Wired In: Museums of Woke & The Great Odyssey Debate

Summary

---

Wired In: Museums of Woke & The Great Odyssey Debate

Podcast: Wired In
Host: Cabot Phillips
Date: July 21, 2026

Episode Overview

In this lively episode, Cabot Phillips leads a rapid-fire exploration of the day’s major flashpoints in politics and culture, featuring congressional oversight of the Smithsonian’s alleged “woke” exhibits, the growing call to ban congressional stock trading, reactions to Christopher Nolan’s controversial new adaptation of The Odyssey, debates on therapy culture and family estrangement, a data-driven discussion on education funding, the Iran conflict, and the homeschooling surge. Special guests include Congressman Brandon Gill, White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan, Andrew Klavan, Ben Domenech, Erica Donalds, and Dr. Yosef Wit Doering.

---

Main Segments & Highlights

1. Smithsonian Museum “Woke” Controversy & Congressional Oversight

Guest: Congressman Brandon Gill
Timestamps: 02:12 – 12:41

• Congressional Hearing: The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History was summoned to defend itself against accusations of pushing an “anti-American,” left-wing agenda and embedding progressive ideology in its exhibits, especially under the Biden administration.
• Key Issues Raised:
  • Displays framing politeness as a trait of “white supremacy culture.”
  • Exhibits featuring pro-illegal immigration messages and items.
  • Representation focusing on minority and LGBTQ+ narratives while neglecting founding fathers and traditional US history.
• Notable Exchange:
  • Brandon Gill (03:40):
    “It’s also interesting because the same Mass Action toolkit that your organization has been promoting references politeness as a defining characteristic of white supremacy culture… Ma’am, are you a white supremacist?”
  • Museum Director (03:55):
    “No, sir.”
  • Gill: “Can you help me square why your organization says that being polite is part of being a white supremacist?”
• Gill’s Take (04:39):
  “Of course they take sides in America’s political debates… viewing American history through the lens of things like race or immigration and migration or other sort of left wing buzzwords… It really has gone off the rails.”
• Legislative Pushback:
  • Gill calls for stripping the American Bar Association of accrediting authority over law schools if it pushes DEI-related racial quotas (08:39).
  • Introduction of the Homeownership Eligibility Reform Act, aimed at restricting federal housing assistance to citizens only (09:15).

---

2. Congressional Stock Trading Ban

Timestamps: 10:05 – 12:41

• Bipartisan support is growing for a ban on stock trading by members of Congress and their families.
  • Gill (10:33): “Of course I support it…99% of the country agrees with [banning stock trading]…whenever they realize how much money Nancy Pelosi, for instance, has been making in the stock market, [they] find it absolutely infuriating.”
  • Argument that a ban would not dissuade qualified candidates, as index funds would still be permitted (11:41).
  • Cabot comments, “Maybe it would keep the wrong people from running for office... which might be a good purge” (12:29).

---

3. White House Update: Trump, Lebanon, and D.C. 5 Case

Guest: Mary Margaret Olihan
Timestamps: 12:42 – 21:43

• On the White House Lawn: Mary Margaret provides insights into daily happenings, including amusing details like the tarp disguising White House renovations.
• Trump Press Session:
  • Trump addresses an attack on a New York ICE facility, reiterates priority on deporting criminal illegals, and displays characteristic bravado about his personal safety after attempts on his life (15:50).
  • Addresses China’s alleged attempts to influence elections, emphasizing investigations are ongoing (16:31).
• D.C. 5 Update (17:25):
  • Mary Margaret breaks major news: DOJ will investigate five late-term aborted babies’ deaths, following pressure from Congress and persistent Daily Wire reporting.
    • Olihan (17:25): “Now, four years later, we might actually get some answers. So I was pretty psyched about this. I texted my family about it this morning.”
  • Raises questions about media bias and calls for justice.
• US-Lebanon Flights (20:36):
  • Trump moves to open direct US-Lebanon flights post-meeting with Lebanon’s president, following a journalist’s question—a demonstration of “the power of the press.”
    • Olihan (21:26): “You literally can ask the President something and effect a policy change within a matter of hours.”

---

4. The Great Odyssey Debate: Is Nolan’s Epic Woke—or Worthy?

Guest: Andrew Klavan
Timestamps: 22:03 – 38:39

• Overall Impression:
  • Klavan (22:25): “I thought it was a good solid movie… It’s a good film, but it’s not a great film because Nolan tried to do something with it that he couldn’t accomplish.”
• Wokeness & Casting:
  • Criticizes color-conscious casting, including a Black Helen of Troy and Elliot Page in a minor role—argues casting choices are “not colorblind...it’s woke casting” (24:48).
  • Klavan (24:48): “It’s not really colorblind casting, it’s woke casting… The scene with the main scene with Ellen Page makes it look like Nolan was making an epic film, decided to put his seven year old son in the movie. It’s utterly ridiculous.”
  • Suspects inclusion was to secure an Oscar via diversity mandates.
• Response to Matt Walsh:
  • Klavan (26:59): “The focus on whether a work of art fits in your ideology is deadening to the arts...It’s not a woke film… It’s just a film where he was trying to remake this epic in the image of a man who was born into a society… in a dying society. And he brings that kind of ethos to this film.”
• Meta Commentary: Recommends listeners hear his full review with son Spencer on ‘Klavan’s on the Culture’ for deeper context.
• Broader Take: Warns against both right- and left-wing ideological policing of art.

---

5. Socialism, Trump, and Battles Ahead for Conservatism

Host & Guest: Cabot with Andrew Klavan
Timestamps: 28:58 – 38:39

• DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) Critique:
  • Mockingly refers to them as “Death, Starvation, and Anguish”—says their only innovation is to openly state what the Democrats only allude to (28:58).
  • Emphasizes socialism’s history of failure and authoritarianism.
• GOP Leadership Analysis:
  • Disappointed by VP J.D. Vance's “unformed” ideology, especially on Iran and Israel.
    • Klavan (34:19): “He may be taking some of his tips from the polls, but he’s also taking his tips from ideological fools like Tucker Carlson. And he’s not really thinking this through at the level of endgame of how do we maintain America.”
  • Praises Marco Rubio for recent speeches and clarity.
  • Emphasizes that MAGA’s core value should be freedom and market strength.
• Key Quote (Klavan, 32:02):
  “In America, that ultimate purpose should be liberty and the power of the people… The more power you give government… you are taking power away from the people.”

---

6. Iran Conflict and the White House Response

Guest: Ben Domenech
Timestamps: 39:00 – 44:02

• Domenech on US Strategy:
  • Admin’s response to IRGC attacks described as “isolated targeted strikes” versus the “go big” advocates within the administration, e.g., “Do you take a Moab and do you drop it on IRGC headquarters?” (40:13).
  • Doubts on effectiveness, as Iran successful in forcing US out of some positions and deploying proxies.
  • Domenech (42:51): “I think the President is going to have to make a decision here in pretty short order. And I hope that whatever decision he makes, he comes before the American people and explains it…”

---

7. Homeschooling “Trickle Down Stupidity”? A Data-Driven Rebuttal

Guest: Ben Domenech
Timestamps: 44:02 – 47:20

• Reaction to podcaster Jennifer Welsh’s attacks on homeschooling (“trickle down stupidity,” “preserve the patriarchy”).
• Domenech (44:30):
  “Over the past 10 years, primarily… fueled by the experience during the pandemic, the number of homeschoolers in America has… more than doubled… 7% of K–12 kids are homeschooled or taught at home in some capacity.”
• Homeschoolers outperforming public peers in academics—especially African American homeschoolers per multiple studies.
• Critiques public school system’s monopoly and failing outcomes.

---

8. Education Funding Fallacies: More Money ≠ Better Outcomes

Guest: Erica Donalds, America First Policy Institute
Timestamps: 48:22 – 53:30

• Brookings Report:
  • Poor and minority-majority school districts outspend wealthy districts per student (contrary to popular belief).
  • Donalds (48:29): “The standard response is to throw more money at the problem when the problem is not the money.”
• Key Factors in Poor Performance:
  • Misguided instructional methods, lack of direct phonics, teacher union resistance to merit-based incentives, bureaucratic inefficiency.
  • Teachers unions blocking targeted bonuses—protecting the status quo rather than student success.
• Examples:
  • Chicago spending $10B/year on schools, with “empty” schools staffed at higher numbers than their student population.
  • Advocates for a “parent-directed” education funding model, i.e., school choice and market competition.

---

9. Therapy Culture, Family Estrangement & the “Trauma” Narrative

Guest: Dr. Yosef Wit Doering
Timestamps: 53:32 – 62:52

• Do Therapists Fuel Family Estrangement?
  • Dr. Wit Doering (54:08): “I think we have a culture among the therapists in this country where everything is trauma, everything is abuse… It is easier for a therapist to just affirm, yes, your mother is so bad… yes, you should consider cutting them off.”
  • Critiques affirmational therapy, social media influencer culture, and the popularization of “toxic” and “narcissist” labels.
  • Suggests it is easier for therapists to agree with clients to keep them satisfied, leading to more dramatic family splits.
• Self-care vs. Communication:
  • Growing emphasis on “self-care” can enable immaturity and avoidance instead of fostering family reconciliation.
  • Warns against diluting the definition of trauma, disrespecting those with genuinely traumatic experiences (58:04).
• Social Media Ban & Mental Health:
  • Supports France's ban on social media for under-15s, citing data on excessive use and negative influence (59:38).
  • Doctor: “This is just insanity… [Social media] is mainlining bad ideas into [kids’] heads… If you’re a parent, why wouldn’t you want to get rid of that?”
• Content-Specific Harm:
  • Greatest risk comes from divisive, identity-politics-focused, and algorithmically manipulated content driving family rifts and cultural confusion (61:09).

---

Notable Quotes

• Brandon Gill on Smithsonian exhibits (04:39):
  “Of course they take sides in America’s political debates… it really has gone off the rails…”

• Andrew Klavan’s arts and culture warning (26:59):
  “The focus on whether a work of art fits in your ideology is deadening to the arts.”

• Ben Domenech on homeschooling stats (44:30):
  “…almost 7% of kids… are homeschooled or taught at home… They perform better to the extent that we have statistics in college.”

• Erica Donalds on school funding (48:29):
  “The standard response is to throw more money at the problem when the problem is not the money.”

• Dr. Wit Doering on therapy and trauma (54:08):
  “Everything is trauma, everything is abuse. Everyone is a narcissist. Everyone is trying to be an armchair therapist these days… it doesn’t help people.”

---

Timestamps & Segment Map

• 02:12–12:41: Smithsonian and “Woke” Exhibits with Rep. Brandon Gill
• 12:42–21:43: White House Updates; D.C. 5; Lebanon Travel; Pres. Trump Comments
• 22:03–38:39: Odyssey Movie Debate & Conservative Politics with Andrew Klavan
• 39:00–47:20: Iran Strikes and Homeschooling Debate with Ben Domenech
• 48:22–53:30: Education Funding Realities with Erica Donalds
• 53:32–62:52: Therapy Culture, Family Estrangement, and Social Media with Dr. Yosef Wit Doering

---

Tone & Style

• Fast-paced, sharp, irreverent, strongly opinionated but frequently self-aware and humorous (“Who better to talk about The Odyssey than someone who was alive when it was written—Andrew Klavan”).
• Frequent direct challenges by Cabot to guests, but mostly consensus on larger themes.
• Threaded throughout: skepticism toward mainstream narratives, a celebration of alternative journalism, and an undercurrent of concern for “what’s next” in American culture and politics.

---

Transcript

[A]

Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless build? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat emotional arc, and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately, though, Mint's story is better. Every plan $15 a month, even unlimited. That's it. Happy ending, zero tears. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment

[B]

of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12

[C]

month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees.

[B]

Extra initial plan term only greater than 50gb. Me slow when network is busy, see terms.

[A]

Well, good evening, everybody, and welcome to Wired In. I'm Cabin Phillips coming to you live from Daily Wire hq. We've got a fantastic lineup today, so let's get right to it. In just a minute, we're gonna talk with Congressman Brandon Gill about the Smithsonian's attempt to rewrite American history. And we'll hear about the new push to ban stock trading on Capitol Hill. We've got Andrew Clavin lined up to offer his defense of the Odyssey. I'll even get him to respond to Matt Walsh, who was, we'll say, less of a fan. But we'll also talk with a therapist about whether therapists might be to blame for the rise of young adults cutting off their parents. And we'll hear about a new study dismantling the idea that rich kids receive more public school funding than their poor counterparts. And as always, stick around until the end of our show for the live listener. Q and A. If you're a Daily Wire member, get those questions in the chat. I'll get to them at the end. If you're on Apple or Spotify, you gotta go sign up right [e-mail]

[C]

all

[A]

right, let's do this thing. Roll that graphic. And just a reminder, Wired In Live is now streaming live at 4pm Eastern Monday through Thursday. Get your daily coverage of the news happening right now, hear why it all matters and talk with experts who are actually in the story. Become a member and join the live [e-mail] subscriber. Well, this morning, the director of the Smithsonian National Museum of American History appeared before Congress to defend against accusations that her museum had promoted woke anti American displays under the Biden administration. Leading the charge was Texas Congressman Brandon Gill. He joins us now. Congressman, it's great to have you. Thanks for being here.

[D]

Yeah, thanks for having me.

[A]

So I want to start with this hearing for Folks who are only now becoming aware of this story, tell us what led up to today's event.

[D]

Yeah, this was a hearing today about woke ideology that has infected the Smithsonian Institute, in particular the Museum of American History. And this is something that's been going on for quite some time, really the past decade or so. And it's something that the Trump administration has brought to light over the past month or so. They issued a report, it's about 160 pages, documenting in excruciating detail the ideological capture of the Smithsonian Institution. And I think our role in Congress, because we fund large portions of the institution, they get about a billion dollars of our tax dollars, is to oversee this, oversee what's going on there. So we brought in the head of the Museum of American History to just ask her about some of the exhibits that the museum offers about some of the ideology that it's been pushing on museum patrons. And, you know, kind of the results were predictable.

[A]

I want to show our audience some of those results during your line of questioning. Let's go and play a clip that went mega viral today online.

[D]

Is it important to be polite?

[C]

Excuse me, sir?

[D]

Is it important to be polite?

[C]

Yes, sir.

[D]

It's also interesting because the same Mass Action toolkit that your organization has been promoting references politeness as a defining characteristic of white supremacy culture. Ma', am, are you a white supremacist?

[E]

No, sir.

[D]

You're not? Can you help me square why your organization says that being polite is part of being a white supremacist?

[C]

I'm not exactly familiar with that passage

[B]

of the Mass Action Toolkit, which is not.

[D]

I can show you the passage here.

[B]

I don't.

[D]

Pardon me, I said I just read you the passage from it.

[A]

I feel like every month there is a new clip of you, Congressman, just reading the words of these people back to themselves and watching them squirm. Now, miss Hardig, the woman you're talking with there testified that, quote, the museum does not take sides in America's political debates. Do you agree with that assessment?

[D]

Of course they take sides in America's political debates. And in fact, the Museum of American History was promoting the idea that illegal aliens should be voting in American elections. They were displaying merchandise that had sort of illegal alien insignia on it with the word vote below it, which was a very, very clear message. The institution, as a matter of policy, had been promoting certain liberal ideas, explicitly viewing American history through the lens of things like race or immigration and migration or other sort of left wing buzzwords and left wing ways of framing history. So of course, this is an ideologically captured institution, and that's the problem here. But if you go through some of the things that the Museum of American History has been promoting, some of it is really, frankly, disgusting. I mean, there's one exhibit that displays somebody wearing bondage gear, which is, you know, getting into some sort of unusual sexual practices. There are other exhibits that basically promote people who are, you know, the transgender, you know, Guatemalan, whatever, American immigrant. But while kind of ignoring our founding fathers, I mean, it really has gone off the rails. And that's the problem, because whenever the American people go to the Smithsonian Institution, whenever they go to these great museums, they expect to see something that really shows and encapsulates the grandeur of the greatest country in all of world history. Not an organization that fundamentally seeks to push values that are contrary to what most Americans believe.

[A]

I must say, Congressman, I do think it's fair for some of those displays to be in place because as we've all been reliably informed, transgender, Guatemalan, illegal immigrants built this country, and so it makes sense that they would have a prominent display. I want to get to another topic that you are really leading the charge on in Congress, and this is the crackdown of DEI within American institutions. You're going to be holding another hearing tomorrow that is looking specifically at the American Bar association and how you say they've been discriminating based on race and using DEI to do so. What can we expect to see there?

[D]

Yeah, so we're bringing in tomorrow the president of the American Bar Association. This is the organization, think of it as kind of the umbrella organization for all of the legal field in the United States. So they set accreditation standards for law schools, which gives them a significant amount of power to sort of coerce law schools into pursuing different left wing goals, DEI being one of them. So they'll set standards for diversity in law school admissions. They'll set standards for diversity in the type of coursework that law schools provide. And then they have a series of continuing education classes that members of the ABA can and are required to take, all of which promote left wing values. What we're sort of dialing in on in this hearing is dei. And this is something that, you know, we've been talking about for quite some time, conservatives have been talking about for quite some time. And we believe on a very fundamental level that racialized admissions, for instance, having racial quotas that law schools use to determine who gets accepted into a law school is wrong, that applicants should be judged, for instance, on the basis of merit not on the basis of immutable characteristics like the color of their skin. Now, the President has been very clear that that type of admissions practice is illegal under current law. Nevertheless, the ABA continues to push diversity, equity, and inclusion. So we'd like to bring. Bring her before the committee and ask them and figure out in more detail what's going on, what are tangible steps

[A]

that Congress can take to prevent them from doing these things.

[D]

Yeah, I think that the ABA should lose its ability to act as the accrediting institution. And I think that that would be one of the potential legislative remedies to come out of this hearing. If you aren't going to follow American law, I don't think that you should be given any sort of ability to set the terms of the legal profession.

[A]

Now, on the legislative side, you're also pushing a new bill, the Homeownership Eligibility Reform Act. You say this would bring down the cost of housing and make it more affordable for American citizens to attain a home. What does this bill look to accomplish?

[D]

Yeah, so what we've recognized is that you've got a variety of people who are not American citizens who have access to preferential loans backed by the federal government. And what we're saying is that to the extent that there are any preferential loans that our federal government backs, those should be reserved for American citizens, not for anybody else. So this tightens up lending standards. And I think that that's something that, particularly in an environment where housing prices have been increasing far faster than inflation in many metropolitan areas, that's something that can benefit the American people. Again, it goes back to the core principle, that our job as members of Congress especially, is to represent American citizens. Not everybody on the globe. We represent American citizens, and we ought to be looking out for their interests.

[A]

To that point, a lot of Americans are very frustrated when they see some of the numbers coming out about stock investments. For members of Congress, this has become a big issue. There is a bill making its way to the floor right now from the GOP leadership that would implement at least somewhat of a ban on congressional stock trading. It looks like it would remove the ability for members and their families to purchase individual stocks. Do you support that legislation?

[D]

Of course I support it. You know, there are a variety of things that you can't do if you're a member of Congress. For instance, you can't have a legal, continuing legal practice if you're engaged in the business of creating laws in the United States. I think that makes total sense. And I think it makes total sense that you shouldn't be trading individual stocks if you're a member of Congress, particularly with jurisdiction over any given area. So I think, you know, this is another one of those issues that outside of Washington, 99% of the country agrees with and finds. You know, whenever they realize how much money Nancy Pelosi, for instance, has been making in the stock market, find it absolutely infuriating. So I'm glad that House Republicans are taking the lead on ending this practice. And I hope, you know, we'll see. I would love to see Democrats get on board with this. I don't suppose they will or not many of them will, but we'll see.

[A]

Now, the response from critics has been that this will prevent businessmen and other top talent from running for office because they might miss out on money in other industries. Do you think that argument holds any weight?

[D]

Listen, we're saying that you can't trade individual stocks. You can buy an S&P 500 index fund that invests in the broad market. I don't see a problem with that. I don't think that this should stop anybody from wanting to run for office. We're simply saying that we want to be very, very clear, both for members of Congress and for the American people who are watching, that members of Congress are not profiting off of their political office. And this is a core part of providing that assurance to the American people. They get so tired whenever they see people who come into office and see their net worth, see they're explode or see people like Nancy Pelosi trading off of what appears to be inside information. So, no, I don't think that this will stop anybody who is qualified for running for office if they're running for

[A]

the right reasons, as you say, maybe it would keep the wrong people from running for office in the first place, which might be a good purge there. Congressman, always a pleasure to have you on. We really appreciate your time.

[D]

Thanks for having me again.

[A]

That was Congressman Brandon Gill from the great state of Texas. Let's jump across town where we've got Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan standing by. Mary Margaret, great to see you. How are we doing today?

[C]

Hello. I'm doing great. How are you doing?

[A]

I am doing wonderfully. Are you on White House grounds right now?

[F]

Where are we?

[C]

I am, actually. It is.

[A]

Oh, there we go.

[C]

Right behind me. I don't know if you can see it.

[A]

Yes, that big white building

[C]

you can see right here. That's actually not the pillars, that's a tarp that they put over the White House. So that while they renovate that part of the White House, it still looks beautiful and as if it has nothing going on. So I don't know if you can see through that and tell what the tarp is, but I keep staring at it today because I'm fascinated by how lifelike it looks.

[A]

Yeah, that is a very President Trump thing to say. Hey, I want some new construction, but I want the construction to be beautiful. Speaking of President Trump, you got a chance to talk directly with the leader of the free world today. You asked him a few questions in the Oval, in the Oval Office. What did he have to say?

[C]

Yep.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So we got to go in the Oval Office earlier today because Trump was meeting with the President of Lebanon. He was having a bilateral meeting with him. And those are always fun because the press just really squeezes in there. The foreign press are really crazy, usually pretty rude. They shove in front of you. They get in your way. Thankfully, I had a decent spot so we could see the President, Pete Hegseth, Vice President Vance, a whole slew of other Cabinet officials, all in there today. And when I got this opportunity, I asked the President about this attack on the ICE facility in New York City yesterday that we talked about on the show. I wanted to get the President's reaction because he hadn't publicly reacted to it yet. And the President denounced the action. He talked about how important it is for ICE to deport illegal criminals from our country. And then he kind of went into a long, long commentary on what he has done to make our city SAFER, such as D.C. he said that if Chicago would let him, he would happily lend his help and his aid to. To Chicago and help them to get the city cleaned up and become much more safer. And so on that point, as the President was talking about how important it is to him and how much work he's put into making our country safer, I said to him, do you feel safe in our country? Because, of course, Cabot, we know there have been more than three attempts on the President's life. One of them most recently was at the White House correspondence dinner in April. And I'm going to the next one, which will be on Friday. And Trump is as well. He'll be speaking there. So that was, you know, top of mind to me. And the President said, of course I feel safe. Why wouldn't I feel safe? And then he moved on to the next question. So very Trumpian, you know, kind of bravado. But at the same time, you know, he's talked a lot about how the Secret Service Their job is to keep him safe. And he, he thinks that, you know, they're doing a good job. And he's also joked to people like Joe Rogan, I believe, about how, you know, yes, you could be taken any day and you might as well be prepared for it and be, frankly, in his, in his estimation, be tough about it. And that's really his attitude about a lot of these threats that we've seen,

[A]

very Trump like response there. You ask him one question and you say. And then he launched into a long answer. On a somewhat related topic, you have asked President Trump many questions and it feels like there's a little bit of a trend developing there. One of the things I was interested on was President Trump's address last Thursday where he outright accused China of attempting to influence the 2020 elections. He said that they'd hacked into US voter files. And at one point he alleged that the Chinese had potentially offered payments to US Journalists to try and sway their coverage of his administration. Has he weighed in at all or did he talk at all today about if there might be some consequences for Beijing?

[C]

Yeah, my friend Reagan Reese actually asked him about this. She, she posed a question basically, are there going to be any consequences? And the president showed himself very willing to look into all of this, to have all of it investigated to determine, you know, what steps we can take next. And then he kind of moved on fairly quickly to the next question. And I believe it was from my, my friend Dan Baldwin, who works for One America News on a different topic. So it's definitely top of mind for him. But I think he recognizes that there's, there needs to be. Well, there has already been investigations into the topic. We need to have a little more work done before we can finally decide, you know, what course of action needs to be taken.

[A]

Let's get to another topic, this one on the DOJ where you had an exclusive report up this morning on the Daily Wire involving Todd Blanche and the D.C. 5. Can you explain this story, give us some backstory and context here and what you're reporting?

[C]

Yeah, absolutely. So this is a story that's really close to my heart. This is a story that I've written about for years. Back in 2022, I wrote this for the Daily Wire how these five babies had been found outside of an abortion clinic here in Washington, D.C. these babies were the size of a fully formed baby, but they showed signs on their bodies that they had been illegally aborted using some really gruesome partial birth abortion techniques, which are actually illegal, believe it or not even though DC has no abortion laws. There's a national federal law that says you cannot perform a partial birth abortion on a baby. Now, these babies, once they were found outside this abortion clinic, they were turned over to authorities. D.C. is very liberal, didn't care. Metropolitan Police Department didn't care. So they've been in the care of these, the D.C. medical examiner for years now, which refused to tell me for years whether they had done autopsies on these babies. I've been asking since 2022 and obviously under the Biden administration, no one had any interest in investigating this. But now under Trump, all these Republican lawmakers, they gave me the scoop on their letter, led by Mike Lee and Chris Smith, where they went to Todd Blanche and said, we want you to commit to investigating this fully and finding out what happened here. Which is huge, Cabot, because before now, there wasn't even really that much interest from the Trump administration, as far as I know, in, in investigating this. But the DOJ told me maybe a couple hours ago after we reached out about this letter, they told me that they've been gathering everything that they have on this topic and they're turning all of it over to Congress. And if Congress decides that any of it merits investigation, DOJ is going to look into it and investigate. So huge news, big development. And, you know, I'm really proud of the work that I've done and the work that the Daily Wire has done to bring light on this issue. Because when this happened originally, there were very few people who cared. There were very few people that wanted to dig into the topic. They thought it was gross, they thought it was gruesome and morbid. But, you know, I had the support of Daily Wire and we did a lot of really important journalism on this topic and kept it in the news. And now, four years later, we might actually get some answers. So I was pretty psyched about this. I texted my family about it this morning. And you know, in the news, you don't always get excited about news stories. A lot of it just feels pretty mundane. But this is really important. So I can't wait to see what we find out.

[A]

It is commendable. And I just, I have to wonder if these were five babies who were say, a week old and there had been five one week old babies who were murdered and there was no investigation into who killed them. This would be a case that the media was all over. There would be the case of the serial killer taking out babies across D.C. it would be a serial killer case. But there's seemingly no interest in finding this case because those babies were unborn, it appears, at the time of their death. And I just want to thank you for the work that you've done to ensure that there is justice there. Before we let you go, Mary Margaret, one more question. President Trump, I've seen just in the last hour you've posted about this, saying that the US Is going to be maybe opening up some relations a bit with Lebanon when it comes to air travel and Americans being able to go to Lebanon. What happened there?

[C]

Yes, actually, he was asked during the bilateral today whether, I believe it was a Lebanese reporter that posed the question whether he was going to open up a direct flight from the US To Lebanon. And during the bilateral, the president said he would think about it. And then, yep, sure enough, a couple hours later, there we are with the truth social from the president, saying that because he loves the president of Lebanon and they got along so well, he's going to open up that direct flight so that Americans can visit what he called, I believe, a beautiful, this beautiful country. And it just goes to show you, Cabot, too, and I hate to sound like a lib here, but the power of the press, where you literally can ask the President something and effect a policy change within a matter of hours. So that's why we want our Daily Wire viewers. If you guys ever have questions that you want us to ask, send them to me via email and we might be able to ask them.

[A]

As a parent, when I say I need some time to think about it, that usually means I'm telling my kids no. But when you're the President of the United States, you can say, I need some time to think about it. And it can mean yes, as we saw today. Mary Margaret, always a pleasure to have you. We love getting to chat. Thanks so much.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

That was Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan again. You can keep up with all of her reporting over on the Daily Wire. Well, they say that Helen of Troy had a face that launched a thousand ships. Christopher Nolan's the Odyssey is a film that has launched a thousand hot takes. Everyone seems to have an opinion on the latest Hollywood blockbuster.

[B]

So.

[A]

So who better for us to bring in to talk about it than a man who was actually alive when the Odyssey was originally written. It's Daily Wire host Andrew Clavin. Andrew, it's great to see you.

[G]

It's good to see you, Kabat. I actually sank 10 ships. That was not as impressive, but something

[A]

still heroic, and you deserve credit for that. Okay, let's start Big Picture. What do you think of the movie?

[G]

I thought it was entertaining. I thought it was a good solid movie. It had a lot of wonderful set pieces, which is important because if you read the poem, what most people remember about the poem is the set pieces, you know, the fight with the Cyclops and the engagement with Circe the witch and the section, the set piece in the film of the Taking of Troy is absolutely brilliant, incredibly suspenseful. And even though I know the poem well and knew the outcomes of all the set pieces, they were always suspenseful and interesting. So visually it's a good summer and entertainment and it tops off what I'm calling Hollywood's White Boy Summer where suddenly Di and the. The mass firing and exclusion of white writers and directors came to an end. And we suddenly got all these new voices with films like Back Room and Obsession. There were really interesting movies after five years of just complete garbage coming out of the West Coast. So this is a. A really good film. It's not a great film because the script is not very good. And unfortunately Nolan had some kind of concept that he wanted to take this character, Odysseus and make him sort of almost a modern. Full of feelings that he wouldn't have felt and doesn't feel in the poem of guilt of war. Guilt and the horror of war. And you know, Homer's very aware of the horror of war, but he understands it's something humans do. And Odysseus is kind of the ultimate sneaky warrior. He's the ultimate clever warrior who defeats people with his brains as well as his might. And so it doesn't really fit. You know, I don't care if a director wants to say something I disagree with. And this I differ from most of my colleagues in the political press. I don't care if a director or a writer says something I disagree with. What I care about is a work of art, works as a work of art. And this doesn't quite work. It's a good film, but it's not a great film because Nolan tried to do something with it that he couldn't accomplish. And it doesn't really make sense in the context you mentioned.

[A]

White Boy Summer. I'm here wondering if Ellen or Elliot Page qualifies for White Boy Summer. You know, that was a portion of the film that got a ton of press. And one thing that I've heard from some conservatives is that even if you find films like this entertaining by supporting work that take woke liberties with the classics, you're if nothing else, allowing the Overton window to be shifted or making that sort of thing permissible. What do you say to those people?

[G]

Well, I actually understand what they're saying because it is a ratchet that only goes in one direction. So for instance, if you cast a black actress as Nolan did as Helen of Troy, then you're evil and a racist for saying that. That's bad casting. But if you try to cast an actor who can hear in a deaf role, suddenly you have violated woke principles. So it only goes in one direction. It's not really colorblind casting, it's woke casting. Here's the thing about this. In this instance, the effect on the film of what's her name? Ellen, whatever her name is. Page, Elliot Page. And of the again, the casting of Helen, very small effect on the film, but the effect it has is bad. It makes the film worse. The scene with the main scene with Ellen Page makes it look like Nolan was making an epic film, decided to put his seven year old son in the movie. It's utterly ridiculous. And though Helen is gorgeous and she's a great actress, she doesn't fit in the movie and it's jarring. So it was a mistake and I think he did it. My guess is that he did it so he could win an Oscar. One of the triumphs of Woke up in Hollywood is that they won't give you an Oscar if there's not a lot of participation by minorities or a subject matter that involves minorities. And I think he wants that Oscar and maybe wants forgiveness for saying something controversially conservative in his Batman movies. But I think he made a mistake and I think he should have done it with integrity. The film with integrity. The effect is small, but it's bad. It's a bad effect.

[A]

One more question on this element of the film. I want to read a quote to you from a distinguished Hollywood actor and noted documentarian. Quote, the movie is just as woke as you fear, if not more so. The DEI casting is atrocious. Nolan turns Odysseus into an anachronistic, whiny, solemn shell of a man plagued by trauma and guilt. That man who gave that quote is none other than Matt Walsh. I want to give you the chance to respond here to Matt Walsh. Let's get him right here. So go ahead, Matt. Wa the floor is Andrews. Let's hear what you have to say to Matt.

[G]

I like you that you're holding that up. I wish I had some darts, but I think that this is one of the reasons we can't have nice things in the Arts, to be absolutely honest with you, I think that the focus on whether a work of art fits in your ideology is deadening to the arts. As we just saw over the last five years of Woke Creation, when every Hollywood movie sucked because it was governed by wokeness. If we govern it by right wing wokeness, it's going to be the same way. You go to a work of art to learn about the human condition. You go to a work of art to enter another man's imagination. And this movie does that to some degree and fails in certain points. But it's a very good movie and I think people are enjoying it and I enjoyed it very much. But I just don't think it's a great film because of the poor writing. It's not a woke film. It's not. I think Shapiro is saying it's a secret Christian film. It's not that either. It's just a film where he was trying to remake this epic in the image of a man who was born into a society. He's a British director, so he's a British American director, so he's actually got a mind that was created in a dying society. And he brings that kind of ethos to this film. And I'm not even sure he does it on purpose. I think it's just how he sees things and who he is. But I think he didn't really capture the adventurous nature of this guy, the warrior nature of this guy. And the scenes where he does capture are the best scenes in the picture.

[A]

I want to get to some other topics, but for anyone who wants to hear Andrew give his full take on this film, I have good news. He and his son Spencer give a full breakdown of the Odyssey. Go check it out on Klavan's on the Culture on Daily Wire. It's fantastic stuff. It will make you, if nothing else, far more educated, or at least it'll make you feel more educated. Andrew, let's get to some politics. We've been talking a lot on this show about the rise of these far left socialist types you have termed the DSA death, starvation and anguish. What do you make of this shift more broadly that we're seeing on the left?

[G]

Well, first of all, I think you should pay tribute to the song, the campaign song I wrote for the dsa, my personal show called We Hate you, Please Vote for Us. I think if you take a look at the DSA website, you will see an absolute hatred of this country, a dream of destroying the form of government that has worked so well and made this country so great. And a completely weird, weirdly unrealistic take on what socialism will look like. A system that has failed everywhere it's been tried and usually results in mass murder. So it's actually a kind of nutty, bizarre, unwell thought out take on human politics. And yet, because it's really no different than what the Democrat Party has been selling, this idea that, oh, they're moderates. The moderates are losing their ground to the radicals. The only thing radical about the DSA is they're saying out loud what the Democrats have been saying secretly. When the Democrats run, they run as moderates. Obama ran as a moderate. When they get into office, they govern as radicals. And so all these guys are doing is telling the truth. All the DSA is telling the truth about what the Democrats stand for. They stand for basically taking your freedom away. But they're going to make your life bliss. It's never worked before. It can't work. And it's inherently authoritarian. Once the government controls all the money, they always say, oh, we're going to make all the money equal. Well, how do you do that? You give government control of the money. That means they're in control of your life, of everything you create and everything you do. And that's what America has been trying to avoid for 250 years. So I think it's a dangerous moment. I think that I personally have been afraid of AOC since she came to office. She's a talented politician. She's ignorant, but she's not stupid and she is eloquent and she's attractive. And you notice that all the DSA candidates look exactly like her. They're all like, they print them out like on an assembly line. And it's really going to matter what happens in the, how the Trump administration ends up and who of course follows him. And right this minute, I think his crown Prince, you know, J.D. vance is doing a very bad job and he's making a fool of himself. I was a big supporter of Vance. I chose him as vice president before the President chose him as vice president. And he's been very disappointing and very lost in his role in the Iran war and in other things. And so right now, Marco Rubio, who made a speech on communism the other day at the State Department, I believe was one of the most brilliant speeches I've heard in a long time. And I think he is rising and Vance is just bawling and I just hope we wind up with a candidate for the next presidential election who can take on the dsa. Because once you challenge them with intelligence, with history, with facts, with knowledge, you can destroy them.

[A]

Let's flesh that out, because we had a guest on last week who presented the J.D. vance, you know, sort of wing of the Republican Party when it comes to economics. He presented the argument there. Let's hear your case for why you think J.D. vance's version of economics is not the right solution to this rise of socialism.

[G]

Well, let me be clear that I don't hate J.D. vance. I hear a lot of people saying he's evil, he's a bad guy. I don't think he is a bad guy. I think he is missing a certain top tier of principles. It's a wonderful thing to stick by your party, and it's a wonderful thing to love your country. It's a wonderful thing to want to govern in accord with the Constitution. All of those things are great. But you have to have a purpose, an ultimate purpose. And in America, that ultimate purpose should be liberty and the power of the people. Not power, you know, the power of the people through their representatives. And I think the more power you give government, whether it's to take over businesses, as Trump has done in part, or whether it's to tell people that their speech is hateful and therefore should be banned from social media, whatever, you give power to the government, you are taking power away from the people. And he's not thinking clearly about this. His take on the war has included a kind of gullibility about Iran's willingness to deal and make a deal. And I think he sold that idea to Trump. And it's also included a lot of talk about Israel that's simply unfactual and. And doesn't take into account the fact that Israel is the only free, truly free country in the Middle East. And that has nothing to do with criticizing or appraising Israel. It's just a fact that that is the place where if you are a female, if you are of a different religion, if you disagree with them, you have the right to do, to live and to thrive and to prosper in Israel. And that's just not true in the rest of the Middle East. So there are natural allies. They've been good allies. And when he throws them under the bus because Iran is going to make a deal, he's showing that. He's just not very clued in to what's actually happening. And so I just find a detachment from reality in him that I think is based on the fact that he just hasn't formulated that top tier of principle that a really great politician needs.

[A]

Do you think that that sort of sentiment from JD Vance on a topic like Israel or on economics is less ideologically driven and more politically driven? You know, I'm sure he's reading the poll numbers and he sees the way that young voters feel, the way that even many of the Trump coalition feel on these topics. And is he saying, I'm gonna take more of a populist approach here and not get too caught up on the ideological side of it? Do you think that's what he's doing?

[G]

Well, he is an ambitious man, but I don't think he's only ambitious. I think he's somewhat unformed. He had a very traumatic childhood. And people who suffer from trauma, they either come out of it hard as nails and on a mission, or they come out of it kind of unformed. And it sometimes takes them extra years to become fully formed. And I think that that's his problem. He's taking. He may be taking some of his tips from the polls, but he's also taking his tips from ideological fools like Tucker Carlson. And he's not really thinking this through at the level of endgame of how do we maintain America. I always feel anytime you say, make a proposal in America, it should end with the words, and keep us free. You know that, in other words, we're going to solve this problem and keep us free. And if you solve the problem by giving power to government, you're not fulfilling that last part of the sentence. And he's just not thinking it through. He just has not got a formed. I'm not sure he has a formed personality, and he hasn't got a formed philosophy. And so he is blown by the winds of the people around him and by the polls. But I don't think he's a pure, like, ambitious opportunist. I think he is trying to form an idea that's just not coming out quite right.

[A]

I had Mark Halpern on the show yesterday, and we were talking about this critique from some in the Vance wing of the party where they say, hey, all the people that are kind of knives out right now for JD Vance, these are people, if you look back, did not want Trump to win the nomination in 16 or in 2024. And so these are people who are coming after Vance because they know that he'll be a continuation of the America First. Do you think that that's a fair critique?

[D]

No.

[G]

That was why I loved Vance at the beginning, because I thought that he would be. I thought, you know, I've Always thought it was wrong when guys like Reagan would pick a vice president like Bush because that would ease the consciences of the moderates. And then when Reagan went, Bush came in, and basically it was just not, did not continue the Reagan revolution. And I thought it was great that Trump picked a young person who might, in fact, continue the MAGA revolution. That's what I'd like to see. But the MAGA revolution is interesting because it's not an ideological revolution. It's a revolution of common sense. And when I'm reading Vance's book now, and it's not full of common sense, it's full of a guy feeling his way and trying to find some kind of solid thing to hold onto and not really doing it very well. And so, no, I want the MAGA revolution to continue. That's exactly what I want. I want a revolution to keep common sense alive in our government, but I also want to keep freedom alive, first and foremost. And I think that if you give more power. Look, I think Donald Trump has been a great thing for this country, but that doesn't mean that everything he does is right. You know, I think that he broke the stranglehold that the left had on our communication system. He helped the Daily Wire break it and other rebel media.

[E]

He's.

[G]

He's helped bring back the courage of speaking your mind. He's helped bring back the common sense of using American strength when it's needed overseas and American clout when it's needed among our allies. He has done some terrific things. But when he takes pieces of a business and says part of that profit is going to go to the government, that's a mistake, because the little guy who's building the new businesses in his garage has no way to compete with that, because the government is now. Now has an interest in that business. So Trump makes mistakes and on his own. And unfortunately, those are the things that J.D. vance is picking up on and continuing instead of picking up on the common sense and the use of American strength. And when he says, you know, Iran's gonna make a deal, they're ready to make a deal, you know, he's just not talking with common sense. And so I don't think he's the right guy to bring MAGA forward. I have questions about Marco Rubio, but he has been a great addition to this administration. There's no question about it. Every time he opens his mouth, everything sort of clarifies. And so I think that, you know, I think, at least with me, I can only speak personally if you're saying that to me, you're saying it to the wrong guy because I think the MAGA revolution is a great thing and a great transition into a new era.

[A]

Yeah. It's going to be a fascinating two and a half years ahead of 2028, that is for sure. Andrew Clavin, thank you so much for helping us make sense of it all. It's a pleasure to have you on.

[G]

Seriously, great to see you, Keller.

[B]

Thanks.

[A]

All right, that was Andrew Clavin. Go watch and listen to the Andrew Clavin show and go check out Clavin's on the Culture for more of his commentary on the Odyssey and all sorts of other fantastic things. Let's bring in our next guest, the man who retains the title of my mom's favorite recurring guest. That is Daily Wire opinion editor Ben Domenech. Ben, it's great to see you, man. How are we doing?

[F]

I'm good, though I'm not sure if I'm gonna hold that title after Andrew's performance. It's interesting, Cabot, to hear Andrew's perspective on this, and I hope that everyone will check out the conversation that he has with Spencer, because I'm sure it's something that I think people need in terms of enlightenment. There's a lot of things that are flying around about the Odyssey right now, which I appreciate because I have multiple translations of it over my left shoulder. But it's also something that I think where you do need some people to give you some focus as opposed to just assuming things that you see on X are true.

[A]

I have been working all day to memorize some of Andrew and Spencer's quotes from this episode so that I can repeat them to my wife and make her think that I am very thoughtful about.

[F]

You're a very wise man. Yes, that's a very good way to do something as opposed to actually having to do the work.

[A]

Exactly. Okay, Ben, let's get to Iran. Overnight, the US conducted its 10th consecutive nights of strikes. It's interesting, though, President Trump, after those U.S. service members were killed, vowed significant retaliation. But for the most part, we've seen a fairly muted response, or at least not something that has been, you know, much crazier than what we saw before. Do you think that changes in the coming days?

[F]

Well, I think that this is a big moment of kind of testing for the president's approach. And one of the reasons that I think that is because there has been a real tension behind the scenes, one that I'm familiar with and that others have reported about a little bit but, but that I've talked to a number of people who are in the rooms making these decisions, and the tension is basically, do we continue this approach that is pinprick, if you're going to be using the criticism of it, that is isolated targeted strikes, doing their best to avoid any kind of civilian connected target, doing their best to avoid ramping things up in any significant way. Or do you take a Moab and do you drop it on IRGC headquarters, which is basically what people on the other side are saying to do. And I think that the truth is that the president, I'm not sure that he has made his decision on that kind of thing. What we have seen is this. The Iranians have improved their tactics. They have driven us out of our forward operating bases, which is why we even have people in Jordan in the first place to be targeted. We also have seen their enlistment of their Houthi allies in order to do their bidding in the Red Sea, which resulted in two ships being turned back today. You know, and so you could see a situation where they're blockading the region or trying to control blockades of the region as opposed to just the Strait of Hormuz. And what that indicates is a regime that still has a lot more power than what we were being told by this administration from the, the get go. Now, what does that mean? Does it mean the administration was lying to us? No, I think it means that the administration was operating on the intelligence that they had, which said that they had decimated a significant percentage of the capabilities of this regime to project power. And while that can be true, it can also be true that they can still project power in a meaningful way, that they can kill Americans, that they can kill our allies, kill an attack our friends in the area, and the result of that is one that can rock the world. And so I think the President is going to have to make a decision here in pretty short order. And I hope that whatever decision he makes, he comes before the American people and explains it, because I think we're long overdue post the failure of the MoU to have an explanation from the President about what the end game does look like, what he's going to do in order to achieve it. And even if that's delivered in typical Trumpian fashion, where he's sending a message as opposed to just telling you the full, whole and untethered truth, I think that we need to hear that as American citizens going forward.

[A]

Yeah. In the early days of this conflict, there was this phrase that almost became a meme of we're one to two weeks away from completion. One or two more weeks, and this will be wrapped up. At this point, what does an off ramp even look like? How do you wrap this up? At least if not before the midterms, before then, how do you get an off ramp with where we are now?

[F]

Yeah. How many weeks to slow the spread? No, I just don't think that this is a situation that is going to abound to anybody's benefit on the Republican side of the aisle. Consultants are scared. Politicians are scared. They wanted this to be wrapped up. Some of them put their faith in an MoU that myself and others criticize as being clearly something that was not going to work out. Just based on prior history with the Iranian regime. Knowing the way that they've behaved in the past, I think that unfortunately the president was convinced and a number of other people were convinced to go along with it. The president always seemed pretty skeptical about it, though. And so I think that he kind of was the guy in the room saying, I know how these people have been. I'm older than all of you. I remember what they're like, and I just don't think that we may be able to get them to the table and have them negotiate in good faith. And he was ultimately, of course, proven correct in that.

[G]

Hmm.

[A]

All right, let's get to another topic before we go. This is one that I'm sure is near to dear. Near and dear to your heart. It's homeschooling. The far left podcaster, Jennifer Welsh has been on a tear going after homeschooling. She said it was, quote, trickle down stupidity. A, quote, fundamental crazy Christian problem. There was another quote or another clip of her saying that it was meant to preserve the patriarchy. What say you?

[F]

I really wish that people would stop referring to Jennifer Welch as being a. A Bravo star. Since her show was canceled after about two seconds. I'm pretty sure that you could do an entire episode of Wired Live and she would be gone at the end of it. What I also think when it comes to this homeschooling issue is it is astounding to me, I think on a certain level that we would still see these kinds of attacks after what we've seen happen over the course of the past 10 years. Just to give you a few stats, Gabbit, over the past 10 years, primarily, of course, fueled by the experience during the pandemic, the number of homeschoolers in America has, by some measures, in terms of the percentages, more than doubled. We are now at A point where almost 7% of kids who are K through 12 are homeschooled or taught at home in at least some capacity. You see that a number increase, of course, dramatically during the pandemic. And. And what do we see coming out of that experience? We see these kids testing at a significantly higher level than their peers when it comes to standardized tests. They are accepted at colleges at a higher rate. They perform better to the extent that we have statistics in college. And, you know, when Johns Hopkins is looking at this type of situation and saying, you know, we've got a cohort of between three and three and a half million kids in America who are learning better than their peers, particularly, by the way, among African American students who perform at a significantly higher. It's between. I mean, depending on which study, you look at 23 and more than 40% higher in terms of their grade performance than those who are taught by public schools. What you should be asking is, why are we sending kids to public schools in the first place? And as much as people like this horrible harridan are going to go down the road of lying about homeschoolers and depicting them in ways that are entirely false, I think the truth is this is a growing movement for a reason. America's Americans know they've been failed by American education and that they have more opportunities for their children to learn the way that they ought to. And away, by the way, from the kind of screens that are being foisted upon them in public schools when they're learning at home.

[A]

Yeah. I think you yourself are perhaps the best marketing for homeschooling and the success. I'm not.

[F]

I have siblings who are much more academically successful than I am. But I. But I appreciate the. I appreciate the compliment. I just have to say, the world is full of people who hate things that they are not. And I think that this is a perfect example of someone hating people who are intelligent, successful, bright, inquisitive, well read and informed about the world that they live in.

[A]

Anyone who hates Ben Domenech or Cabot Phillips, that is why they hate them. It is jealousy of all the things that we are. Ben, great to have you on as always, man. Really appreciate it.

[F]

Great to be with you. And say hi to your mother for me.

[E]

I will.

[A]

All right, guys, if you're watching Wired in 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 of course, the latest from our 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, for the last decade plus, American test scores in math, science and reading have been falling dramatically at nearly every level, especially for minority students and those in poorer school districts. In response, many have claimed that the problem is simply a lack of funding. They argue that poor kids are underperforming because wealthier school districts are sucking up all the money. But according to new research from the Brookings Institution, the opposite is actually true. They found that poorer and minority majority school districts actually spend more money each year per student than they have for the last 50 years. Joining us with more is Erica Donalds, Chair of Education Opportunity at the America First Policy Institute. Erica, great to have you back on.

[B]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

So some pretty stunning findings in this report. What do you make of it?

[B]

Well, it's not a surprise to those of us who've worked in education. That is the standard response is to throw more money at the problem when the problem is not the money. We know that because of not just this research that's just come out, but we've seen in the past where charter schools and other schools of choice that are less funded than traditional public schools are outperforming the traditional public school system in a variety of areas, including with the most difficult demographics. So we know it's not a money issue. As we watch the public school system throw more money, whether those Title 1 funds, whether it's turnaround funds, it does not return on that investment because it's not the money that is the problem. It is the entire system, the bureaucracy, the lack of rigor in the curriculum, and unfortunately, the teachers unions.

[A]

Can you flush out some of those points you touched on a few of? If it's not the money, what is it? Can you just expound on that a bit?

[B]

Well, we know that the way that we have been teaching kids specifically to read has been completely wrong over the last 50 years. Using the whole language model, getting away from explicit phonics, the science of reading, even today, where we have a multitude and years of studies showing the science of reading is what works for kids. You have Mississippi and Louisiana, which are lower funded states, now outperforming those with much higher, in fact, by multiples of funding because they've actually chosen to implement with fidelity the pedagogy that has worked for centuries on how to teach kids to read using those explicit phonics and, and scientific methods.

[A]

And can you talk more about the role of Teacher unions, you touched on that earlier. I'm interested in their impact on this trend.

[B]

Well, I was a school board member, as you know here in Florida. I came to my board with a proposal so that we would bring veteran high performing teachers into the lowest income areas of our community where they were only getting new teachers because, you know, first in, first out. However, I wanted a graduated system of bonuses to go to these veteran high performing teachers to teach the most disadvantaged and at risk kids. But the teacher student would not allow us to do that. They returned with a $2,500 one time bonus for every teacher that taught out in that community. They didn't have to be a veteran, they didn't have to be high performing. So that did absolutely nothing for the teachers that are in that community. They recently sued a neighboring district for wanting to give bonuses to teachers who wanted to teach in high risk and difficult to staff areas. Thankfully, they lost. So those bonuses are now being delivered to teachers.

[A]

Now on this topic, you've argued that, quote, every education dollar should be parent directed. What do you mean by that exactly?

[B]

Well, I believe in a free market in education, just like every other industry in America that has allowed us to be the greatest country that man has ever known. We are the leaders in business, in technology and innovation in medicine. Because of free market competition, we don't enjoy that same benefit in education in America. I believe when we make parents, the consumers, the people who care the most about their children, who know their children the best, we will see a thriving free market of education options, customization, personalization, more accountability, and therefore better results. That's what we need in every state in America. We're going to start here in Florida.

[A]

And when we're talking about education funding not always correlating with student success, I think the best example might be a city like Chicago. They just released their upcoming annual budget. It's $10 billion for education alone. Not only are their test scores abysmal, they now have entire schools that are nearly empty. Frederick Douglass Academy, for example, is the public school in Chicago. It was built to serve over 1000 students. There are 27 students currently enrolled there. The school has a staff of 28 people, so there are more staffers than students. How does something like this happen in an American city?

[B]

We watch as teachers unions, their allies on these school boards, are holding on to these schools and to these capital, their capital assets for the sake of tradition, for the sake of a jobs program. It's not their money, so what do they care if they're wasting money? On 27 students in a thousand person building. However, good policy like what we passed in Florida that requires school districts to share that empty space with schools of choice, schools that parents choose because they are voting with their feet. Now we see school districts being more efficient with their capital. They're either sharing that space with schools of choice or they're closing the schools that parents don't want. We should not be paying as taxpayers for schools that parents do not want for their children. Unfortunately, I don't think, I don't see Chicago being controlled by the teachers union because making those decisions anytime soon.

[A]

Yeah. And again, lack of funding does not appear to be the issue. You'd think they could do a little bit more with almost $10 billion. Erica Donalds, a pleasure to have you on. Thanks so much for being here.

[B]

Thank you so much for having me.

[A]

That was Erica Donalds from the America First Policy Institute. Well, guys, a controversial op ed in the Wall Street Journal set social media ablaze this week. It argued that modern therapy has significantly contributed to to the rise in young adults cutting their parents out of their lives. Joining us now is friend of the program, board certified psychiatrist Dr. Yosef Wit Doering. Doctor, great to have you back.

[E]

Great to be here, Cabot.

[A]

So as I said, this article caused quite the stir, blaming therapists for this uptick in young adults cutting their parents out of their lives. Do you think they're onto something?

[E]

I think they're absolutely onto something. I think we have a culture among the therapists in this country where everything is trauma, everything is abuse. Everyone is a narcissist. Everyone is trying to be an armchair therapist these days. A lot of these people, you know, part of this is it's actually a social media problem and a cultural trend. So many people go online and they hear from influencers who talk about how toxic and narcissistic the parents are. And then they go in and they see their therapist and their therapists simply affirm them. It is easier for a therapist to just affirm, yes, your mother is so bad, yes, your father is so bad. You know, they're so toxic and nasty and, you know, out of date and behind the times. And yes, you should consider cutting them off. It's a lot easier to do that than to say, well, hang on a second, maybe you're not the most reliable historian. Maybe there's another side to this story and to kind of push back and challenge them a little bit. It does not, it doesn't serve the therapist to do that. And so many of them just affirm this and it leads to the destruction of families.

[A]

What do you mean by it doesn't serve the therapist to do that?

[E]

Well, it's a lot easier to simply just go along with what someone is saying. If they come in and they say, oh, gosh, my family is so nasty and toxic and abusive, the therapist will just lean into that and they'll say, tell me more about that, you know, and how else did this turn up in your life? And, you know, how do you think that affected you? There's a lot of, like, navel gazing in the past and, you know, looking for traumas that really aren't there rather than, hey, what can we do today? What can we do now? How can we bolster these relationships? How can we deal with some very real issues? There's some big cultural gulfs between parents and younger generations now. I mean, the world is changing at a really fast pace. You know, I look at immigrant families as well. I mean, you could have completely different cultures between the parents and the kids who grow up are very westernized. And that can be quite a cultural divide. And I feel like instead of trying to navigate these, you know, these rapid changes in the world, it's very easy for someone to say, oh, just because your parents don't understand you. They're toxic and they're narcissistic and they're abusive, and it doesn't help people.

[A]

When I was growing up, it seemed like the predominant narrative around family conflict was communication, and that open lines of communication should be maintained if at all possible. But there does seem to be this new push to prioritize self care above all else. How do you think that contributes to a trend like this?

[E]

I don't know. It feels kind of selfish. I mean, there's obviously a line everywhere. I mean, if you have a parent that was severely abusive or there was some sexual abuse, I can understand why you may want to cut that off. But nowadays, everyone is just, you know, if there's a disagreement about politics or, you know, if there's an argument and, you know, maybe dad didn't really understand the way, you know, his daughter was feeling. Like, you know, the daughter is now, oh, my God, he's gaslighting me. He's gaslighting me. You know, he just doesn't understand you. You know, it's different and it's. The people are so ready to just say, well, that's abusive. And you need to go, no contact. You need to put down some personal boundaries. And that's like the nuclear option. I mean, like, things are Rarely that bad. I mean, you can work through this. So I feel like self care sounds like a really nice buzzword. Oh yeah. You know, self care, this is, this is a great thing to do. But oftentimes I think it's just immaturity and, you know, there are more adult ways of just dealing with the natural differences that you have with your family.

[A]

You said earlier about how kind of everything has been lumped in with trauma and how every bad experience from someone's childhood is oftentimes now considered trauma. What do you think is the modern idea and concept of trauma and what do you think it actually should be?

[E]

I mean, it has bled out so far. I mean, the term has nearly lost meaning. I mean, you can talk about, you know, as I mentioned, a father, you know, misunderstanding the emotions or, you know, of the daughter and they, they can cause that traumatic. And that's in the same realm as incest or childhood sexual abuse or rape or, you know, someone who, whose friend is blown up by an ied, you know, when they're overseas. I mean, there are truly life threatening, horrific things that happen to people. And then there's all of this other stuff which people say, oh, well, that's traumatic and that's abusive. And so I think we, we've completely, completely bled. You know, it's the, the boundaries have expanded so far. I mean, it's almost, there's, I mean, I, I mean, I almost feel like it's disrespectful to the people who have actually been through really difficult things. A lot of people who are claiming to be traumatized, the things they have, they've gone through, really aren't that bad. And a lot of it is really, you know, some of it's just personality as well. You know, there, there's some sensitive souls out there, but I would not say that you've been traumatized, you know, by, you know, these, by gaslighting or by, you know, maybe some bullying that goes on or some hurtful comments online. I mean, this is just insanity.

[A]

Yeah, I agree with you on that front. I want to get your take on another story that came out today. France just this afternoon became the first country in the EU to ban social media use for kids under the age of 15. Do you think they've got the right idea,

[E]

hey, off the cuff? Absolutely. I wouldn't want my child on social media under 15. And I think there's a lot of data behind this, but there's also just this common sense approach to it. I mean, some of the data that's the most frightening here, Cabot, is that teens, especially US teens, they're spending around five hours a day on social media. This is absolutely insane. I mean, this is time that they previously would have spent sleeping, running around outside, reading books, hanging out with their friends, and instead of doing these. These genuinely healthy developmental activities, they're sitting there getting influenced by absolute brain rot. I mean that. And make no mistake, this is what social media is. This is where kids get these ideas that they're different genders. This is where kids get all sorts of strange ideas about the world. And so if you're a parent and your kid has this device here and it's just mainlining bad ideas into their head, why wouldn't you want to get rid of that? I mean, it's. I think it's terrible for their mental health. And I do think they're really onto something. You know, I really applaud the French government because it was pushed through with bipartisan support. It makes total sense to me.

[A]

Are there specific types of social media content that are more damaging for kids than others?

[E]

I think you can have things that are, yes, there's a baseline of just content that is just distracting. But you can also influence people. I mean, if we're talking about TikTok, where different countries can control the algorithms, or even an our own country where they can essentially, okay, well, this is conservative content. We're going to kind of suppress this now. We're going to allow this other type of content to go up. That's just a form of influence. And this is the kind of stuff that drives wedges between families. When you have some tech overlord in Silicon Valley who's putting his finger on the algorithm to say, this is what I deem to be appropriate and not appropriate. I mean, this is a huge way to influence the way people look at things. So I think anything that deals with culture, identity politics, to me, that can drive conflict, and that's the most dangerous stuff.

[A]

Well, it is a fascinating debate that no doubt will be coming to the United States eventually. It's a topic of concern to many, many Americans. We've seen these big tech leaders brought before Congress to testify on their role in contributing to higher rates of depression and suicide and body dysmorphia. So, again, this is coming from the US So a very important topic. Doctor, always a pleasure to have you on. I'll also let you know I ate that Taco Bell taco on air last week when you were with us, and I feel like a million bucks. So fear not.

[E]

Well, there's that two week latency. So let's see how you're doing next week.

[A]

That's what I told the audience yesterday. I said, well, as Dr. Youssef told us, two weeks to two months, I gotta make sure I'm okay. So we'll have you again on maybe next week. You can come back once I'm in the clear and we can celebrate together. But always great to have you on.

[D]

Dr.

[E]

Thanks. Good cavett. Take care.

[A]

That was Dr. Yosef Wit during and this was Wired In. If you guys are on Apple and Spotify, thanks for tuning in. I will see you tomorrow. If you want to keep the show going, you gotta become a Daily Wire member. So go to DailyWire.com subscribe and join our live member Q and A right now. I'll see you guys tomorrow.

[G]

It.