Loading summary
Transcript108 lines
- [00:00]
A
July is National Grilling Month and there's no better time to stock up on America's best meat from good ranchers. They source 100% of their meat from American farms and ranches and deliver it straight to your door, making summer grilling easier than ever. Good Ranchers makes it simple to stock the kitchen with quality American raised meat while also supporting the farmers and ranchers keeping American agriculture alive. Visit goodranchers.com to get $50 off your order when you use the code Daily Wire. That's code daily wire for $50 off. But you can also get free meat with every order on top of the $50 off. If you decide to start a plan today, goodranchers.com, american Meat Delivered well, good
- [00:33]
B
evening everybody and welcome to Wired In. I'm Cabin Phillips coming to you live from Daily Wire hq. It was a historic day in Washington where the Supreme Court finally weighed in on a number of high profile cases, including men in women's sports, campaign finance and the granddaddy of them all, birthright citizenship. I know some people hear Supreme Court rulings and their eyes start to glaze over. They doze off a bit. Don't be that person. Because make no mistake, the Court's decisions today will have enormous ramifications for the future of our country and our culture. That is not an exaggeration. On today's show, we're gonna talk about what exactly the Court said, what comes next, and more importantly, what it means for all you guys at home. And of course, stick around until the very end of the show for our live listener Q and A. If you're a Daily Wire member, start dropping your questions in the chat. I already saw a few of them coming in. If you're on Spotify or Apple, you gotta become a member right now@dailywire.com subscribe so you can get in on the action. You know what time it is, guys. Roll that graphic. And just a reminder for you lovely people at home, Wired In Live is now streaming live at 4pm Eastern Monday through Thursday. Get daily coverage of the news happening right now, hear why it all matters and talk to experts who are actually in the story. Become a member and join the live chat@dailywire.com subscribe. Well, this morning the Supreme Court finally weighed in on President Trump's efforts to restrict birthright citizenship. In a 6, 3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that all children born in the U.S. including those born to illegal immigrants, are, quote, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, AKA their American citizens. According To Roberts, citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights to freely participate in our political community. The framers of the 14th Amendment extended that promise to every freeborn person in this land. We keep that promise. Today, Justices Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh joined the court's three liberal justices in striking down the order, though it's worth noting Kavanaugh did not do so on constitutional grounds, while Justice Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented. Here to make sense of this landmark ruling is Daily Wire opinion editor and our good friend Ben Domenech and Daily Wire D.C. bureau Chief Tim Rice. Guys, great to see both of you. Ben, let's start with you. Just big picture. What do you make of this ruling?
- [03:03]
C
Well, I'm just happy to be the good friend as opposed to Tim.
- [03:05]
B
Yeah, but you don't have a whole segment named after you like Tim Rice. Tim has rice and beans. We gotta come up with one for you.
- [03:12]
C
That's fair. That's fair. Gotta work on it.
- [03:14]
B
So what do you make of the ruling, Ben? Big picture.
- [03:19]
C
Well, first off, let's just say right off the bat, this ruling was not a surprise. In fact, I think it was even a little broader than some of people, some of the people who were looking at it may have expected. Though the Kavanaugh decision is an interesting one and really poses the question about whether this might have had a slightly different outcome if it had not been done through the executive order process by President Trump, which was endorsed, of course, in the last administration by certain legal scholars. But they, you know, basically lost entirely on that point. I think that the real takeaway from this is that the birthright citizenship issue, which has so long been something that loomed over the court as being unaddressed properly. We were relying on cases that kind of came at it from different angles, but never dealt with the definitive question. This court has made a definitive statement about it, and it's made clear that basically, if you want to change this, you are going to have to amend the Constitution. It is going to take a movement along the lines of what you saw in response to the Roe v. Wade decision in order to actually, you know, change this type of policy going forward. But there's another thing that I think people should understand about the nature of this ruling. There's still a lot of things that Republicans can do to push back against this. I think particularly this is another thing that will bolster their case for hardened border security, for increased deportations, for the kind of things that President Trump has already been arguing for. But I also think that One of the things that people have unfortunately been fooled a lot about was that this court was gonna make a decision that really never had the real legal minds behind it that would indicate that it would go in that direction. Ultimately, I think there's gonna be a political response to this that's gonna fire up the Republican base. It's gonna lead to some interesting political outcomes. But those political outcomes might be different depending on which state you're looking at
- [05:23]
B
on that question of the political response. Tim, you're the man on Capitol Hill day in and day out. What are you hearing from Congress? What sort of reaction, politically speaking, could we see to these GOP lawmakers who are now saying, hey, we might have to take matters into our own hands? What could we see?
- [05:40]
D
I mean, it's exactly what Ben just said. We're already seeing from pretty much all corners of Congress or both corners of Congress. I suppose Republicans are coming out in official statements on X in press conferences and saying that, all right, well, ball's in our court now, which is funny, right? Theoretically, Congress probably should have acted on this before it took an executive order and judicial review to get to this point. But hey, whatever gets Congress to act is good. I suppose so, yeah. I mean, Rand Paul, I believe, had already introduced a constitutional amendment in the Senate last year that would amend the Constitution to restrict the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause to truly native born rights of the children of citizens, not illegal immigrants. We're seeing some movement around that now. Again, this is very early stages. It's people sort of, again, kind of co signing online and in their statements and their appearances. But yeah, I mean, also seeing calls for increased, you know, increased immigration enforcement, border security. It's fascinating how this has become such a tent pole issue for the Republican Party in recent years. I mean, you know, it used to be this sort of thing that, you know, kind of conservatives, a certain type of conservative intellectual or conservative legal scholar would debate and, you know, write papers about and sort of a 7ish years ago that this really, really kicked in the first Trump administration. It got kind of mainstream acceptance. And so I think what we're sort of seeing is now it kind of got fast tracked because of the President's executive order and then because the court took the challenge up so quickly. Now we're kind of going back and we're gonna go through the legislative deliberative way as if this had sort of snuck its way into the American conscience or the public discourse incrementally over time.
- [07:27]
C
Well, can I just add, I think one of the reasons that. One of the reasons that what Tim is talking about happened is because of the dramatic change that we saw in the treatment of birthright citizenship over the last two decades. If you rewind to the George W. Bush era, birthright citizenship was not a major problem back then. Back then, when they were talking about immigration, they were talking about guest worker issues, people who would be coming back and forth across the border to basically be agricultural workers. That. That was the major border problem. We have a completely different scenario today thanks to the Obama and the Biden administration and their lack of enforcement of our laws. Deliberate, by the way. You end up having a birthright citizenship situation that is much, much worse and is being exploited actively by a lot of people who are legitimately engaged, even though I think it's a bit exaggerated to the degree they're engaging in it, in birth tourism, that they are essentially coming here for a short period of time with no intention to raise their children here, having their kid, and then returning home, particularly to China, with the ability to claim dual citizenship for their child going forward, something that could benefit them in accessing American education, American benefits, et cetera. And that's something that I think Americans look at and go, that was never what this was supposed to be. The thing that I, you know, the reason that I have, frankly, supported birthright citizenship, and I will cite my friend, you know, Mark Recordian, one of the hardest immigration hardliners that exists, he also supports birthright citizenship. And the reason is he does not want a stateless group of children of. Of babies who do not have a country, essentially, who exist within the United States form stateless ghettos within the California experience or something like that. And I understand that, and I think that that's a logical concern. But right now we're dealing with a completely different situation than we were even 20 years ago, and certainly not what the people who actually wrote the 14th amendment were thinking about at the time.
- [09:28]
B
Yeah, I saw a report recently. I wish I could cite exactly where it came from. I don't want to get it wrong, but the estimate there was that one in 11Americans over the last five years who were born here were born to noncitizens, born to illegal immigrants. One in 11, that is just a major number. And you can see why this issue has gained so much prominence. Tim, I want to get your take on something President Trump said yesterday. He was asked about how the court was going to rule, and he kind of hinted, as Ben said, it wasn't a huge surprise. And you could tell by his answer, he was asked, if the court rules against you, what would you say? And he goes, quote, I guess I have to accept it. It is the Supreme Court. Do you think he'll stick by that or do you think that he's going to start, you know, bashing the court because he's not happy with how they rolled?
- [10:15]
D
You know, it's, that's, it's interesting because we've certainly seen him, you know, when, when they struck down the Liberation Day tariffs. Right. He gave that, that kind of phenomenal, phenomenally weird press conference where that we never really followed up on, where he kind of said, insinuated that Neil Gorsuch was an agent of China, which, you know, is something that I'd like to hear the President speak more about. No, I mean, look, with the caveat that obviously there's always a chance that the President is going to lash out of the court or say that, kind of pull an Andrew Johnson and say, let him enforce it and we're going to do it anyway. I don't actually think that he will in this instance. And one of the reasons why, for two reasons. One, again, going back to what we've been saying, I think that he will either realize or be convinced by his team that this ruling actually, as the loser of the case, they're the winner politically going into the midterms. Right. Well, the Supreme Court isn't coming to save you. President Trump did what he could to try to save you, but John Roberts, that shifty guy, he shut it down. So you need to vote for me, you need to vote for Republicans and we're gonna save you. But the other thing, and I think if we look at all of the cases that came down today, this was a pretty, I think the President's probably pretty happy on balance with this court. I think that, and I use this term loosely, cuz I know that, you know, originalism and textualism and someone's gonna be in the comments explaining the difference to me. It doesn't matter. This was a very kind of original list with a small lowercase O day for the court, right? Where, you know, the Roberts, the majority opinion in birthright citizenship, as Ben was saying, was basically like, this is what it's always been interpreted as. We are not going to allow this executive order to change 100 years of judicial interpretation of the statute. Then you look over at the Title IX case where the court ruled that states can keep biological men from competing in women's sports and vice versa. The liberal justices joined. There was unanimous consent on the central question. They basically accepted the fact that Title IX does not protect biological men who identify as women as such. They argued, they dissented and said that that's why we need to have a broader reading of the equal protection clause to make these protections. But that was kind of striking to me. In my mind, the theme of day was the Supreme Court goes back to the letter of the Constitution. Really reminds America that even sometimes the liberal justices are really, truly just engaging with the words of the Constitution and with two centuries at this point of judicial precedent.
- [12:50]
C
And just to bolster what Tim said, the political benefit of this is that I think that if you had had this go in a different direction, it would have taken some of the pressure off of Republicans to remain in this hardline position on immigration that they've had ever since Donald Trump came in and took over the party. And I think that the reality is that because of this decision, that is going to be an absolute lockstep position for all of the Republicans going forward. You're not going to have any more Jeff Flakes, you're not going to have any more people who are going off into the wilderness when it comes to immigration, border control issues, enforcement issues. And I think that you're going to see some things actually move potentially in this Congress that are responses to this, to the degree that they can actually change this policy, which is going to be something that Republicans and voters who support them are going to rally behind and could potentially benefit them in the midterms. The one caveat to that, I actually think that the trans issue, the, the, the Title 9 issue that was decided, I actually think that plays to the benefit of the Democrats because Democrats who are running in red states, people like James Tallarico can now say, hey, this is something that people of Texas will decide for themselves. It doesn't matter if I think God is non binary, you know, or if God could run against your girl in a race or something like that, he can sort of kick the can. I wonder if they will realize that. I kind of doubt they will because it'll piss off all the Rainbow Coalition type people.
- [14:21]
B
We look forward to watching them get pissed off, I mean.
- [14:23]
D
Or, you know.
- [14:25]
B
Yeah, Tim, go ahead.
- [14:27]
D
I know. I was just gonna say. Or to that point, Ben, it's the inverse of what we're saying for the birthright citizenship thing, right? Which is that Democrats was like, look at the. And we already saw it. I think Hillary Clinton, I cracked up at this tweet. She said, Trump's hand picked Supreme Court is trying to take away the Rights of trans Americans, which is such a funny. And it's such a Hillary Clinton statement where it's like, yeah, that's how it works. He's the president, he picks the justices, he's gotten. That's just how it works. Like using hand picked as clearly it's supp to mean like it's this evil machination. You're just mad that you were the one handpicking them. Hillary,
- [15:04]
B
I do love that phrase. One more quick thing before we go, because I saw a story of yours, Tim. Npr this morning they ran a headline saying that Justice Samuel Alito was retiring. Problem is, he's not retiring, at least not today. And you know, that still could happen. NPR issued a retraction saying the piece was mistakenly published. They kind of threw their reporter. Usually outlets will say, one of our editors made a mistake. They threw their reporter. Nina Tottenberg. Totenberg, I always get the name wrong. They threw her under the bus saying it was her fault. Tim, I understand you've had a personal run in with this reporter. Tell us about that.
- [15:42]
D
Yeah, so many moons ago, when I was an intern, my first ever internship was at the network that was then called msnbc. And it was at Hardball with Chris Matthews. And my main job was to answer the phone, the main line for the, the TV show. And most of what it was was we'd get crazy people calling, right? We'd play a clip of Barack Obama giving the State of the Union. And I'd answer the phone and they'd say, put President Obama on the phone. Now. One time someone called and said, hey, I'm Cabot Phillips and I have something important to talk to Chris Matthews about. And I said, that guy sounds confident. He said, he's an old friend, let's patch him through. It turns out it was a crazy person. So I resolved, I was like, I'm never going to do that again. I'm never going to get tricked again. So one day I get a call again to the main line, not Chris's office, not a producer. They say, this is Nina Totenberg and I need to speak to Chris Matthews. And I said, okay, I'll take a message. What's this regarding? And she was very taken aback because again, I'm a 19 year old kid and she's the dean of Supreme Court correspondence. And she said, whatever, make sure you tell the producer. And I said, okay, man. And I hung up. And I kind of laughingly went into the executive producer's office and I said, oh, you're not going to believe this. These crazy people. Someone like Nina toten something and was demanding to speak to Chris, but she said to make sure I told the producer. So here I'm doing that. The executive producer jumped out of her chair, was like, Nina Totenberg. Nina Totenberg from npr, and then used some choice language at me and swiftly called Ms. Totenberg back to apologize and no doubt throw the intern under the bus. But I feel like this is a real full circle moment. Fifteen years ago, I made a mistake. Today, Nina Totenberg made a mistake. It happens to the best of us.
- [17:20]
B
I would give anything to have a recording of that call. Gentlemen, thank you as always, for joining us. We really appreciate it, making sense of all this.
- [17:30]
C
Good to be with you.
- [17:30]
D
Thanks, David.
- [17:31]
B
That was Ben Domenech and Tim Rice. All right, guys, let's jump across town to hear from Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan on what the White House is saying about all this. Mary Margaret, it's great to see you. Let's start with the birthright citizenship ruling. It went against Trump. So what are we hearing from the administration today?
- [17:51]
E
Hey, Kabat. So, as you can imagine, the president is not very happy about this one. He expected it. The White House expected it. I think pretty much all of D.C. was expecting it. But when it did come down today, everyone was hoping for the best, and it did not go the president's way. Now, I have some screenshots here of what the president had to say. He said his plan is to use Congress to basically make this work. He wants to easily make it up in Congress through legislation with his own support, and he says that has now been determined through this process. So he's really pressuring Congress to take action here. And then at the same time, and I thought this one was funny, he posted and said, I would like to congratulate President Xi and the great country of China on their massive birthright citizenship win. So a little passy comment from the president there. But look, like I said, Kevin, the president and the White House were kind of expecting this. The president said yesterday in the Oval Office that he would accept the results of this ruling, which actually made some people on the right a little bit angry. There's people that would argue that he doesn't have to accept the results of this ruling. But I think in general, the country understands that this is what the Supreme Court ruled, and the president's going to find another way to get around it.
- [18:58]
B
Yeah. Trump congratulating China, a big reason is because they have an entire cottage industry of sending pregnant women to the United States so that their children can get citizenship. Our own Jenny Terror reported on a story down in Texas where there were these homes, businesses operating under the table, welcoming all sorts of pregnant women to their homes. They never would leave the home. They would claim to be tourists. They would never leave the house. They'd give birth, oftentimes in the house, get their citizenship, and then leave the U.S. that is what people are so upset about. And obviously President Trump making an allusion, it would appear, to that story. Now, it wasn't all bad for the president today. He did score a victory when the court ruled this morning that states could continue barring trans identifying men from competing in women's sports. What did he have to say on that front?
- [19:45]
E
Yeah, so this is a big win for the White House, big win for the president. We just actually published a story on DailyWire.com about how this is a fulfillment of the president's campaign promises. He promised that he would keep men out of women's sports. He promised that he would protect the integrity of women's sports and spaces. And he did. And thanks to the president's efforts, he's signed an executive order banning men from women's spaces and sports all over the country. And at the same time, he's really emboldened states all over the United States to pass their own laws banning men from women's sports in the same way. Now, this Supreme Court case specifically dealt with two states and their laws banning men from women's sports. But it's a huge sign to other states that they can, in fact, ban men from women's sports and protect the integrity of women's sports and spaces. So a big win for Trump, big win for the White House, and kind of a signal to the rest of the country that, yes, this is a winning issue. This is an issue where the American public is not in agreement, is not aligned with these radical leftist ideologues. And I thought this was a sign of the times. Cabot Kamala Harris sent out a fundraising email shortly after this transgender ruling came down. She said something about how we're under attack and she mentioned the courts, but she didn't say a peep about transgenderism or gender ideology because she knows after her disastrous presidential campaign that this is a losing issue for Democrats.
- [21:04]
B
Yeah, she knows because of that famous ad that Trump ran of saying, trump is for you. She is for they them. I think that was a turning point. And now we're seeing the ramifications in the legal system. I gotta follow up on a story we just talked about a bit with Tim and Ben, NPR publishing and then retracting a story that Justice Alito is retiring. I must be honest, part of me thinks they didn't publish this for no reason. If you read the story, it says at one point, you know, Justice Alito or yeah, it says, you know, Justice Alito made the announcement on Friday. This made me and a lot of other people think, well, did they just get the scoop and this was coming on Friday and they just published it too soon? Is this total fiction or are we hearing rumblings that this actually could be coming any day now?
- [21:53]
E
Well, Kevin, from a reporter's perspective, I would say that my guess is that she had a tip that Justice Alito was going to retire and she prepped a story for it. But she put Wednesday in the copy and then she put Friday in the photo caption, which is we know those are different things might be a little technical, but from a reporter's perspective, I think that she was prepping that story. It wasn't ready to be published, and they accidentally published it in the flurry of the Supreme Court reporting this morning. Now, obviously, that's just speculation, but what I can tell you is I've been talking to people all day about whether Alito will actually resign. I've been talking to a number of Supreme Court sources, and what I'm hearing is that Justice Alito and Justice Thomas, too, actually, who was rumored to be in a similar situation, neither of them are planning on resigning as of right now. That's what I'm told. Now, obviously, my sources could be wrong. There are some rumblings that perhaps Alito might be considering leaving office in the fall before the new term starts. He has a book coming out right around then, which some people are guessing could mean that he'll be free to talk more about the Supreme Court if he's not on it anymore. But again, that's just speculation. My sources are saying they're not trying to leave anytime soon. And I did have one source point out that Justice Alito actually picked all his clerks for this upcoming term. So he's already chosen them for the term. Now, that doesn't mean too much because he could technically transfer them to another justice if he does retire, but that's just another thing. And at the end of the day, the White House told me that, you know, they're not going to speculate about vacancy spots because obviously there are none right now. But they did say that the president always has a firm eye on a list of individuals he could replace justices with if he Needed to. And that, of course, will be the next roller coaster ride in Washington. If Trump does need to pick someone to fill Alito's shoes, or Justice Thomas or anyone else if they decide to retire, we may see another firestorm like we saw with Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Barrett, and so many others.
- [23:57]
B
Yeah. I can't help but think back to when Ruth Bader Ginsburg was facing all sorts of pressure to step down, and Democrats were saying, look, we might lose this election, and we don't want President Trump making the next election, so can you please just bow out? And that ended up haunting Democrats that she did not step down. So do you get the sense from Republicans and from the Trump administration that, look, there's a possibility that Republicans lose the Senate, and are there any Republicans in D.C. saying, hey, if you're gonna retire in the next few years, you might as well do it now, because we might lose the Senate, and it would be really hard to get a strong conservative justice confirmed if that is the case.
- [24:37]
E
Well, look, Kevin, I asked people all day today, I said, does the White House have an appetite for getting a new nominee into the Supreme Court Court? And everybody I asked said, I haven't heard that. I haven't been talking about that. You know, nobody was. Was saying that. The White House is worried about this right now, so maybe this will become more of an issue after the midterms. As far as I know right now, though, there is not a desire in the White House to. To have any of these justices leave. In fact, Trump said in February that he doesn't want Alito or Thomas to retire and that he thinks they're both great guys and he likes them a lot. So as of right now, that's what I'm hearing. But obviously, politics is fluid. Things could change. You never know. Perhaps the results of the midterm election will make the president or the vice president feel differently. I will actually be traveling with the vice president tomorrow, so I'm curious to ask his opinion on all of this and to get a sense of where he stands because, you know, he can be a little bit wonky. He gets in the weeds on this stuff, and I think he'll have thoughts.
- [25:38]
B
Yeah. I can't help but wonder if President Trump, given some of the recent rulings by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, might be thinking, well, someone's gonna retire. Justice Barrett, if you would like to step down, I know you're still quite young, but if you'd like to step down, I know a lot of Republicans not too pleased with Justice Barrett lately, but that's how these things go. Mary Margaret Olahan, Daily Wire White House correspondent. Always great to have you on.
- [26:03]
E
Thanks for having me.
- [26:04]
B
All right, I wanna turn now to another big ruling from the court today, this one on transgender men in women's sports. Like I said, guys, this was a huge day for the Supreme Court. So we got a ton of stories to break down. In this particular case, it was a 6:3 ruling, and the court determined that schools have the right to determine eligibility for girls sports teams based on biological sex. Here to break down that case is Alex Swoyer, attorney and editor at large of the Washington Examiner. Alex, great to have you back on.
- [26:33]
A
Thank you, Washington Times. I love the Examiner. I gotta give a shout out.
- [26:38]
B
I am so sorry about that. And you've been on multiple times, and I got that wrong, so I sincerely apologize for that. We will be. We'll be firing the person who wrote that. I'm the one who wrote that, so I deserve to be fired, I guess. Alex, just to start, can you give us some background on this case and then explain how the court ruled?
- [26:57]
A
So the transgender athlete case was the other big ruling of the day. Basically, there were laws out of West Virginia and Idaho where the state said, you have to be a biological FEMA to compete in girls sports. Go figure. I know, kind of sounds like common sense. That was challenged by transgender athletes who claim, you know, that this violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court, through Justice Kavanaugh, issued a ruling today that basically said these states can go ahead and pass laws that do bar transgender athletes from competing in girls sports. He cited Title 9. Title 9 goes to preventing sex discrimination in education. So both of these state laws had to do with schools. One was a university, others was, like, secondary, you think, high school, middle school type restrictions. So you have about a little over two dozen states that have similar laws that they're putting forward. And this is very similar to last term when you had the case out of Tennessee, where the Supreme Court said states can issue bans on transgender youth getting puberty blockers, surgery, that sort of thing. So they went ahead and have kicked this. Any sort of regulations on this transgender issues to the states. I'm sure there will be more lines of these cases to come, but this was another big ruling for, I would say, conservatives and even the Trump administration as they've issued these declarations to try to protect girls sports.
- [28:20]
B
You mentioned how this could open the door for more cases to come before the court now that we kind of have an idea of how they might rule. What could those future cases look like? What would you anticipate seeing them look like?
- [28:33]
A
So there's just kind of been a long area of jurisprudence in terms of transgender and LGBTQ rights. So there's cases in states right now that have worked their way through the courts about how transgenders can be marked on, say, driver's licenses, passports. That's kind of been a hot issue. There's just kind of one of these bathrooms. Public bathrooms have been something we've seen some of these states do or try to restrict. So I expect these things to keep popping up. For example, when the court issued its ruling, if you recall, a few years ago in Bostock, that was dealt with LGBTQ employees, I think there was a couple of cases. One was a gay man, another was a transgender individual in different states who claimed that they were discriminated in the workplace based on their LGBTQ affiliation. The Supreme Court really sided with them there and said, employers don't. They cannot treat someone differently based on sex stereotypes under the Civil Rights Act. That was Title seven. And that was really seeing conservatives were a bit concerned because they were thinking, wow, if the court is going to define sex discrimination with this notion of sex stereotyping, then that could be far ranging for the LGBTQ arguments and these other aspects. But clearly the court drew a line there, and they differentiated that in today's ruling with the Title nine.
- [30:00]
B
So moving forward, do you think this opens the door for more states to pass legislation? You mentioned we've got a little over two dozen states already with laws on the books keeping men out of women's sports. Do you think there are other states who've been waiting and just kind of looking for legal cover? Could this open the floodgates, or has everyone who's done it, you know they're gonna. Everyone who is going to do it, they've already done it.
- [30:21]
A
It's possible. You know, to be honest, I haven't, like, done a deep dive about, like, which red states have this, which red states are, like, pending on having this. The question to me really is, like, what blue states are not doing it. This is one of those polling issues where it's kind of like voter id. You know, you have people on both sides that are like, well, why not? Like, this kind of sounds like a common sense issue. It comes down to safety, really, for a lot of females and competing in girls sports. That was something that the court paid attention to. And also the court in the past. One of the most interesting things since I've covered the court for about 10 years was during the Tennessee case. I brought up how they said, you know, states can all also passed laws that was last year basically restricting youth from being transitioned. That was interesting because the justices asked about what other countries were doing in terms of medication or scientific research in terms of how to treat the transgender community, especially when it came to minors. And so I thought that was an interesting realm too, that the courts are having to dive into. Is that this kind of, this new notion, even looking at what other countries are doing. So, you know, to answer your question, I'd have to see what. What states have some already on the books, what ones are pending. I personally think this is something that you would think even those swing states, you would want to see legislatures pushing through there. Georgia comes to mind, but I'm not specifically sure where their laws are. Now, I did mention how this was schools, but the ruling is pretty broad in terms of. I think it could even pertain to like, you know, your, your recreational league, for example, like your local, maybe county type league that. That would then have protection to also bar transgender athletes from competing against women.
- [32:03]
B
As you mentioned, it does seem like a common sense issue called an 8020 issue. But some folks who are on the 20 side of the issue still, the legacy press. I want to play this clip today that you may have seen going around from NBC. They offered a trigger warning before a segment discussing this case. They wanted to warn viewers that they were about to use the words biological male. Let's play that clip.
- [32:29]
F
Just a quick note here.
- [32:31]
B
The terms that we're using here during our reporting. Biological male. Biological female. The high court put those terms in quotations in their decision and their dissent.
- [32:44]
F
But just so you know, we're using
- [32:46]
B
those terms from the decision itself. Biological male.
- [32:49]
F
Biological female.
- [32:50]
B
That's him saying, please don't shoot me. Okay? I'm only using these dangerous words because that's what the court said. What does it tell us about the legacy media that they're still playing this game?
- [33:04]
A
I think what it tells us, I'm not surprised at the media. What it tells us more is that, you know, we've kind of become accustomed to this wing of, I think the Democratic Party, the left, that does get so fired up to the point where, you know, there's a fear, maybe of even violence. One of the things I thought was notable ahead of today's decisions was that the Supreme Court didn't have any sort of fences or barriers put up yesterday, which was kind of a tall tale sign that everybody was Kind of paying attention to birthright citizenship. How was that going to go? But I knew this one was still on the docket and going to come out that, you know, they weren't really worried about any sort of protests or riots. But I'm a bit surprised. Like the LGBT community, it usually does have a big voice, a big. They usually show up. And so. So I'm surprised there wasn't more, I guess you could say, protests outside the court after today's decision.
- [33:55]
B
Yeah. And to that point, the pro trans crowd, they've now been defeated at the ballot box repeatedly. They've now been defeated, it seems, in the courts. Do you think more broadly that the left is going to back off this issue, or do you think that they're just. They're gonna double down in the next few years?
- [34:13]
A
That's a really. That's a good question. What should they do? Or what are they going to do? I think what they should do is back off. Look at what the popular vote did in 2024. It swung to the right. However, we're watching the Democratic Party continue to have candidates that swing further to the left. Think of what's happened with New York, Seattle. We're watching Colorado primaries tonight. I think it'll be an interesting sign that if we're seeing these more progressive candidates, these younger candidates, those that even align themselves with the Socialist Party, if they're put forward, I see them completely doubling down on this, and I don't think that will fare well nationally.
- [34:51]
B
I wanna get your take on something I asked Mary Margaret about just a moment ago. And this is the White House's perception towards Justice Amy Coney Barrett. When she was going through her confirmation process, she was viewed as already a hero among many on the right. Folks were hoping that she was going to be more in this Scalia vein. Lately there has been a lot of, we'll call it, vitriol from the right towards Justice Barrett, who in a number of cases has sided with the liberal justices. Has that surprised you so far through her tenure?
- [35:25]
A
A bit. What surprises me is that if you asked me this a few years ago, I would say no. Usually when a Justice joins the court, and I've covered like four of the vacancies so far, which is pretty impressive given that there's only nine of them. You see them join the court and tend to gravitate towards Chief Justice Roberts, which we all kind of know how he is, and then they tend after a couple years to find their own mold and break away. I think you kind of saw that With Kavanaugh, he and Justice Roberts really aligned a lot when he first got on the bench. And then since then, he's kind of broke away, more or less. I am not surprised to see him side with Gorsuch and Alito and Thomas. But with Justice Barrett, she has not really broken away from just the Chief Justice. They're often, I feel like siding with the three Democratic nominees in cases where I think that there's a lot of focus from conservatives. One of the things we can look forward to, which I haven't dove into the briefs yet, but one of the cases that was granted the issues for next term is the whole AR15 issue, the assault rifle. I think that's going to be interesting because, you know, there's four votes that say, you know, yes, we'll take this case. We're talking about an Alito retirement. I think conservatives might not want to see Alito go knowing they need at least five of those voices, those votes to then, you know, be pro second Amendment or pro gun, if you will. So just kind of giving you a notion of, like, how high stakes this is. I don't see her as, you know, following Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and kind of becoming, I don't know what I want to say, her own person. She probably feels that she is her own person. But more often than not, I would classify her as a Roberts, someone who I really can't pinpoint. Maybe we can call it a moderate. I'm not totally sure. Sometimes I've heard people describe Justice Barrett as a law professor who likes to argue her way from one agreement against the government to then circle back for the government that she's just so used to making arguments on both sides that then she ends up doing that. But we'll see. She has been with conservatives on other cases where it has counted, of course. Think of Dobbs. You can also think of just the transgender issue that I raised now just a few minutes ago. But, yeah, she's a head scratcher. I will note, though, she was nominated and confirmed in a one month period of time. So when people are asking about a Supreme Court vacancy, it can happen pretty fast. There can be a nomination and a confirmation. I think it was like September 26th to October 27th or something like that. It was very, very quick. So, you know, we'll see. Now, some of the Trump appointees haven't been as loyal conservatives, as you pointed out, as some of the senior members of the court, like Justice Alito and Justice Thomas.
- [38:19]
B
Yeah, two Bush nominations who have been pretty Stalwart conservatives. A lot of people have been surprised by that. We will definitely keep a close eye on Justice Amy Coney Barrett in the future and the entire court because as you mentioned, some big cases coming already in the next term, this one coming to an end. But that's how this thing works. There's always something to look forward to. Alex, thank you so much for your time. We really appreciate it. That's Alex Swerver from the Washington Times. I got to get it right this time. Sorry to Alex for messing that up. Well, guys, in addition to rulings on trans identifying athletes and birthright citizenship, they keep coming. There were a ton of big cases today. I'm gonna say that one more time. Ton of big cases. The high court today also weighed in on campaign spending, striking down a federal law that capped the amount of money that each party can spend in coordination with candidates. Here with more on that one is your good friend Matt Folte. Our good friend, I should say, also your good friend. Everyone at home, it's your good friend too, because we love Matt Foldy, editor in chief of the Washington reporter. Matt, great to have you back, man.
- [39:24]
G
I love you guys back. And I just got to my computer. I was at the Great American State Fair, so I was not wearing a suit earlier. I didn't have time to change, but happy to be back with you repping the good old red, white and blue.
- [39:35]
B
The thing about you, Matt, is that you could have said, oh, I was wearing this at the Great American State Fair. I'd say it makes sense. Or you could have said, oh, I was over on Capitol Hill covering Congress and this is what I was wearing. Because you always are known to rock the patriotic outfits and that's one of the reasons that we love you. So, Matt, you know this. A lot of people, their eyes kind of gloss over when they hear campaign finance law, but this is a huge case. So can you just explain to everyone what this thing is all about?
- [40:04]
G
Yeah. So I agree campaign finance law is not necessarily the most interesting thing, but it is really important when it comes to the future of America. Because what this case deals directly with is what can happen in elections. And we all know that the Democrats, they don't really care about this case. They're opposed to the outcome because they have a sprawling network of dark money organizations that simply are unaffected by this. What happens and what people don't realize is that because of a Watergate era law that is now overturned by this case, political party committees, this is just the RNC and its Senate And House counterparts. This is not super PACs. This is not dark money organizations. They are walled off from communicating in any meaningful way with campaigns. Once a certain number, it's about like 60 or $76,000. It's barely anything, especially in 2026 money. Once that level has been hit, they have to have a complete wall of separation. So it doesn't really matter from my standpoint, whether you're a good government person who wants more transparency in elections, or whether you're a partisan Republican. This is a good news for you. The only people this is bad news for, at the end of the day, really, are Democrats. And the reason why is the DNC has negative cash on hand. So the RNC, which is sitting on a Scrooge McDuck level of money, is going to now be able to spend that freely and in direct coordination with campaigns. If you want to think about why this matters, think about when Ron DeSantis ran for president. His presidential campaign was run out of a super PAC. Super PACs and campaigns cannot communicate, and that can cause huge problems. So now one hand on the campaign, think about Michael Whatley, former RNC chair running for Senate in North Carolina. And the RNC will now be able to understand exactly what the other side is doing with that money. That will help Republicans sort of deal with and surmount some of the giant cash mountains that Democrats like Roy Cooper, like Jon Ossoff have.
- [41:59]
B
And as you mentioned, the DNC, negative cash on hand, the RNC with well over $100 million in their campaign war chest at last count, if I remember correctly. So the court essentially ruling that, hey, it's a violation of the First Amendment to cut off this money. And now the question is, how do these committees, the rnc, the nrsc, the dnc, how do they react? And you actually obtained a memo from the National Republican Senatorial Committee laying out their plan following this ruling. What did they have to say there?
- [42:32]
G
So this has been one of the most highly anticipated cases by, again, Cabot, as you noted, the nerdiest of the nerd people. Again, this is not the case like the men and women's sports cases that literally not only gets people out of bed. I covered when they were doing oral arguments at the Supreme Court. For that, you had people on both sides. You had normal women and you had amphibians, literally people dressed like frogs and lizards on the other side of that out in force during oral arguments. I don't think really anyone showed up in force when the NRC versus FEC decision was being argued to protest in support or against it. But what it does is it allows these party committees which used to be very powerful, but think back to the Nixon era where people wanted to democratize things and take power away from the parties and you have the rise of the presidential primary. In that era, people said we don't want the big party bosses to have all of the power anymore, so we're going to strip away some of their power. Now those parties which have been weakened in favor of Things like Super PACs on both sides and in favor of non party organizations like the dsa, Justice Democrats, these psychos on the left, now the parties are going to be able to reassert themselves. I think from just an American standpoint, this is good because it will allow ostensibly it could allow Democrats to say, look, the DNC is gonna muscle some things around. For better or for worse, the DNC completely rigged the primaries for president against the socialists, against the communists in the past. So as you're seeing the Democratic Party federally having a little bit of a socialist takeover, perhaps this will be a vehicle to allow them to govern responsibly. Now of course, I don't think anyone thinks that that will happen, but what Republicans are gonna do on the other side is look, they're gonna take this money. They have literally brinks trucks filled with money and they're going to be able to call up Susan Collins and say, hey, what's up? We're going to spend tens of millions of dollars in Maine. They're going to call up again Michael Whatley who is being outraised like crazy by Roy Cooper, even though Michael Whatley for a non incumbent is raising a lot of money. They're going to say, hey, let's try and level this out. And the other thing just to get really boring for a second is this makes the money of the rnc, nrcc, NR go further because they're gonna be able to spend it at the lower rates that are normally reserved for nonprofit issue advocacy for political campaigns. So every dollar that one of those committees gets now will go much further. Now, of course, if you're the Democrats, you literally have no money in these organizations and this doesn't really mean anything for you.
- [44:59]
B
Yeah. Matt, thank you for nerding out for us. That's greatly appreciated. One more thing before we go. This one kind of got lost in the shuffle a bit, but it comes from Ketanji Brown Jackson, who we're now learning has this propensity for slipping in like left wing Internet memes and TikTok memes. To some of her opinions. When she was writing this week, for example, about the Birthright case, she said that the authors of the 14th Amendment understood the assignment. In the past, she quoted other memes in her opinions. Am I an out of touch boomer for being bothered by this?
- [45:41]
G
On some level, I do think it's nice that the Supreme Court is reflecting. I mean, look, obviously you and I understood the assignment of what her understanding that assignment is, but I do think, I guess it's funny coming from her specifically. Right. This is a woman who has infamously said she's too stupid to your senator to know what a woman is. We were talking on Newsmax earlier in the week about how she is too stupid to know what a border is. She says, I don't know the difference between arriving at America versus arriving in America. So she can't tell you what a woman is cuz she's not a biologist. She can't tell you what a border is because she's not a construction worker. But she can speak like a Gen Z teenager because she's a Supreme Court justice. That's I think, where you lose the cognitive through line. But with her losing the cognitive through line is sort of a hallmark of her time on the Supreme Court.
- [46:24]
B
Yeah, I'm just waiting for her to issue her next big ruling. And the first line says, so I did a thing and then she lays out her case. That's what I'm waiting for. I got a little chance.
- [46:35]
G
I would rather that than her use wing bangs.
- [46:38]
B
Maybe we can get a. When you were describing some of the protesters outside, how they were dressed as different animals, I was hoping you were gonna say there were some dressed as dolphins because you know that we love to talk about.
- [46:48]
G
No, sadly not.
- [46:49]
H
Kamakazi dolphins.
- [46:51]
G
I don't have a good animal update for you, but we hit the term kamikaze dolphins. So your ratings will go up again.
- [46:56]
B
There we go. We're three for three. Matt Foldy, pleasure as always to have you, man. Thanks for being here.
- [47:00]
G
Hey, Cabot. Happy birthday, America.
- [47:02]
B
Amen to that. Okay, guys, I have to tell you what the Daily Wire is doing for the fourth of July because it's a little insane. In a good way. America is turning 250 this year. America, 250. Big deal. Huge milestone. So we're celebrating by offering three months.
- [47:18]
H
Three.
- [47:20]
B
Three months of Daily Wire plus for $17.76. $17.76. You see what we did there? We absolutely did that on purpose and I love it. What do you get with your membership? We're talking all the daily wire shows, premium editorial articles, the full documentary and entertainment library. We're also dropping a ton of American history content specifically for July. It's genuinely a great time to join. So if you've been thinking about a Daily Wire plus membership, this is the time. Head to DailyWire.com and look into that deal again. DailyWire+.com and lock it in right now. You can thank me later. All right, let's keep it moving. For more on these rulings and specifically how Congress is going to respond, let's bring in Hogan Gidley, senior advisor at the America First Policy Institute and former deputy White House press secretary. Hogan, welcome. It's great to have you.
- [48:14]
H
Great to be with you, Kevin. Thanks so much for the time. I tell you, though, I'm kind of upset because I'm wearing this and my friend Matt had on the Henley sleeve, red, white and blue stripes. Man, must be nice to be Matt, you know?
- [48:27]
G
I know.
- [48:27]
B
And he was looking a little sweaty and disheveled, though, because he was just at the fair. You're looking well kept.
- [48:33]
H
And in fairness, he always looks sweaty and disheveled, but he brings the heat every time. He's got such great information. And you always like watching and talking to Matt.
- [48:43]
B
Well, we'll make it a panel next time. We'll get both you guys on together. Oh, yeah, Hogan, let's get right to it. First, I gotta start. Supreme Court dealing a blow to the Trump administration With this birthright ruling, President Trump is calling on Congress to take action. In his words, he was saying it should be easy for them to do. So what would you expect to see on that front from Congress?
- [49:05]
H
Well, a couple things. It wasn't just a blow to the president. It's a blow to this country. You've heard so many commentators around America today just lamenting the fact that what the Supreme Court has in essence done is allowed unfettered access into our country. Whether you be a Chinese spy having a baby here, whether you be a terrorist, having a child here, all of a sudden this life gets to have citizenship, one of the most precious gifts on the planet, even though their parents, of course, not citizens of this country. That is not what our founders intended by any stretch. I was looking through some stuff earlier today online. I saw a line from the official transcript. The United States Senate in 1866, Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment, actually said this will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreign aliens. So right there, you know, that's not what the intention was. But because of the court's ruling, now you have to have another branch of government step up and say, we'll protect the American people. Now, as you know, the courts are supposed to interpret law. I think they interpreted things wrong here. They interpreted the Constitution incorrectly. But Congress can do some things here to include or prevent rather, these people who have children in this country from getting citizenship for their offspring. That's something well within the purview of Congress. And you've already seen several Congress people come out and say, this is absolutely what we're going to do. Trump wants it done as well. Now, when he says it's easy, let me be careful. I worked for Donald Trump for a long time. I love him. Best president of my lifetime, bar none. Easy is kind of a relative term because, as you know, we can't even get the SAVE act to the Senate. I know. We're gonna talk about that in a minute, but Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House, has a vote majority of like one to two people, depending on an illness or an attitude on any given day. And so it could be difficult to get through. But I guarantee you there'll be a massive push from the Republicans to get it done.
- [51:10]
B
I'm glad you brought up the context from some of the authors of this amendment back in the 1860s when it was first written, because we have seen some shifting opinions on this matter. As recently as the early 1990s, Democratic Party leader Harry Reid in the Senate was calling for Congress to ban birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. That's Harry Reid. So clearly the left has shifted enormously on this issue over the last decade. Why do you think that is? Why is this such a hill to die on for them?
- [51:44]
H
Well, they've shifted on a lot of issues, let's be honest. That used to be for closed borders. They used to be for anti gay marriage, all of those things. But I went all the way back to 1866. You went back to the 1990s. So it wasn't too long ago when those same Democrats were taking an opposite position. Listen, I've been in D.C. now for 10 years. I hate to say that I was going to be just a couple for Donald Trump. And now I've been stuck here 10. I will tell you, there is one goal that the Democrat Party shares universally, and that is to maintain and gain political power. And they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal. And if that means importing people into this country by the tens of millions to somehow get them on the government dole and hope that they back them politically in perpetuity or push and promote campaigns to make sure that those who are born in this country of illegal aliens are also given citizenship. This has long been something that they have attempted and wanted to do. And now the Supreme Court gave them kind of the backstop to say, see, the Supreme Court said so. And there is someone I know you and I are friends with that you actually work with as a colleague of yours. You control thoughts, you control the words, you control minds. And that's what the Democrats have done so well, better than Republicans is shifting that conversation, changing the language to make things that used to be completely unfathomable, completely unacceptable now mainstream of the Democrat Party and I would argue in a large part to independence as well.
- [53:21]
B
Yeah, I believe that you were quoting Michael Knowles there, my colleague here at the Daily Wire, which it does pain me. You know, I get this show to try and separate myself from Michael Knowles because, you know, he's been for years just looking down on me because he had a show and I didn't. And now I have to hear him favorably quoted. And it pains me, but unfortunately, I have to admit Michael is very, very right on that topic. Sorry, Michael, I had to say it.
- [53:45]
D
Knees down on everybody.
- [53:46]
G
It's fine.
- [53:47]
B
He can't help it.
- [53:48]
H
Yeah, yeah.
- [53:48]
B
Now, I want to get to the SAVE act because, you know, the attention has been put on Birthright this week, understandably. But the White House is still pushing Congress to get the SAVE act across the finish line. The House did their part. It's a log jam in the Senate right now. Do you have any faith that the Senate is going to get their ACT together and pass this thing, which is common sense, and everyone in the Republican Party, all of their voters, want to be passed?
- [54:15]
H
Yeah. No, in the Senate. But I'll tell you what I think is gonna happen in the House to make it possible. You just said the House did its job. Yeah, they did it. They did it three times. They passed a. Say that now three times. No question, John Thune does not have the votes to overturn the veto. He doesn't have the votes to override the parliamentarian. So he is stuck in a political reality that while I hate and you could put some blame, maybe his way, but let's be honest, a lot of the Republicans over there aren't going to vote for it and neither are any of the Democrats. So here's what I think could happen. And this is something Mike Johnson's been talking about on the House side in a reconciliation 3.0. Remember, we had the big beautiful bill, then we funded DHS and ICE and Customs Border Protection agencies through reconciliation 2.0, 3.0. Remember, reconciliation means you don't need 60 votes in the Senate. You only need a majority 51. What we can do is put the SAVE act into that reconciliation 3.0 and put it as a budget item to where the government will give out grant money to states so that they can issue photo identification, voter identification to their residents. The reason that's important is because the parliamentarian, if a reconciliation bill doesn't have a budget item in it, they can pull that piece or whatever the budget, Whatever the item is that isn't a budget item, they can pull it out. If you make it a budget item, theoretically the parliamentarian can't pull it out, which means a simple majority can pass it to the Senate. I think that's what the Republicans on the House side are preparing to do and send it back over to the Senate for a fourth time. And who knows between now and then how many times we pass it and send it back over, but at least four times, it'll be in the Senate's hands. And thankfully, with reconciliation, a better, easier path so they don't have to deal with the filibuster.
- [56:05]
B
If Mike Johnson is able to pull that off, I would support erecting a statue of him right there. Let's just put it in statuary hall right there in Congress. That would be an amazing move and one that a lot of GOP voters would be very happy with. Hogan, it's great to have you on. We want to make this a more regular thing. We'd love to get you back anytime in the future.
- [56:23]
H
Anytime. Cabot, thanks so much for what you're doing. And happy birthday, America. Echo Matt's sentiments.
- [56:28]
B
For sure. Amen. It is.
- [56:30]
H
Hey, by the way, by the way, you know, the average age of a constitution for a country is like 17 years. We're going on 250, baby.
- [56:39]
B
Let's make it 250. Let's make it 300, let's make it 500. But we gotta. We gotta start fighting right now. I know you're in the fight, Hogan, so we love having you on. Thanks, man.
- [56:47]
H
Thanks a lot.
- [56:47]
G
Sure.
- [56:48]
B
All right, that was Hogan Gidley. And now we turn over to Daily Wire editor in Chief Brent Scherer, who joins us now from a very special spot. Drum roll, please. Brent, where are you?
- [57:03]
F
I'm at the Great American State Fair at the rodeo.
- [57:06]
D
What are you doing?
- [57:07]
B
Tell us.
- [57:10]
F
Well, look, I went to the Rodeo last night here on National Mall. And I didn't really know what to expect because all I saw on social media was a bunch of reporters saying that everything was such a dud out here. It was one of the coolest, most American hours that I have witnessed as, as an American, not only was it a great spectacle, but it was so cool not only for the audience but for the performers who they were boasting at the end from 18 different states. They brought people out here and they were doing all the things you'd see at a rodeo, you know, whether it was roping or. I'm from New York City, my wife from Texas knew what was going on a little better. But they were bringing on a 16 year old kid from North Carolina who was doing some of the coolest tricks with a rope I've ever seen and from Oklahoma. They had bulls, they had horses, they had people doing tricks on them. Just the opposite completely of what you hear on social media about what's going on here.
- [58:12]
B
And I have to ask the question that has been debated as you mentioned on social media, media and that is about attendance. I know right now it's kind of a dead time. It doesn't look like the rodeo is going on. So behind you, obviously there's no one there, but the left is saying no one is showing up for this thing. It's empty. There have been plenty of videos appearing to show it sparsely attended. You've actually been there two days in a row now. What's actually happening, that is actually why
- [58:39]
F
I chose to do it from these empty rafters, just to point out how stupid people can be. Like can you imagine if I came here and I was like Cabot, look at this. The rodeo sucks. Nobody's here at 7 o' clock when the rodeo will be and anybody in D.C. area for the next few days should come. The rafters are full, it's standing room only around the place. You have a bunch of kids on their parents shoulders when things are happening. It is a big crowd. But for anybody who hasn't been to the National MALL In Washington D.C. it is ginormous. A lot of people, I can't make it but a lot of people run around the whole mall and that's, you know, a four or five mile run. It's giant and I mean I'll pan around here to show you what it actually looks like. So these white buildings on the side up there, that is where all the exhibitions are. It's not out in the middle of the grass, which would be insane because it's 100 degrees and it's only going to get hotter. Right now, most of the things are inside and I've been walking around. It's a bunch of families walking around and having a great time. Me and my family went into all 50 state exhibitions yesterday and learned a lot about the country they live in. I mean, I'll show you right here, there's a great big Ferris wheel behind me that we rode yesterday. And it really cool and one of the coolest views of D.C. that I've ever seen. But again, a reminder, it's Tuesday in the middle of the day. It's not a holiday. Monday, yesterday. This is the first few days that it's been going. But I mean, at night and in the evening when the concerts were going on, there were a lot of people. Michael Knowles yesterday did a live yesterday, yes or no game on the stage, and it was probably attended by two or three hundred people. He called out and asked if there were any Democrats in the stage, and two people raised their hands. And he brought him up and actually had really good conversations about America and the country and issues. But look, I haven't seen an unhappy face around the National Mall for two days. It's a really good vibe and good feel and it's. It's just really cool.
- [60:58]
B
I love America, Brent, and I would love to attend if I were able in D.C. but I would not get in that Ferris wheel. I've seen enough movies to know that you don't get in the portable Ferris wheel when you go to a fair. That just scares me a bit. But I would go in all 5010 to see the different states. Which state had the best display? Because yesterday we heard about Michigan having an animatronic cacao, which apparently you could milk, but which was your favorite state?
- [61:27]
F
My favorite, I have to say, was Montana. Montana. My kids got to go through a. They had a dinosaur bone exhibition and they got to dig up dinosaur bones. Over in Arkansas, they had a whole demonstration for Johnny Cash, which was really, really cool. Cool. I went over to Pennsylvania, which is, I think, the coolest story of any of the 50 states, because it got a full facelift in the last two days. The governor, Josh Shapiro, chose not to participate and did not fill it out with anything impressive. And then a bipartisan show of force from Senator McCormick and John Fetterman, a Republican and a Democrat. They got together and righted the wrong done by Josh Shapiro and just brought out all the cool old flags from Pennsylvania, which of course is one of the original 13 colonies and so much history there with Philadelphia and the Liberty Bell. All that history is inside their little booth. And just it's really cool. And everybody here is all smiles and, you know, so happy to be celebrating 250 years of America. And it's a lot of fun.
- [62:45]
B
Yeah. It's sad that it took a bipartisan political effort to get all 50 states represented, but in a way that is kind of a cool example of what America should be like. People coming together, whatever their views are, whatever their beliefs are, to celebrate something we should all be able to agree on, that is how special this nation is, and that it is something worth celebrating. So, Brent, thank you for giving us the rundown. You got 30 seconds. Make your final pitch to someone on the fence about why they should attend the the Great American State Fair.
- [63:19]
F
Okay. It's the rodeo. There were some things here that I had never seen before. They had not only people, you know, getting kicked off bulls, which was really cool, but they also had some trick horse riding. There were these two girls. Both of them were teenagers, and they were hanging off the sides of the horse and just doing some of the coolest things in the world. I'm from New York City. Neither of my kids want to be city kids anymore. Both of them want to move out west and learn how to ride horses. So we'll see if that happens. But truly, this rodeo was incredible. Go and find some clips out there on social media, on Unreal presentation and a cool thing. It's actually the government doing it. It's a USDA demonstration partnering with tractor supply and just, I mean, made me proud to be an American.
- [64:07]
B
Yeah. Maybe we can convert you into a cowboy. Lifelong New Yorker. He's going to become a rodeo man. Brent Sher, Daily Wire editor in chief. You do have the boots. Now we'll just get the cowboy hat. Brent, stay cool out there. Have fun, too, and enjoy your time.
- [64:26]
F
We will see you, Cabot.
- [64:27]
H
All right.
- [64:27]
B
That was Daily Wire Editor in Chief Brent Scherr. And I am Cabot Phillips. And this was Wired in. Thank you guys so much for tuning in. If you're on Apple and Spotify, I will see all of you tomorrow. If you want to keep the show going, go join DailyWire.com subscribe, become a member, and you can head over right now to join our live listener Q and A, which I'm going to go do right now. I will see all of you tomorrow.