him, almost all of them, I won't say almost all of them. A lot of them received subpoenas themselves. And so it was very much this, I'm in the trenches, minor. We're not, you know, what's the marginal tax rate going to be? What are we going to do with regulations for all these people? They were very personal. You know, is Donald Trump going to stay out of prison? Are we going to stay out of prison? That's how that was the mindset. And so that's what he came into power with. He came in with much more confidence in his own ability to express executive power. He came in with a team that believed in him and wanted to implement his wishes. So it just couldn't be more different from term one.
- [27:30]
Cabot Phillips
You talk about his new inner circle. I'm curious. Who is someone within Trump's orbit that might not be a household name, but has major influence on the president and, by extension, the country?
- [27:42]
Jonathan Swan
Well, a great example is his personal lawyer, Boris Epstein, who is not a White House employee, but is on the phone with Trump constantly, always on the phone with Trump. And Boris Epstein is a figure who arouses strong emotions. If you talk to people around Trump, you will. I'm sure you have discovered this yourself. There are people who are absolute Boris partisans and love him, and there are people that wish that he was not as influential as he is. But it remains the case that Trump is on the phone with him all the time, multiple times a day. And he's someone who is, you know, they call him the good news, the bearer of good news. He's always telling him, you know, this is good. Encouraging his most maximalist instincts. Trump himself, we have, you know, reporting that privately, you know, during the campaign, Trump would joke, you know, if Boris was calling, he would hold up the phone and say, boris Epstein. And Trump would say, oh, you know, he'll he'll be calling to tell me there's another indictment, and he'll tell me, that's great for me, you know, so he would, like Trump would sort of be in on the joke. But, you know, he makes him feel good, and he's someone around him. He's also an enforcer for him. So a lot of these arrangements that he's done with media companies, you know, getting the 16 million out of CBS, getting the 16 million out of ABC, Boris was heavily involved in that, and he sort of fulfills this enforcer role for Donald Trump.
- [29:14]
Cabot Phillips
Anyone who's been on social media this past week or two has seen anecdotes from your book. One of the most fascinating that I saw going around involved Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos. You had this story in there about the two of those men and some other tech leaders trying to sort of make amends with Trump after his reelection. Tell us about that saga and then specifically how Trump responded.
- [29:37]
Jonathan Swan
Well, it's very interesting because both of them Trump viewed as enemies in the first term. And I mean, people forget this, but Trump published a coffee table book in 2024 in which he threatened Zuckerberg directly, said he was he would spend the rest of his life in prison if he interfered. In the 2020, after the assassination attempt in Butler, Pennsylvania, Bezos and Zuckerberg reached out to Trump personally. And there was a thawing of those relationships in those latter months of 2024. So Trump wins the election, and basically every major tech titan from Tim Cook at Apple, Bezos, Zuckerberg, they go down to Mar a Lago and pay court, go have dinner with Trump. Trump was reveling in this. And the reason we have in the book, we write about text messages that Zuckerberg and Bezos sent to Trump. And the reason we know about those text messages is because Trump was showing them off. So he said he was at his golf club in Doral. You can imagine the scene. He's at the table and he's holding up. He said, look at this, Bezos. And very flattering messages. Bezos sending a selfie with him and Lauren Sanchez Zuckerberg sending an admiring letter from one of his children. But Trump really reveled in that because as he said to people at the table, can you imagine where they were back in the first term and where they are now? I think one of the most interesting aspects of this term is how Trump is changing the culture. I think it's a really underreported story. I mean, obviously, he's done major things in foreign policy and immigration, but he's had a really profound effect on the culture. And, you know, you could talk about DEI and removing that and all the rest of it and what he's doing with the universities, but he. All of those major tech platforms, which are the essential pipes, you know, as, you know, I mean, whether the algorithms kind of can determine whether media companies live or die and all the rest of it. In term one, all of these platforms were run by people who are. And now they're basically all run by allies. It's a really profound change that I think has a cultural effect as well.
- [32:05]
Cabot Phillips
I can remember hearing from friends in the conservative media space after the 24 election about overtures being made by Facebook and by other tech companies to the people that felt like they'd been shunned for the last four years. And they said, hey, it's so weird. You know, I got a message from so and so at Facebook or and so seeing it on a much grander scale in the White House. Jonathan, Another anecdote that jumped out to me was some of the reporting, I won't scoop it from you, but some of the reporting between Trump and Netanyahu. President Trump publicly lately has been going after Bibi in a way we have not seen during his first term. Some folks in Trump world have said it's a bit of a show. The conversation's taking place behind closed doors. They're much friendlier. But based on some of the reporting in your book, that's not always true. So can you give us more on that front? What's happening behind the scenes with these two men?
- [32:56]
Jonathan Swan
It's a very complicated relationship, very nuanced. And so when we spent time with the president and talked to him, we talked to him about Netanyahu for this story, and Trump acknowledged that basically, essentially, Netanyahu was. He didn't use this. I'm paraphrasing, but basically dead to him. After the 2020 election, Trump had this idea in his head that Netanyahu was the first world leader to congratulate Joe Biden for winning the 2020 election. It's actually not true. And Netanyahu. So Trump would say, you know, would complain about Netanyahu privately in very vicious terms. In sort of 2021, 2022, people close to Netanyahu told Trump that it's actually not true. And we have some reporting in the book that Netanyahu showed up to a meeting with Trump when he was trying to get back on good terms with him and showed him a Like a numbered list of all the world leaders who congratulated Biden before he did. So, look, it's an up and down relationship. Trump said to us, you know, we're better in wartime when there's a war. He's a good wartime partner. But, you know, Trump finds him very difficult. And we have a scene in the book where Trump is on the cusp of his major hostage deal that he did last year, where they released the final hostages out of Gaza, which was, you know, arguably his signature foreign policy achievement. You know, could say Venezuela. But it was a very significant foreign policy achievement. Trump, Trump believed that Netanyahu was trying to kill that deal. So we report there was a very aggressive phone call between Trump and Netanyahu in, I think it was late September, where Trump says, everyone's sick of you. You know, all the Jews are sick of you, even the two Jews on this call. And of course, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff are listening on the call. And, you know, they have it. That's how he talks to Netanyahu. He can be very aggressive. But they end up, you know, a few weeks later, you know, celebrating this hostage deal. Obviously, their relationship is at a really fraught place right now because Trump wants to get out of Iran and wants to do the deal. And Netanyahu, he sees as an obstacle because he's wanting to prosecute the campaign in Lebanon. But it's an up and down relationship. It's not, you know, people, people can exaggerate in either direction, and it's actually just a much more nuanced picture.
- [35:22]
Cabot Phillips
Jonathan, we only have two more minutes, so I would be remiss if I didn't get to 2028. The general idea is that it's a two man race between Vance and Rubio, obviously, but as things currently stand, who seems to have the upper hand when it comes to securing Trump's blessing, based on your conversations with the President and with folks at the White House?
- [35:41]
Jonathan Swan
Well, it's sort of hard to know because Trump is enjoying this kind of game of pitting them against each other. I still think, you know, that Vance is most likely to be the nominee. I just, that's just my, my belief based on my reporting. But we have a scene in the book where it sort of exemplifies what happens. Trump has Rupert Murdoch to dinner at the White House, and it's an extraordinary scene. They're sitting around the table. Vance and Rubio are both at the table. And so while they're sitting there, Trump asks Murdoch, what do you Think of J. You know, J.D. mark. I like them both. I can't really decide. What do you think of.
- [36:20]
Grant Bailey
Of.
- [36:20]
Jonathan Swan
Of JD And Rupert sort of hesitates and says, well, I think JD has the potential to be great. And it was sort of awkward. Vance says, oh, gee, thanks, Rupert. You know, knowing full well that Murdoch did not support his bid to be vice president. And then Trump says to Rupert Murdoch, and what do you think of. Of Marco? And Rupert Murdoch does not miss a beat. And he just says, marco's brilliant. So they will. Everyone was talking about that dinner for a while. So. Look, I think the only thing we can be sure of is that Trump is not going to make this straightforward for J.D. vance. And I wouldn't want to speculate beyond that.
- [36:56]
Cabot Phillips
Oh, well, that's my job, is to try and get you to speculate. Your job as a. As a good reporter is to not do that. But Jonathan, thank you so much for coming on, man. I know you have been a busy man. Congratulations again on the book. 150,000 copies sold the first day. We just don't see that for any books these days, especially nonfiction books. Everyone can go check out Regime Change, which he co authored with Maggie Haberman. Jonathan, thanks again, man. We really appreciate it.
- [37:21]
Jonathan Swan
Thanks for having me. And congratulations for all your success as well.
- [37:24]
Cabot Phillips
Thank you, Jonathan. That was Jonathan Swan, White House reporter at the New York Times. And let's now jump over to our good friend Congressman Andy Ogles, who's representing the great state of Tennessee and our home district here in Nashville. Congressman, great to have you back on the program.
- [37:41]
Grant Bailey
Hello.
- [37:42]
Congressman Andy Ogles
Great to be here, my friend.
- [37:43]
Cabot Phillips
So I wanna start with the shakeup we saw in New York this week. It's been dominating, dominating the media. I'm sure it's dominating many conversations in Capitol Hill. What are you hearing from your colleagues about this socialist wave that took over New York City?
- [38:00]
Congressman Andy Ogles
Well, you know, this is something I've been warning about for months now, is that this Mamdani movement was gaining. I've actually been in New York a couple of times speaking with Republicans, trying to get them motivated to engage and fight back against this socialist, this Marxist, this Communist. He hates America and quite frankly, he should be denaturalized and deported. But we'll get to that in a minute. But that being said, I'm not surprised. I think that the left is really embracing this idea of socialism, not fully understanding what that means, but they're going to find out. And I think ultimately, if you're playing the long game, this bodes well for Republicans. But on the short term, if you're a New Yorker, you're going to.
- [38:41]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah, that's the big question of how Republicans are going to respond to this. You would imagine that it could be useful with the midterms approaching to show that contrast between what is on the ballot. But I'm interested. What are you hearing from Democrats on the Hill? I was asking our congressional reporter Tim Rice earlier. Why not ask a Congressman though? What are folks on the Hill on the left saying? Do they seem scared? Are they feeling like the socialists are breathing down their neck or do you think they're going to get more liberal? Are they going to try and push back what's happening there?
- [39:08]
Congressman Andy Ogles
Well, I mean, I would say the Democratic Party has already been hijacked to the left and I think this is going to make it even worse. But you know, the speaker sent Hakeem Jeffries flowers because, you know, it was the Mamdani candidates that swept New York, not the Hakeem candidates. And so there is a real shift, a power shift that's taking place amongst the Democrats in the House of Representatives. And quite frankly, I don't think that bodes well for them because they're so out of touch, out of pace with the working class American, the blue collar American from whether it's Ohio or Iowa or South Dakota, they don't get New York liberalism and socialism. And it's going to. I think ultimately there will be a backlash. I think that plays out over a couple of cycles. But the Democrats have a real problem. And quite frankly, I think Hakeem Jeffries, whether or not he's leader next cycle, he's going to have a problem as well.
- [40:00]
Cabot Phillips
One thing that stuck out when I was looking through the voter data in New York, these socialist candidates did best in high income precincts. They did best with white voters, with college educated voters. This isn't some working class revolution. These are wealthy white people predominantly voting for them. Why do you think that is?
- [40:20]
Congressman Andy Ogles
I have no idea. You think they know better? But it's white liberals. It's always the white liberals, the one that are causing the trouble.
- [40:26]
Grant Bailey
Right.
- [40:26]
Congressman Andy Ogles
You know, it's. And is it a mental illness? I don't know. Is there a psychologist on board that can answer that question? But I mean, clearly there's something going on there. But I mean, when you look across the political spectrum, the ones that are the most vile, they whine and complain about everything. It's always the white liberals, hands down.
- [40:46]
Cabot Phillips
We had a psychologist on the show yesterday. I should have asked him that question. But I want to get. Now, Congressman, I want to get to your Remigration act, which is delighting many people on the right and also causing some heartburn for some of the establishment folks and of course, angering people on the left. Tell us about your Remigration Act.
- [41:06]
Congressman Andy Ogles
Well, if I'm angering people on the left, I'm doing my job right, because they're out of touch with America, they're trying to destroy the Constitution, and they're undermining our president. So that right there, when you're taking flak, you're over the target. And so that right there tells me that it's a brilliant idea and that it's going to do what it should do, which is help fix this country and take our country back. So look, you go back to 1965. We've talked about immigration before. That's when the evasion began of this country of people wanting to come here. And it really escalated after that. So before 1965, we had a quota system. That's why I had the Assimilation act, which fixes the H1B visas, which fixes and ends the chain migration. You have to have a job, you have to do a background check, all common sense kinds of things. But now the question is, what do you do with all of those people that are here, 10 million, 12, 15 million people that are here illegally that quite frankly shouldn't be here? That's where re migration comes in. So my bill, if you've been here, if you've come in the last 10 years and you've committed a crime, if you've come here under false pretense like Mamdani, who lied on his N400, he would be denaturalized and deported. You're welcome, New York. But it's a common sense approach to say you got, you came here, you came here to cheat, lie and steal from the American people. We don't want you here. We're going to denaturalize you and we're going to send you home. And so again, when you look at immigration, when you look at the crisis, this is a kitchen table issue. And some people try to make it sound like this is controversial. Most Americans agree that if you're here illegally, you shouldn't be here.
- [42:36]
Cabot Phillips
That has been fascinating to see the polling on that where that is an issue where Americans, despite we hear in the media, do still agree with the president's deportation agenda. I was reading through some of the things that you have said about this bill. You talk about folks who would be eligible. I guess is the phrase for denaturalization. You mentioned violent crimes, you mentioned other criminal activity, but one thing that stuck out was anti American activity. That's kind of a broad term. So can you zero in a bit on what sort of things will qualify there?
- [43:07]
Congressman Andy Ogles
So imagine someone has come here on a visa, a work visa, a student visa, any kind of visa, any kind of temporary status, and then they come to this country and they're now undermining our government anti American sentiment. Yes, there's First Amendment rights for citizens, but if you're here on a visa, you don't have those same rights. You don't have those same protections. And if you're coming here to undermine this US Government, we're going to kick your butt out of this country. And by the way, one of the things that the bill does is on this denaturalization is instead of being an action by the Department of Justice, the doctor which there's appeals, and it's a slow, methodical process. We would move it over to Immigration and Customs and it would be an administrative process. So you literally could do tens of thousands throughout any given week. And you multiply that times cities across this country. You can then, you know, really re choose. Re migrate people out of this country that quite frankly.
- [44:02]
Jonathan Swan
Let me.
- [44:03]
Congressman Andy Ogles
I'll pick on the Afghanis for a moment. 200,000 came, 300,000 came under Biden. Roughly 52% of them are on welfare. 72, 73% are getting free health care. That's not why you come to this country. You come to this country to work and to be a part of our civilization, not to steal from us and be leech to the taxpayer. I'm sick and tired of this crap. The American people are sick and tired of this crap. And this next election is going to be a pocketbook election. And it's going to be an election on immigration because Americans want their cities back. They want their countries, their cities and their communities to be safe. And you look at what President Trump has done in Memphis, that was the most violent city in America and now crime's down over 50%. We can take our streets back.
- [44:44]
Cabot Phillips
Congressman, we have one more minute. So I want to get to another bill that you are pushing addressing Internet scammers. I just found out last night that someone somehow stole my debit card information and racked up about $2,000 at Louis Vuitton and at a Dollar Tree. So this made me perk up when I heard this. What are you trying to do to crack down on these Internet scammers well,
- [45:05]
Congressman Andy Ogles
it's a real problem. I really got interested in AI because of the complexity of the AI and their ability to help commit fraud. And so you imagine creating bank statements and voices and so forth and so on. So really creating that framework where we can identify and target those individuals and quite put them away because disproportionately our seniors are being impacted by this. So I'm on Financial Services, which is the Banking Committee, where we see a lot of fraud. Then I'm on the Homeland Security and chairman of Cyber, which again, there's a good cohesion and overlap there with jurisdiction. So it's really been a big issue for me, Cyber and AI, both from a Homeland Security perspective, but also protecting our seniors and really anyone who has online banking. And quite frankly, I don't do online banking. I don't use my phone because they are so vulnerable to being hacked.
- [45:56]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah, I will submit all the information if you get this thing passed because I want this scammer at the front of the line for getting punished and maybe denaturalized, who knows? Congressman, it's always great to have you on. We appreciate your time. You're welcome back anytime.
- [46:10]
Congressman Andy Ogles
Absolutely. Thank you so much.
- [46:12]
Cabot Phillips
All right, that was Congressman Andy Ogles from here in the great state of Tennessee. Guys, I'm very excited because I get to appease you. So many times I see the comment section when I meet Daily Wire listeners out in the wild. I love those conversations. And one of the most common questions I get is, when's the next Daily Wire movie coming out? We love all the movies. When's the next one? Well, I am very happy because I get to tell you about the next movie that we just rolled out the teaser trailer for today. It's starring Hollywood icon Jonathan Majors. Have a look.
- [46:48]
Tim Rice
We have a terror warning in Northern Virginia.
- [46:51]
Congressman Andy Ogles
Radical Islam has designs openly on the West.
- [46:53]
Meg Brock
The FBI reported a terror plot on New Year's Eve. Violent attack over the Halloween weekend in Michigan.
- [46:59]
Cabot Phillips
Protests on college campuses showing no signs of stopping. Sam, It's gonna be good. If you guys loved the first Runhide Fight, you will love this one even more. It's Runhide Fight on steroids. Just trust me, it's going to be very good. I've already seen the full trailer, which is going to be coming soon. And you guys are not going to want to miss this movie. And now is a good time to remind you guys, if you're watching Wired in live on the Daily Wire plus app, thank you. If not, that's where you should be. That's how you get push alerts when we go live. Breaking news as it happens and the latest from our investigative reporting team. The Daily Wire plus app is free and available now on the App Store, Google Play, Samsung, Apple tv, Roku, LG and more. Well, it is no secret, as we've talked about on this show, that Americans are having fewer kids than ever before. Our fertility rate has been on the decline for decades, and we are now well below replacement level. That means we're not having enough babies to keep our population alive. In nearly every region across our great country, the number of children has steadily fallen, except one, the south. Over the last five years, the number of Americans under 18 in the American south has actually increased. It's decreased everywhere else. Here to explain what's behind that trend is Grant Bailey, research fellow at the Institute for Family Studies. Grant, it's great to have you on. Thanks for being here.
- [49:21]
Grant Bailey
Thanks for having me.
- [49:23]
Cabot Phillips
So first, Grant, just tell us about these numbers. Give us some context. How much of a decrease in kids have we seen in each region of
- [49:29]
Grant Bailey
the U.S. well, yeah, so this is a fantastic question. You know, we were looking at going back to the 2024 election, comparing birth rates across different counties in the United States. And we found an increasing connection between Trump voting counties and higher fertility rates. And then, you know, Kamala voting counties and lower fertility rates. So that was sort of increasing. Whether red or blue counties, that's been a tighter connection. So like you were sort of saying, we've seen declines in fertility rates across the board, but we've seen general, what we might say approaching a collapse among blue populations. And so you're going to see that reflected in populations such as in Texas, where we see not nearly the sorts of declines in population projected as we sort of see in California once you control for immigration.
- [50:23]
Cabot Phillips
When you talk about the political aspect there, following the 24 election, we know that conservatives are having more babies than liberals. Did that Trend accelerate after 2024? And do you think it could be a sense of conservatives saying, hey, things are going well in the country. Let's have another kid, and liberals saying, this is awful. The world's going to end over the next four years. This is a terrible time to have a kid.
- [50:45]
Grant Bailey
Yeah. So going back in the 1980s, there was a difference between conservative and liberal fertility rates, but it wasn't nearly as drastic as it is now. We sort of seen, like for ages 25 to 45, a huge decrease in both liberal women and men who are becoming fathers. So a 21 percentage point decrease specifically for A report we just did, 21 percentage point decrease among fathers in that age or men in that age becoming fathers. So it's a widening gap. And the thing that is particularly concerning is that among those teens that identify as liberal, going back from the 1980s to the present, we've seen a massive decline in those who say they want kids. So it's not just that people aren't having kids, they're saying that they don't want kids. And this gap seems to be growing.
- [51:41]
Cabot Phillips
What do you make of that political breakdown? Why do you think liberal Americans are less keen on the idea of having kids and are less keen on actually having kids?
- [51:53]
Grant Bailey
Yeah, so it's complicated because when you go back, liberal and conservative kids in the 90s, 2000s, they said they wanted to get married, they said they wanted kids. And it's only really recently, since 2015, that these 12th graders have sort of had this divergence where conservative men and women are prioritizing marriage and fertility or having kids down the line. And a smaller portion of liberal men and women, you know, these are actually their boys, they're 12th graders are saying it. So the causes are hard to pin down. It's certainly interesting that it's kicked up with 2015. That's huge increase in social media usage. It's also the MeToo movement. We see political polarization and the left moving further left. So these are all sort of things going into these dynamics.
- [52:43]
Cabot Phillips
I would also throw in a few other things there. I think there's the rise of the climate alarmism, of a lot of young people being inundated with this idea of the world is going to end. This is a terrible time. How could you bring children into a world when those children are just going to bring about the end of the world through climate change? I imagine that is playing a role. And also I think there's a cultural element here as well, of so many young women, especially on the left, being told to forego marriage, to focus on their careers, and that children will hold them down. And so I imagine that is taking place as well. That's probably harder to quantify, though. And I know you're a researcher and those things can be hard to research, but speaking of your research, I wanna get to another topic that you have been writing and researching about a good deal, and that is on unhappiness in America. As you've pointed out, you guys do great work. One group in particular, though, has seen a larger increase than any other in America when it comes to unhappiness. Tell us more about that.
- [53:42]
Grant Bailey
Yeah. So we're the Institute for Family Studies, and we focus on marriage. And it's easy because when we break things out by married and unmarried, we're always gonna find an effect. Figuring out what's causing that is, of course, the challenge. But sort of what you're saying is we've seen a big increase in unhappiness, specifically among unmarried Americans. Married Americans have seen slight decreases in happiness, but it's unmarried Americans that have specifically seen massive declines in the share who say that they're very happy or even pretty happy. So the reasons behind this are challenging to parse out. Marriage is becoming more challenging to enter into as we become more socially atomized and spend more time online. And so those who get married have more social capital. You know, they're more connected. But also, we know that marriage is a bulwark against loneliness. And so delaying marriage, delaying having kids, just means that you are more prone to the isolating effects that we're seeing in this digital social media era.
- [54:48]
Cabot Phillips
And one more question on that topic of unhappiness. You guys also found some pretty stark divides along income lines and class lines. Walk us through those numbers.
- [54:58]
Grant Bailey
Yeah, so we recently were looking at, when we're looking at sort of fatherhood, the importance of fatherhood. We were looking at happiness and deaths of despair along class lines. And we've seen massive increases in the past 20 years of suicide among working class men. This is probably one of the most striking findings we've had. We've seen it rise substantially compared to just a slight increase among college educated men. So this is one of the alarming things. We also see that a lot of this is connected to family life. So men coming who don't get a college education are more likely to come from broken homes and have worse relationships with their fathers. And we found that fathers and having a good relationship with your father is highly correlated with having good life outcomes and happiness down the road. So all of these things are really connected.
- [55:53]
Cabot Phillips
It is fascinating work you guys do at the Institute for Family Studies. We always love having you all on. Thank you so much for this insight and also, if nothing else, for encouraging dads out there. We just had Father's Day encouraging dads to understand how important their role is in fostering a healthy society in the next generation. So, Grant, thank you so much for your work.
- [56:14]
Grant Bailey
Thank you.
- [56:15]
Cabot Phillips
That was Grant Bailey from the Institute for Family Studies, guys. They say that the true measure of a man is his willingness to admit his mistakes. And for the first few months of this show, I did not make a single mistake. Every opinion I gave was correct, every statement accurate. However, it has come time for me to. To come clean and confess that I was wrong about something. When the World cup was just about to kick off, I regrettably told you all that I did not really care because soccer sucks and the World cup is overrated. I was wrong. Soccer does still kind of suck. However, the World cup is kind of awesome, especially when it's in the United States. I have been drinking up every image of packed stadiums, people chanting USA Singing the national Anthem, every video of little Swedish men marveling at Waffle House, every tweet of Japanese tourists questioning why they, too, don't have unlimited chips. It's been a beautiful advertisement for American greatness on the global stage, one that I was not expecting. And our next guest agrees. It's Daily Wire investigative reporter Meg Brock. Meg, great to have you back.
- [57:21]
Meg Brock
Yeah, thanks so much for having me.
- [57:22]
Cabot Phillips
Thank you for sitting there as I had a little mea culpa. You've got a new piece up on the Daily Wire's upstream page titled when was the last time America felt like this? Can you elaborate?
- [57:36]
Meg Brock
Yeah. I mean, it's world. The World cup season. And I will say my family and I have FIFA fever. A really bad case in our household. We are watching the World cup nonstop. I also, like you, was not always a soccer fan. I actually kind of tying in the last segment. I became a soccer fan because my husband's a soccer fan and he's from South Africa. When we got married, he moved all the way to America to be here with me, and the least thing I could do for him is to at least watch soccer with him. Right. So right now, I mean, if you haven't, I'm sure everyone's noticed. I agree. It's been wonderful to see people enjoying American culture. My family and I recently traveled to the FIFA Fest Fan Festival in Atlanta and just had a great time wearing our red, white, and blue and cheering for America alongside fellow patriots.
- [58:20]
Cabot Phillips
It is kind of wild that it almost feels out of place to see so many Americans wearing red, white, and blue, to see so many Americans chanting USA it almost feels nostalgic in a strange way, where we haven't had something like this that has united people across the country and reminded them of why we are so special in the first place. So I'm gonna give you a chance to make a pitch for why people should be watching the U.S. men's National Team and tuning into the World Cup.
- [58:50]
Meg Brock
Yeah. Well, you should watch it because a, it's where the World Cup's being held in America. Number two reason it' the America 250 is right around the corner. So there's going to be World cup soccer on America's 250th birthday, which is awesome. Three, it's a chance to get to know your neighbors. I would totally recommend putting on a patriotic shirt, going to a local venue, a local sports bar, there's all kinds of watch parties. And just sit with your friends, sit with, make a new friend, Enjoy how beautiful our country is. And that despite ideological differences, there are so many wonderful people in this country. And I think when we get offline and we get into the real world, we really remember that. I know for me, I need to be remembering that when you read all this heavy stuff all day. But really loving our country and being thankful for our country is a sign of optimism. And we want to have a great time with our families. We want to teach our kids to love America. And this is a great way to do that.
- [59:42]
Cabot Phillips
Now, one of the coolest parts of this whole story, as I mentioned earlier, has been the inundation that we've seen of foreigners coming to America, marveling at everything about American culture. Our restaurants, people saying, I can't believe how much small talk there is from Americans. They seem interested in just learning about me. And that's been a nice feel good story. But not everyone has been getting in on the feel good nature of this story, including the legacy press. The Atlantic, for example, ran a piece with the headline, the feel good story of the World cup is too good to be true. Meg, why can't the legacy media ever celebrate anything good about America?
- [60:23]
Meg Brock
I don't know, man. I think people just need to get out more. And again, just focus on all the wonderful things. I am grateful every single day to be in America, to be an American. It's wonderful to when we were in Atlanta, we stayed in a hotel right, right around the corner from where the World cup games are going on. And we did meet a lot of people. We met someone from South Korea in the elevator. We met a father and son from Brazil when we were sitting watching the game at the hotel sports bar. And it was just so much fun to chat. I think it's a game when you see other people cheering for their countries. It's kind of like game recognized game. It's just that beautiful human thing about loving your country, loving where you came from. So if the legacy press can't get on board, that's their loss. We're gonna be having a great time over here at the Daily Wire.
- [61:03]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah, it is their loss. Meg, I know we've been talking about a lot of fun stuff, but you just, you do a lot of very heavy work as well at the Daily Wire. Very important stuff that you're writing about. And I do wanna tell our audience about a very important piece that you've been covering this week regarding a new bill in California that is gonna make it easier for trans identifying kids to cut legal ties with their parents. So can you just elaborate on that for a bit? Tell us what's going on in California?
- [61:32]
Meg Brock
Yeah, I mean, I spoke with Erin Friday, who, if you don't follow her, she's really great on this issue. She's in California and she is an advocate for parents and parental rights against this terrible thing that's happening in our country known as gender ideology. So what happens in California doesn't stay in California. And essentially, California is building out a pipeline that makes it easier and easier for kids who decide that they are a different sex to then legally emancipate themselves from their parents. So this new bill has this provision where if a child is in a residential facility, say, for example, some sort of group home, even a drug rehab program, a boarding school, they could potentially initiate legal emancipation from their families while they are away on these other campuses. And how it builds on another bill where California is allowing kids as young as 12 to basically consent for their own mental therapy in a group home. So when you start putting all these pieces together, it really just is this pipeline that's being created piece by piece to take families and kids away from each other. And it is really, really tragic.
- [62:39]
Cabot Phillips
Yeah, it is. Tragic is the perfect word. And as you said, what happens in California does not stay in California. As we've seen time and time again, such an important topic that you're covering. Meg. We always appreciate your work on the fun stuff and also the serious stuff. I would encourage everyone go read Meg's work, especially in Upstream. It's fantastic. Meg Brock, thank you so much for joining us.
- [62:58]
Meg Brock
Thank you. And go, go Team usa.
- [63:00]
Cabot Phillips
Go, team usa. I'm about to start chanting usa. I don't need a reason. I never need a reason. But I have extra reason this summer. Guys, thank you so much for tuning in on Apple and Spotify. I love all of you. If you want to join our live Q and A chat, I'm going to be joined in just one moment with a Daily Wire social media star who has helped craft our meme game and taken it to the next level. So you got to go over to DailyWire.com subscribe, become a member to get in on that conversation. Get a little behind the scenes look from our Gen Z whisperer as I call him. It's going to be a fun conversation. I will see all of you on Apple and Spotify on Monday. Thanks for watching Wired in Sam.