Loading summary
Transcript111 lines
- [00:00]
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 try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [00:23]
B
of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50gb. Me slow when network is busy. See terms.
- [00:30]
A
Well, good evening everybody, and welcome to Wired In. I'm Cabot Phillips coming to you live from Daily Wire hq. The United States has vowed unprecedented retaliation against Iran after missile strikes killed at least three American service members over the weekend. On today's show, we'll get you to the latest from the Middle east and tell you what comes next. President Trump is now threatening new tariffs on Canada after massive wildfires left American cities blanketed by dense smoke. The and some say that Canada's far left environmental policies are to blame. We'll also tell you about an apparent terror attack outside of a federal building in New York City this morning. Get you up to speed on sweeping reforms to higher education. It could have a major impact on far left institutions and degrees. And Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan have been arrested by federal authorities in Florida. We'll tell you what they are facing in court and as always, stick around until the very end of the show for our live listener Q and A. If you are a Daily Wire member, get those questions in the chat. And if you're on Apple or Spotify, you can sign up now@dailywire.com subscribe. I want to hear from you. Go become a member. Get those questions in. All right, let's get the week started right. Roll that graphic. And just a reminder for you lovely folks, Wired in is now streaming live at 4pm Eastern Monday through Thursday. Get your daily coverage of the news happening right now. Hear about why it all matters from experts who are actually in the story. Become a member and join the live chat@dailywire.com subscribe. It was a busy news weekend. We got a lot to cover. So who better to help us make sense of it all than our good friend Mark Halperin, host of the morning meeting and NextUp, two shows which I listen to frequently. Mark, it's great to have you back,
- [02:20]
C
good sir Cavett, good to see you.
- [02:23]
A
I hope you had a good weekend. Did you go see the Odyssey? That seems to be the buzz right now. Everyone's talking about it.
- [02:28]
C
I didn't. I haven't seen a movie since you were in elementary school. So, I mean, at least in a movie in the Bijou, in the theater. So I haven't seen it yet. As soon as I can pirate it or stream it on something legally, I'll watch it.
- [02:39]
A
Yeah, I'm with you. We have two kids under two and a half, so I've not been in the movie theater in three years, but I will be streaming it when it comes out. But let's get to the important stuff. We gotta start with the war in Iran. As I just said, at least three US Service members killed over the weekend, Trump vowing retaliation. But to this point, it looks like US Strikes have still been fairly measured compared to what we saw in the early days of the conflict. Just what sort of impact do you see these casualties having on Trump's strategy?
- [03:08]
C
Well, he said today on Truth Social that Iran would pay a big price for it. The conventional wisdom remains that we're now in a new normal where there'll be medium level strikes back and forth, continue jousting over the strait, and that this will be the kind of the perpetual state for a while. I'm not so sure that's true. I think the president may decide to go for broke and escalate quite a bit, even knowing that Iran demonstrated over the weekend not in the tragic loss, just in the tragic loss of American life and injuries to many Americans, but their capacity to retaliate throughout the region. Despite that, some indications are we may see a big escalation. But as I said, the conventional wisdom is despite the loss of life, which the president had previously suggested would be a bit of a tripwire, there won't be a major escalation.
- [03:59]
A
Which of those two sides, the kind of status quo, keep these tit for tat strikes going or the going for broke, as you said? Which. Which one of those sides in what you're hearing from the White House seems to be winning out?
- [04:12]
C
Well, my head says status quo. My gut says escalation. Major escalation. I can't explain to you because my head and my gut are located very near each other, but they differ on this one.
- [04:27]
A
So you are very plugged in with the administration. Publicly, they've had a unified front when it comes to the war. But what are you hearing behind closed doors? Just how much division does there seem
- [04:36]
C
to be Right now, there's more than I've heard up until now. It's not acrimonious, and I don't think people should see it as sort of factions. But right now gas is at $4 a gallon. So those who are politically minded believe that there needs to be some change in one way or another until before the midterms. I don't find too many people anymore who are invested in the negotiations, despite Marco Rubio last night saying, well, there could be more negotiations, but there are some people who believe the goal is to get Iran back to the table in a serious way. There are others who my sense from the body language at least, is they're not interested in that. To borrow the old Bill Clinton expression, fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Or as they say in Arkansas, there's no wisdom to be gained by the second kick of a mule. And I don't think, I don't think, I don't think, I think it'll be difficult for the president to embrace further negotiations with gusto and credibility. But there are some in the administration who I think are more open to that than he appears to be.
- [05:47]
A
All right, let's go big picture. Mark. The last time that we talked, we were referencing the generic ballot polling for Congress between Democrats and Republicans. At the start of the month last month, I should say, Democrats were up nearly eight points. They were riding a wave. They're now up only about four and a half points on average. What do you make of that apparent momentum for the gop? Is it just that gas prices came down a bit the last few weeks, or do you think it's something more?
- [06:11]
C
Well, I think there are three things I'd cite. One is gas prices came down. Two is the identification of the Democratic brand with socialists. And positions like abolish the police have been very much in the news of late. And then lastly is you are seeing more advertising going on and Republicans have a lot of money to spend and I've argued in the past a better coordination about how to spend it. Right now. This is the most in what has been a confusing economic picture, a confusing political picture, this is the most confusing moment of the cycle for me. I hear things from people I trust who say Democrats are going to perform surprisingly well and overwhelmingly well despite the narrowing in some polls and the generic ballot question. And I hear people say Republicans are going to shock everybody. So I'm looking for more data right now. I'm looking for things to kind of settle down a bit in terms of Some of the big high profile things we've seen that might have been jimmying the polls one way or another, but it's a confusing period. I wouldn't believe anybody who tells you at this point they know how the story ends.
- [07:19]
A
Well, as you wait for more data to come in, if you look at prediction markets, Democrats with about an 80% chance of winning the House. Do you think that's where it should be or are you taking, taking the chance, the 5 to 1 odds for Republicans?
- [07:31]
C
I wouldn't take the odds, but I'd say right now it's more like 70% rather than 80 and maybe even a little bit lower. Right now the polls are extremely bad for Republicans in a lot of districts. But there are indications that Republicans have a plan to alter that. And we're remember, if you look at the districts that are in play, Democrats are gonna have to win a lot of districts that Donald Trump won by close to or above double digits. And that's even in a so called wave year. That's not easy to do.
- [08:00]
A
Yeah, I wanna get to a man that you follow very closely, Vice President J.D. vance. He was all over the airwaves this month. He was supposed to be doing his book tour, but it turned into kind of him becoming the de facto spokesman for the war in Iran. How do you think he did and what did he do for his 2028 standing this month?
- [08:19]
C
It's another one you're asking me about the stuff I feel is a big muddle. There are things he's done well and there are things that I think have set him back with at least some groups. His supporters are right that his backing within maga, within the broader public is quite strong. But as you know, because some of your colleagues would be in this camp, he's really turned off a lot of people. The things he said about Israel in his interview with Joe Rogan. This is just that one appearance really bothered some people. And they may be people whose support for Israel is out of step with a lot of the party, but they're not out of step with some important constituents, including the donor class. And so I think what he's done with handling the Iran negotiations, with the book tour, having the baby, I'd say the last three weeks have been a net plus, but only a net plus, not an unalloyed plus.
- [09:13]
A
And what are you hearing with regard to his presumed competition for the 28 nomination? Marco Rubio also had a strong few weeks. There was that speech he gave at the end of last week that got a lot of attention at that meeting on counterterrorism. What are you hearing on that front?
- [09:29]
C
The old joke about Jesse Jackson who went swimming and the critics said Jackson can't walk on water. Rubio is so, Rubio is so beloved right now when he goes swimming, they say, well, he could walk on water if he wanted to, but he chooses not to. He's just on just this run of love from even the media, even the liberal media. But I don't think he's going to run against J.D. vance. I said this from the start. I don't think anything could cause me to waver. I think if J.D. vance runs, he'll be endorsed by Donald Trump. I think he could pick Rubio as his running mate. But I don't think there'll be a serious challenge if Vance decides to run.
- [10:05]
A
I keep telling everyone the 2028 election seems so far off. This time next year we will be in the midst of presidential primary debates. It is coming sooner than people think, which gets me very excited. I know you get excited as well. One more thing before we go. I know that you keep up with the polls closer than maybe anyone. What is a polling data point that stuck out to you in the last week or so that you've been thinking about?
- [10:31]
C
I looked at two very long polls. Let me just think what in there stuck out to me? Probably the fact that socialism is in a Harris X poll that was done unveiled on two way on Friday. I think socialism is not popular. It's popular within parts of the Democratic Party, but broadly it is not popular. And so some Democrats say, well, we may not be for eliminating the police, but we like socialism. That ain't a winning hand in American politics right now. And that's part of why the Republicans think they can do well in the midterms because the Democratic Party, even those who don't brand themselves as socialists, are not really repudiating the label in many cases.
- [11:13]
A
Well, Mark, we love having you on. You said earlier you're waiting for a few data points to come in to help you make up your mind on your predictions moving forward. We're going to have you back on as that data comes in. Thank you again for being here.
- [11:25]
C
Enjoy being on with you, man. Thank you. Good to see you.
- [11:27]
A
Absolutely. That was Mark Halperin. Go watch Mark go read his stuff. He is one of the best. Let's get to another of our very good friends over in D.C. it's Daily Wire, D.C. bureau Chief Tim Rice. Tim, you got the special camera set up? Anytime my head whips this way the audience knows what's coming. It is you. How are we doing today?
- [11:50]
D
I'm doing great, Cavan. I feel a little bit like whoever had to go on Ed Sullivan after the Beatles, coming on after Mark Halper. The greatest to ever do it. But I'll do my best to not embarrass myself too much.
- [12:03]
A
Yep. And that's why you grew the mustache, to try and distinguish yourself. I assumed the mustache was kind of you were paying homage to me and that it was you trying to deepen our connection. But that's a conversation maybe for off air. It's been a good day so far. We're having a good time. It's not a good day for Andrew Tate and his brother Tristan Tate. They have been arrested by federal authorities in Florida. What kind of charges are they facing? What's happening here,
- [12:30]
D
man? This is the craziest story over the weekend, so let me give the top line. First, I believe there's 54 counts between the two of them. These are all things that they are. There's a warrant out for their arrest in the United Kingdom, where they hold dual citizenship. The charges are mostly concentrated around human trafficking, sexual assault and rape, all of which are charges that the brothers had been charged with in Romania and had been charged with, which is where they were operating out of from about 2016 to 2022, and things they were charged with in the United Kingdom pursuant to the arrest, which details are still coming out. But clearly this was done in conjunction with federal officials here and British officials to apprehend them in Miami. They've been charged with, I think, 19 new charges, including a number of charges related to the possession of child sexual abuse, material, child pornography. That's the proper term for that, for Andrew Tate specifically. So really horrifying stuff. As if this story couldn't get more terrifying. I won't go into all of the details. We've had a couple of pieces up on the site, and we've been covering these guys for years now. So if anyone really wants to get into the sordid details and their long track record of how they went from running a webcam operation in Romania. That's where a lot of the trafficking charges come from to up to the most recent arrests or the most recent details stemming from this arrest in Florida. Really just not good dudes, to put it as lightly as possible. So the United Kingdom is reportedly seeking extradition, and there is enough. We obviously have. We will extradite people to the United Kingdom, and there is, I guess, enough charges against them now. Where extradition seems possible. So it's weird. These guys have kind of been on the run for a long time, but they were on house arrest in Romania, but then they were allowed to leave and they were in the United Kingdom and in the United States. Apparently they were just in D.C. before they were in Miami. So it's kind of odd, but given the kind of high profile arrest, it sort of seems like authorities were biding their time building their cases. So hopefully we'll see some sort of movement on this coming soon.
- [14:39]
A
Yeah. And some horrifying charges. And if those charges are legitimate, we definitely want to see justice done. Let's get back to D.C. now. On the congressional side, there's a topic that it's kind of one of those 80, 20 issues, maybe even 9010. Congressional ban on stock trading. There have been allegations for years that seem like more than allegations. They seem pretty obvious that members of Congress are using inside information to make remarkably sound trading moves and predictions. There was a hearing today on a ban of Congress members trading stocks. Do you think this ever goes anywhere? Because ultimately they'd have to ban themselves.
- [15:21]
D
Yeah, that's right. And so it's kind of famously the last time Congress ever regulated itself was to guarantee raises for itself. That's the last time we've ever passed the constitutional amendment was locking in raises for members of Congress. So to your point, I mean, I think that's the black pill take, right. Is that Congress is never going to foreclose this, whether it's a handful of people who are maybe benefiting from this and want to keep that happening or people who think they might benefit from it in the future or just think that it's unfair or too stringent goes too far. You can see this happening. I'll give the white pill take, though, which is I think a couple of things. The first is that a lot of younger members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, this is a unifying issue. Right. This is sort of, I think it's partially because it's common sense to them. Right. A lot of younger representatives, you think about folks like Anna Paulina Luna or Kat Kamek. On the Republicans, you think about some of the younger Democrats, the squad members, frankly. Right. People who got into politics because for whatever they saw it and with all their ideological differences, they wanted to change the way Washington works. This is a big unifying issue. So part of it is, I think. Right. Nancy Pelosi sort of famously has become the meme of the stock trader. That kind of political class is on its way out. A lot of these folks came in wealthy or they came in independently comfortable. A lot of them are small business owners. So. So I think some of the resolve might have switched. And I think part of it also is that this kind of seems like a no brainer compared to the rise of prediction markets and online betting and all of these other things where there's all this technology that's rapidly emerging that's allowing not just congressmen, but staffers, anyone. We just saw the White House teleprompter operator who was fired after it was revealed that he bet on something Trump was gonna say in his speech, which of course he saw before anyone else. So I think that's another thing that might be pushing again younger, newer members of Congress where it's like, let's just get rid of this other thing which everyone agrees should be done and then we can focus on this more nuanced, emerging and potentially more troubling issue of again, the kind of rise of the predictions markets, the futures markets, to say nothing of all the other things that Congress has on its plate.
- [17:34]
A
As you mentioned, President Trump's teleprompter operator allegedly was making inside bets on his on the speeches that President Trump was going to give. I must say, I've sat in the press pool during many Trump addresses and I've watched the teleprompter. I can't tell you how many times President Trump just skips over entire portions of the prompter. So that is a dangerous move to make, obviously illegal.
- [17:57]
D
Obviously, yeah, obviously. If he was engaged in illegal betting, we can't condone that. But betting that Trump is going to say something on the prompter does sort of feel like, would you really arrest a member of the New York jets for betting that the team is going to lose a given game? It's going to happen that's not really in their control at a certain point.
- [18:15]
A
Yeah, that is a dangerous proposition. On the topic of members trading stocks, I for one believe Nancy Pelosi when she says that she just has a really good gut feeling when it comes to the markets. And yes, she outperforms virtually every single investment firm in America. But I think she just has an eye for this kind of thing. But that's a conversation for another time.
- [18:36]
E
Tim.
- [18:37]
A
The other big story right now, we've been following this a lot ever since the passing of Senator Lindsey Graham, his sister Darlene appointed to his position. We were expecting a knockdown, drag out fight in South Carolina to replace him, but Darlene actually just came out today and told Fox News that she intends to run for the seat to fill it permanently. What does this do to that primary?
- [18:59]
D
It makes it a hell of a lot more interesting, that's for sure. I'm hesitant to say that it's in the bag for Darlene, but I think she has a really good chance of it. Right? I mean, this is something we've seen in the past. I think Congresswoman Debbie Dingell, who was of course in the news recently for the tragic passing of her great granddaughter, I believe she assumed her seat when her husband died. And she's that sort of setting aside for a minute all the conversations that people will inevitably have about are these dynastic inheritances or whatever the American people liked when they can vote for the widow or the sister or the child of a well loved member of Congress who's died. So I think when you combine that with the fact that she has the very vocal support of President Trump and now the rest of the South Carolina delegation, and as we've discussed on this show, she's very known and popular in South Carolina circles. She was involved in the state's, I believe, disability policy and things of that nature. She was always sort of attending with her brother things at the state level. So again, if we think about what Lindsey Graham's legacy was, and it's obviously manifold as we've discussed, but one of the big things about Lindsey Graham's legacy was his commitment to South Carolinians, to the constituent services. That's a leg up that she already has. That's something where she can say I've already been doing this and I can do it the way my brother did it, better than perhaps some of my opponents. So, I mean, look, we can already predict what the attacks from her opponents are going to be. They're going to say you shouldn't be able to inherit a seat. They're going to say that she's untested. They're going to say that her politics are in no way guaranteed to be like her, her brothers. And they're gonna point to in the past she's donated to a Democratic candidate in 1990 or something. They're gonna say that she might be a liberal in disguise. This is all stuff that's going to come out in the primary process, of course. So I think she has a pretty good chance. Not a guaranteed chance, that's for sure. But it's a smart move. It's a smart move from her perspective as someone who wants to secure her brother's legacy. It's a smart move for the Trump administration to kind of keep someone who they think they can trust and see as an ally in the seat. It's a smart move for Republicans. Again, like she is at this point a little bit of a known quantity. And for as much as it's worth, it's obviously only going to be a few months. But she is the sitting senator, the sitting junior senator from South Carolina as we speak, which even though that is a little bit of a formality, that does count for something.
- [21:15]
A
Yeah, it certainly does. That is a primary we're going to be watching very closely ahead of November. Daily Wire, D.C. bureau Chief Tim Rice, always great to have you on, man.
- [21:26]
D
Always good to see you, Cavett.
- [21:27]
A
All right, let's get back to the war in Iran. The US death toll just rose to at least 17 this weekend after an Iranian missile struck a US base in Jordan, killing at least two service members and leaving another presumed dead. And in Iraq, another service member was killed while trying to disarm a downed Iranian drone. In response, President Trump and the Pentagon vowed to make the regime pay. And overnight, the US Carried out its ninth consecutive evening of strikes against Iranian targets. Joining us now with more is Victoria Coates, VP for national security and foreign policy at the Heritage foundation and former deputy national security advisor to President Trump. Victoria, it's great to have you. Thanks for being here.
- [22:05]
E
Thank you, Kevin.
- [22:06]
A
So over the last 48 hours, we've seen the State Department issue new warnings urging Americans not to travel to the Middle East. We've seen untold numbers of US Warplanes heading to the region. It's kind of reminiscent of what we saw back in February when there was this huge buildup before the all out war began. What sort of response do you think that we're going to see this week?
- [22:26]
E
I actually think it's a global warning just to not do discretionary travel right now. And that's because the Iranians we know do have a network of sort of terrorist proxies or terrorist agents rather, around the world. They've been active in Latin America, in Europe. So it's just an unsettled time. And they will be looking for soft American targets, but not necessarily exclusively in the Middle East. And obvious what happened in Jordan is horrible. We all mourn those brave heroes who lost their lives in our service. And good to point out that what the Iranians attacked in Jordan was essentially a dormitory. They went after our guys while they were and girls while they were sleeping then. Not exactly a profile in courage for the irgc. But I think you will see the president respond very strongly. He takes these things very personally. He'll be participating in the dignified transfer in Dover tonight. My guess is they're not going to want to do anything until that very solemn ceremony has been completed. But I expect we'll see a 10th night of strikes tonight.
- [23:31]
A
If you were still in the administration, Victoria, what are some specific actions that you would be pushing for?
- [23:38]
E
Well, I would be looking, and this is going to sound like a cop out, Cabot, but hear me out. I would be looking at things that we can't see from the outside. My experience with President Trump is he likes the very highly unexpected actions that only the United States can do. And so something like the Soleimani elimination, something like the Maduro operation, that demonstrates a capability they didn't know we had, that the Chinese didn't know we had. And that sort of resets the board. And so I think that those are probably the options on top of what we're now becoming fairly routine bombings that degrade their missile capabilities, their abilities to attack their neighbors in the region. I think that will and it's fairly expected, but it's also very effective. But I think you could see one of those more exquisite operations as well, and it's something we shouldn't know of ahead of time.
- [24:33]
A
With regard to the topic of degrading their missile capabilities, one of the things we've heard consistently for months now from the Pentagon and White House is that Iran's missile capabilities have been greatly diminished. President Trump went as far yesterday as saying, quote, iran has been very, very badly damaged. They've lost everything, almost everything. Militarily, they've got very little left. So how are the American people supposed to square statements like that with this weekend's events?
- [24:59]
E
Well, I mean, all you have to do is ask ChatGPT, which I've done recently, how many to do a graph for me of the number of missiles that Iran has fired off over the last four months. And they started with over 100 a day. Now they're in single digits, if at any at all. So, yes, they are certainly still a nuisance. And they can attack sites in neighbors such as Kuwait, Qatar, uae, Saudi Arabia, Oman. You know, they're firing off randomly. They are the vast majority of those, though, are intercepted. They're only hurting their own stockpiles by firing those off. But as this weekend demonstrates, they are still very much a nuisance. We have to stay vigilant and they only need to get lucky once to, you know, to take a strike and then claim victory. But at the same time, what they're able to do now versus what they were able to do four months ago are night and day, and it's just going to get worse for them.
- [25:53]
A
Victoria, there was a Washington Post article that got a lot of attention this weekend. I'm guessing you saw it, in which a Pentagon official reportedly expressed concern that US Air defense stockpiles were dwindling. What sort of depletion are we looking at and do you share in those concerns?
- [26:08]
E
Well, this is going to be a yes and no. I'm always concerned about that. It's a topic that we are very, very interested in at Heritage. Do we have the industrial base, Defense industrial base to replenish our stockpiles when we use these things? And one version of this that's been in the news are the PAC 3 interceptors for the Patriot systems that everybody uses, but Ukraine uses them. The disconnect there is Ukraine fires off about seven interceptors a month. We produce 60 overall. So that is going to create a drain on our supplies. Obviously, these kinds of sustained bombings and targetings are also going to do that. My understanding is that we are fine for this immediate exercise, but I think what everybody, and what probably those comments were meant to do was inspire folks to go back to our defense giants, our smaller, newer defense companies, see what they can produce. And then if we do want to explore giving licenses to manufacture those things. So, for example, Ukraine could manufacture their own PAC threes, that could be another way to mitigate this going forward.
- [27:22]
A
It's a fascinating element there, Victoria. Polling shows that fewer than one in three Americans believe that this war should have started in the first place. If you look back, that's actually less support than we saw for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. You again, have advised President Trump very closely in the past. What does polling like that, I guess I should say, how much does polling like that play into his decision making when it comes to foreign policy rulings?
- [27:48]
E
Well, I think this was predictable because in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan, we were avenging something that had happened to us in the form of the 9 11, 2001 attacks. And so the need to take action first against Afghanistan and the folks who directly attacked us and then against another threat for the region was much more immediate. What President Trump has done is decide to get rid of a problem that previous presidents have simply kicked down the road because it hadn't quite manifested itself yet. So in a way, it's a thankless task to prevent something from happening. And so folks then wonder, well, would it ever have happened. Unfortunately. I think what we see here and the behavior of the Iranian regime suggests that yes, it would have happened, that it was probably pretty close to happening. And what we would have had was a version of North Korea on the Gulf. And North Korea is bad enough, but they don't sit on top of one of the world's great shipping lanes. And the Iranians have shut what they'll do with that, with that location. So, you know, I know nobody likes to get bad polling, but it also seems very clear to me that the President is convinced he's doing the right thing and he wants to see it through.
- [28:59]
A
You mentioned shipping lanes. This all comes as the Houthis in Yemen today just declared a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia. I know you track the energy space very closely. Can you just describe for us what sort of impact that blockade might have on the region?
- [29:14]
E
Well, we'll see if the Houthi can do it. They've been pretty muted during this war and it's not clear to me quite what they're getting in terms of supplies, what they could actually do. So we'll see what they do. But what this would impact is Saudi petroline, which is their east west pipeline from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. At Yambu, their port on the Red Sea, they've been offloading close to 5 million barrels a day. That's a quarter of the energy that traditionally had passed through the Strait of Hormuz. So that's not an insignificant mitigation to what the Iranians have been doing. And so I don't know why, because this is Saudi's petro line was put in in the 80s, so it's not like this is news. It was started pumping ferociously in March and the Iranians didn't do anything about it and neither did the Houthis. So we'll see if they actually do try to take have an effect. The Saudis have significant armed forces. There's also the Egyptian navy that can take action here. And of course we're there. And it would not seem surprised me to see the Israelis offer assistance as well. And that's their backyard as well. So we'll see how that plays out. But it could be significant if it does impact those roughly, As I said, 5 million barrels a day that have been coming out through that route.
- [30:26]
A
When it comes to the strait, President Trump has told the rest of the world, hey, we've got the strait covered, it's safe, it's open, you guys can pass through. What is the reality on the Ground or on the waters, how much oil is getting through these days?
- [30:41]
E
It's depressed this week because the Iranians, I mean, I know everybody's very frustrated. Secretary Rubio came out and said, I believe yesterday that we thought we were hours away from an announcement that the strait was completely free and open. And then somebody went and attacked three ships. And apparently the Iranians have tried to say behind the scenes, oh, no, no, we didn't mean to have that happen. It was a rogue element. Well, if you can't control your rogue elements, it's no different than if you did it yourself. So that has had a chilling effect over the last couple of days. But my understanding is we're going to be seeing more and more coordination with Oman, the country on the other side of the strait. And they seem less and less interested in the kind of coordinations that the Iranians wanted to go into with Oman. I think Oman has realized that's a terrible choice for them and that they would do much better to sort of embrace free passage through their lanes to the west of the strait.
- [31:37]
A
Well, a lot of different things to weigh. Victoria, thank you so much for helping us make sense of it. We really appreciate it.
- [31:44]
E
Thank you, Cabot.
- [31:45]
A
That was Victoria Coates from Heritage. We're all trying to feel healthy, right? Drinking more water, getting our steps in taking our vitamins. Most people spend a lot of time thinking about their heart, their weight, or if you're me, thinking about your muscles. But almost nobody thinks about their liver. Liver health affects literally everything. Your energy, your digestion, how your skin looks, even your metabolism. It's time we show our liver some love. And that is where Dose comes in. Dose is a clinically backed liver health supplement. And unlike most supplements, you don't have to take a giant pill or dissolve that nasty gritty powder like other places. It comes in a delicious two ounce shot. I've taken morning supplements in powder form in the past. I literally would have to hold my nose and try not to gag while I forced it down because they all tasted so terrible and I never even really felt a difference. But Dose tastes fantastic, has me feeling awesome throughout the day, which is especially important for me right now as I try to stay sane on five hours of sleep a night with my toddler and four month old. I come in every morning after my garage gym workout. I pour myself a shot of Dose and down it goes. That's it. It's so easy. I've told you guys before, my wife is super health conscious. Some would even say crunchy. And she is always reading every ingredient before we bring new food into our house. Well, when I got my package from Dose, she read everything that goes into it. She was examining each label and every ingredient, and I'm happy to say it got her stamp of approval. So, you know, it's good stuff. So if you're wanting to get healthier and feel better, but you don't know where to start, dose is the move. If you're ready to give your liver the support it deserves, head to Dosedaily, Co Cabot or enter Cabot to get 35% off your first subscription. Your body does so much for you. Let's do something for it. That's D O S E D A I l y co cabot c a b o t for 35% off your first month subscription. Well, a new rule from the Department of Education could have an enormous impact on federal funding for higher education. This month, the Trump administration will begin implementing a new one question test for colleges and universities. And the question is, do graduates from each of your programs earn more money than those who never attend college at all? If the answer is no, those undergraduate programs could lose access to federal student loans. Here with more on this new rule is Dr. Zachary Marshall, editor in chief at the Leadership Institute's Campus Reform. Great to have you back, Zach. Thanks for being here.
- [34:15]
F
Great to be back.
- [34:16]
A
So can you just explain exactly how this new plan will work?
- [34:22]
F
Yes. So the Department of Education is proposing that colleges may lose their federal funding if those programs, on an individual program basis, cannot demonstrate that their graduates in two of the last three years have graduated. Students who make more than a high school make more than those with a high school diploma. That's on a bachelor's degree level. So programs could lose their federal funding if they fail to do that. And then of course, there's a higher level for graduate programs. So that would be compared to bachelor's degree programs. I know there is debate and controversy around this rule, but I can't help feeling and thinking that colleges have done this to themselves. No one was really questioning whether or not we should be tying federal funding to graduates income until tuition got just unaffordable for so many Americans. I think if universities have practiced restraint and humility in the last few decades and at least kept tuition and the cost of attendance to inflation, then we wouldn't be in the situation. But I think when we look at this predicament, we can't help but think that universities really did this to themselves.
- [35:33]
A
Yeah. And essentially the DOE is saying, hey, if you guys are going to allow students to take out massive student loan debt to try and pay for this. We at least want to have some sort of guarantee that they're going to actually be able to get a job to pay back that loan. It makes sense. What are some of the degrees in particular that might be impacted by this rule?
- [35:53]
F
All the fun ones, to be honest. The ones that might be fun to take but don't pay much. And I say that as someone with way too much in student loans and a lot of fun degrees, Dance, English, writing, anything that's based in the finer creative arts, you know, the stuff that I teach and that I have a background in. So I'm very supportive of those programs as pursuits of study for students. But we also have to recognize that these are not high paying industries and maybe it doesn't make sense for so many people to get four year degrees or master's degrees in acting. That just is a harsh reality we might have to come to grips with. So it's those things that are going to be at the forefront of the department's focus and, and I think already at the forefront of families focus as parents think about how much they're paying for their kids to study movement or to practice things that might not be so applicable in the workforce. We just have to face facts.
- [36:53]
A
Yeah, I was going to be an interpretive dance major, but unfortunately I looked up how much I might earn with that degree and I would like to think that I'd be at the high end of earning when it comes to interpretive dance. But even then it still wasn't gonna pay off the loans that would be incurred. Zach, if you read through the responses to these proposals, one of the main criticisms that we hear, we saw this in an NPR piece, for example. They said, look, there's more to college than just finding a job that makes a lot of money. And this is going to keep people out of jobs that give them purpose and meaning. How do you respond to those folks?
- [37:27]
F
I would say that, you know what, there is consensus on that. And conservatives are the first ones to say that the liberal arts are about the cultivation of the self and about academic stuff. That's why campus reform calls out universities and professors who have turned education into activism. That is not the purpose of college either. And this is going back to trying to correct excess. We have had too much inflation of bureaucracy on college campuses, of student services, of offices of inclusion that drive up the cost of college at 10 times the rate in some cases than the amount of money that's being put into academic instruction and support. So colleges, if they wanted to have a narrower definition of what they were doing, I think we can all agree more soundly on what college is for. I think it's the left that's gotten away from the plot here.
- [38:22]
A
Yeah. My biggest concern with a proposal like this is what it would mean for religious schools. For example, I went to a Christian university. There were a lot of students there who majored in things like theology and ministry and other sorts of of Christian ministry degrees. Those aren't exactly known for how much money they make afterwards. It was a calling for a lot of these people. And so I do have some concerns on that front. But I think the average American doesn't love the idea of their taxpayer dollars subsidizing student loans for people who will never be able to pay them off. I want to get to some other topics. You at Campus reform. You guys cover all sorts of government waste and abuse and bias. What are some of the bigger changes that we've seen with regard to higher education over the last two years under the Trump administration?
- [39:06]
F
We have seen, I think, universities realizing that they can no longer operate as they have been. They are now at a tipping point where the bubble is going to burst, I think, by the end of the decade with tuition. And we are seeing this business model that higher ed has operated under kind of fall out from underneath them. I would point your readers to our coverage on Temple University and Syracuse University this year. Just a few weeks ago, both universities said, we have missed our enrollment targets for the fall and we are in dire financial straits. Temple is going to lay off staff for the second year in a row because of the same problem. Syracuse University now has a task force that is going to reassess from scratch basically what its brand is, what its financial priorities are. They are in such a dangerous financial position right now that they're really trying to have that no bad ideas committee that Tom Holland was out was advocating for earlier this year. I think we're going to see more and more universities like that because as tuition has gone up and as the ideological activist component of universities got more entrenched, the plum has got less and less valuable. And, you know, most Americans who don't care at all about politics, you know, look at return on investment. They look at value for money, and they're saying, this is not for me. So I think we're going to see a new period where we're going to see slimmer universities that are going to rein back. They realize that they have to be responsive to where society is and where the electric electorate is. And I think the future of higher education if we stay on this path is the depoliticized college that is a little more narrower in its focus. That's where we need to be going.
- [40:49]
A
You would like to imagine that market forces would be at play here.
- [40:54]
F
Exactly.
- [40:54]
A
These universities would be forced to make a change. But with the student loan system, a lot of times it's not a free market and they don't have to make those changes. So maybe this is a step in the right direction from the DOE. Dr. Zachary Marshall from the Leadership Institute's Campus Reform, thanks for coming on.
- [41:10]
F
Thanks.
- [41:12]
A
All right, let's get back to D.C. where we've got Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan standing by. Mary Margaret, great to see you.
- [41:21]
G
Hey, Kevin, great to see you too.
- [41:23]
A
So let's get to the heavy news first. We saw these, at least three, maybe four US service members killed over the weekend in this conflict with Iran. What sort of response have we seen from the White House?
- [41:37]
G
Yeah, so this is a very tragic news that we learned about these two soldiers who were killed in action. The president will be heading to their dignified transfer tomorrow night and I believe I will be going with him. So I'll be able to cover this dignified transfer and all the events of tomorrow, hopefully up close to the President as he honors these fallen American heroes. As he and Caroline Levitt described them. They were killed while supporting Operation Inherent Resolve in Iran in the Middle East. One of them was 25 year old First Lieutenant Tyler James Feehan of Hawaii. The other was 19 year old Private Isabella Gonzalez of Texas. And the President, in his response, he has said, and I'm quoting him here, every time Iran kills an American soldier, they will pay for that killing many times over. And he said that directive from him has been passed on to Pete Hegseth, to Dan Cain, Raisin Cain and quote, every leader in the military. Now, for her part, Caroline Levitt said that the president and the entire White House is praying for their families. And we've seen a very similar response across the board from the White House. We've also seen Pete Hegseth put out a statement saying that no soldier's death will go unavenged. That sparked some backlash from plenty of people online, but, you know, received very mixed feedback from, of course, those who support the war and those who don't. And it's obviously a very emotional time, Cabot, as we mourn the loss of the lives of these soldiers.
- [43:19]
A
Mayor MARGARET we saw a report coming out this weekend alleging that the Pentagon was covering up casualty numbers and trying to keep from the American people how many service members had actually been injured during some of these strikes. Has the Pentagon responded to that report?
- [43:35]
G
Yeah. So the Pentagon has very adamantly denied and called this fake news. I believe it was Sean Parnell, who's the chief spokesman for the Pentagon, he said that they reject those baseless and malicious accusations of hiding injury numbers. And he said that the New York Times, which is the outlet that originally published this report, he said that they're trying to, quote, further distress the American people in the wake of three servicemembers being killed in action. Now, there's plenty of publications out there that are noting that Sean Parnell did not address the alleged three undisclosed Iran strikes last week that allegedly killed our service members. But my understanding, Cabot, is that I worked with the Pentagon a lot. I see how they cover this type of thing. They don't give answers on things that they're not fully ready to give information on. So I would believe Sean Parnell in that. The New York Times, if he says that they are spreading baseless allegations about these fake numbers, as he says, I would believe him on that point. But I am interested to hear more about these strikes that he didn't really address and more information on that point because it's possible there's something there. Though I do think that most legacy outlets do seem to be doing their best to fan the flames of fear and resentment as it comes to, as it pertains to this war.
- [44:59]
A
Yeah. On the topic of flames, we saw flames outside of a federal immigration office up in New York City this morning where there was an apparent terrorist attack, for lack of a better term, outside of this facility. Tell us what happened there.
- [45:15]
G
Yeah, this is pretty scary. So our colleague Jen Chair at the Daily Wire is reporting that this suspect was accused of detonating an incendiary device outside the New York City federal immigration office. So their ICE office, his name is allegedly Andrew Arabaca. I'm probably mispronouncing that wrong. I usually do. And he was said to be carrying a sign reading ICE off our streets during the attack on Monday. Now, he's also allegedly a 43 year old military veteran. And authorities are saying he poured what's believed to be gasoline on the ground outside of the building and caused. He actually placed fireworks on top of that and then lit the device on fire. So it caused a little fire, according to the New York FBI field office. And then authorities were able to take care of It. But still very scary. And especially in New York City, this is an incident that very surprising to see in a very public place, and it's causing a lot of consternation with officials. And there's no doubt, Kat. But we're gonna see some strong pushback to this from the Trump administration. We also know, I should have mentioned this earlier, that he was carrying two axes, a hammer, a machete, and multiple knives. So prepared to do some violence, prepared to do some damage.
- [46:32]
A
Yeah. And sadly, this is just the latest example of violence we've seen against ICE facilities. We've seen shootings targeting ICE agents. We've seen all sorts of violence committed against immigration authorities. So at a certain point, this type of thing is not surprising anymore, even though it is shocking. Let's get to some lighter News. Back in D.C. there was some history made this weekend with the second family, something we haven't seen in well over a century. What's going on there?
- [47:01]
G
Yeah. So Vice President J.D. vance and his wife, Usha Vance, welcomed their fourth baby this weekend, a little boy. I believe he is the first child born to a vice president in 150 years. So that's a little American royalty, if you want to look at it that way. We haven't had a child born to a vice president in very long time. The president tweeted this morning and called the baby beautiful little boy. And I thought it was pretty funny, Cabot, because the picture he tweeted had two of Vance's kids in it and then two of the youngsters holding their new brother. One of the other kids was missing, and it made me wonder if J.D. vance just kind of casually texted this photo to the president and Trump was like, great picture, and just posted it out for the world to see, which wouldn't surprise any of us, I don't think, given the President's casual nature. But we know he loves babies. I've heard him talk about it many times, so I'm sure he's genuinely excited for the Vances. And as for J.D. vance, we know he'll be back doing his vice presidential duties very soon. In fact, I think we'll expect to see him at the White House Correspondents Dinner on Friday. But in the meantime, he is probably the proud dad of four kids, and that's very exciting.
- [48:16]
A
I don't want to critique the vice President. I will say, though, he missed an opportunity because I was looking at the name of this child. I forget exactly what the name was, but it wasn't Donald. And he had a chance to pull the ultimate suck up move. If he's trying to get that endorsement for 2028, just name the kid Donald, or at least make it the middle name. That would just ensure that President Trump would give him the go ahead. Mary Margaret, you touched on the White House correspondence dinner that's taking place this coming Friday. Obviously we were supposed to have the correspondents dinner a month or two ago when there was that attempted shooting that shut it down. What are you hearing from the White House on what we might expect for this event?
- [48:54]
G
Yeah, so I'll be attending. I'm very excited, working through some dresses right now, trying to figure out what to wear. But this will be taking place on Friday evening. I'm looking forward to it. It is obviously the rescheduled event after April's event was disastrously interrupted by an attempted assassin who wanted to kill the president and other top Republican officials. Thankfully, the Secret Service apprehended him and stopped him and he is in custody. But it was a very scary thing. Cabot, We've talked about it, how this man was able to get into the hotel with many weapons and to attempt to assassinate the President. So the second one will be at the waldorf in Washington, D.C. it's formerly Trump Hotel. So my guess is that the president's security team and the Secret Service are already very familiar with the Waldorf and its workings, given that it literally used to be Trump Hotel, D.C. it's a much smaller event, I believe. There will be no red carpet and no photos and our group will be much smaller of attendees. So many outlets who formerly had multiple guests are now only having a few or even one. And so it'll be interesting to see the president has joked and said that he was gonna make a lot of jokes that maybe aren't. Maybe he's not going to make them now given the sensitivity of the last event. But I have a feeling that enough time has passed that he's going to be ready to crack some jokes at the legacy media's expense. And I'm looking forward to it.
- [50:19]
A
Yeah, I think that a lot of the reason for a lot of the legacy press not going is because there won't be a red carpet. I remember being in D.C. i went to a White House correspondent's dinner. All the reporters cared about was getting their glam photos on the red carpet. So I can't blame them. I actually did the same thing, so I can't blame them for that. But it will be very interesting to see on this topic. Merry Margaret, we've had a lot of people Throwing questions in the chat for you, and we've got a little bit of time for those. So someone was asking. They must have noticed that you had some special makeup or something on last week, because they said MMO was all glammed up last week. What was going on?
- [50:56]
G
Oh, you guys, I can't tell you yet, but I did have something cool going on that day, and we'll hopefully be able to share it soon. A cool project I was working on, but come on, you're supposed to tell me I look good every day.
- [51:08]
A
Yeah, come on.
- [51:09]
D
Chat.
- [51:09]
A
That's on you guys. Speaking of crazy things that maybe you can tell us about these rkmissions wants to know what is the craziest thing that Mary Margaret has ever covered? Craziest event or anything?
- [51:21]
G
Oh, craziest event. Well, actually, I don't know how crazy this is, but it was really, really cool. I got to go back to Butler with President Donald Trump after he almost was killed there. And we got to go back. And all of the people who sat behind him at that first Butler rally and were in the line of fire as well. They wanted to be there for his second return. So they all sat behind him again as we honored Corey Comperatore, who was the father that was killed by the assassin who tried to kill Trump. And I got to talk to a lot of them. They all told me that they wanted to stand behind the man that stood up for them. And a really, just amazing day and evening. Very hot, very long, very tiring, but I will never forget it. It was so cool.
- [52:08]
A
And one final question. Miao Se Tung, one of my favorite usernames says, what is the latest on the Presidential Ballroom?
- [52:17]
G
The latest? Oh, it's still under construction. We can see it every day. The President talks about it as much as he can. Anytime there's any kind of even slight security incident, the president's like. And this is why we need the ballroom. So as a member of the press, I can tell you he's bringing it up a lot. We were hearing about the ballroom pretty much every single day, and the construction is moving along.
- [52:37]
A
All right, well, we look forward to seeing the ballroom complete. I know it'll make your life a little bit easier. You don't have to jaunt across town too much. Mary Margaret, thank you, as always. We love getting to chat with you.
- [52:48]
G
Thank you.
- [52:49]
A
That was Daily Wire White House correspondent Mary Margaret Olihan. All right, guys, if you're watching Wired in live on the Daily Wire plus app, thank you. If not, that's where you should be. That is how you get push alerts when we go live, Breaking news as it happens. And of course, the latest smart investigative reporting team. The Daily Wire plus app is free and available now on the App Store, Google Play, Apple tv, Roku, Samsung LG, and more. All right, let's bring in a very special guest. It's Congresswoman Kat Kamek from the great state of Florida. Congresswoman, thanks for joining us.
- [53:22]
B
Hey, good to see you.
- [53:23]
A
I'm very excited to kick things off with this first topic. An awesome bill that you have that I honestly read and thought, how was this? Not a thing already. It's HR 500, which would require background checks for all congressional staffers before they can be hired. Tell us more on that front.
- [53:41]
B
Yeah, this is one of those things that make you go, huh? Because candidly, everyone assumes, naturally, as they should, that you have to get a background check to work at Publix gas station. Really, any job these days. Heck, even to volunteer, you have to get a background check. But funny enough, you don't need a background check to be a staffer in the United States House of Representatives. And so I brought this issue up. Beginning of last year, I tried to get this implemented in the rules package, which is what dictates how Congress operates for the following two years. And everyone has said, yeah, that's a good idea, but. And there's a lot of buts and things that they've been doing to kick this down the road. But pretty crazy. You do not need a background check to serve in Congress.
- [54:32]
A
What are some specific examples of people who've been employed in Congress that you feel have no business being there?
- [54:38]
B
Oh, my gosh. Well, there are a litany of examples. But, I mean, we've seen the very public ones where, of course, there have been Chinese spies that have been employed in both members of the House and the Senate in those offices in different capacities. We know that just two blocks from here, from where I'm sitting, cair, which is the Islamic Relations Organization, they actually fund internships and get people placed in offices on Capitol Hill. And from those internships, they rise through the ranks. During the Biden administration, one of those CARE fellows, they ended up on the National Security Council because, again, the assumption is as well, heck, you've been vetted all the way through your career on Capitol Hill. You must be good people. Right? And the fact remains is that there is no drug testing, there are no background checks, and there is no disclosure of dual citizenships or if you've worked for an organization that takes money or is funded by foreign organizations. So we know China does this, we know Russia does it, we know multiple Islamic countries do this. This is a real problem. We need to be sure that the people that are working on the people's behalf are actually for the people. And so this is a very common sense resolution. It's H res 500. It would require these disclosures that in my mind are very much an America first common sense measure, because this is a bipartisan, bicameral issue and, and it should be a no brainer.
- [56:07]
A
Yeah, we saw some allegations and rumblings that there was a former member of the House who had employed some interns and staff members that had been dual agents working on behalf of some Middle Eastern countries. So definitely something we wanna follow up on and have you back to talk about this as it makes its way through the House. But I wanna get to another topic, election integrity. President Trump gave that big address on Thursday night. He accused China of interfering in our elections, saying they hacked into our voter data and tried to sway public opinion on his administration. What sort of response would you like to see from Congress following those revelations?
- [56:43]
B
I mean, pass the damn Save America Act. It's not that difficult. This is a common sense, common sense bill. I mean, you have to have a photo ID to get pasta at Olive Garden, for Pete's sakes. Why is this controversial? You should have to show a photo government ID in order to vote and you should be a citizen of this country. I do not know why that is controversial. Of course we know that the left would love nothing more than to go back to the open borders policy of the previous administration because we know through what they championed in their version of HR1 in the 118th Congress, it was public financing of campaigns, noncitizens voting, no photo id. And so you match that up with their plan of open borders and it all kind of starts making sense. But again, I thought that the revelation that the Chinese government was putting fake IDs into production and getting them into circulation, it's no surprise that is the default setting of the ccp. They lie, they steal, they cheat. It's. It quite literally is the default setting. Any, anybody who has read Sun Tzu knows that this is really the game plan, which ultimately is part of their hundred year plan.
- [57:56]
A
I thought one of the most stunning revelations was President Trump saying that the intelligence community had intentionally kept that election meddling effort from reaching his desk. So what sort of power does Congress have to ensure that if that did happen, that there are consequences for the people who took part in that alleged cover up.
- [58:14]
B
So it comes to a bigger issue, which I think is the fact that Congress has abdicated its role in many instances. So we've been trying like the dickens. I was gonna say a different word, but I'm trying really hard as a new mom not to cuss as much. We've been trying really, really hard to rein in the federal government and reassert Article 1 authority. And really a full range of issues, right? Whether it's the regulatory regime, whether it's the weaponization of government, which we know is real. I served on the Weaponization Committee. And we know that in order to drain the swamp, you have to get rid of the unelected, nameless, faceless bureaucrats. One that are driving all the spending and all these crazy rules. But they're also, in a nefarious fashion, they're driving the root cause of weaponization. They're abusing their power. The only way to combat that is to reassert that Article 1 authority, which means Congress actually has to grow a spine. They've got to get some cojones and man, they have got to exercise that right that they have that is outlined in the Constitution. But often, and this was part of my campaign when I first ran, and I'm sorry, I've got to say the word, we cannot have any more chicken shit politicians in Washington. And this place is full of them, because they would rather keep their head down and just run with the title rather than actually advocate for real change. And real change up here. It's uncomfortable, it's disruptive, but that's really what we need if we're gonna put America first.
- [59:45]
A
Congresswoman, I have the wired in swear jar right here. I'm gonna need you to cough up some dough to put that in there. I'll let you off the hook for this one.
- [59:53]
B
What's the going rate? What's the going rate?
- [59:55]
A
Well, for members of Congress, it's at least $100. For everyone else it's 50 cents. But I'm just gonna think of it as a donation to the team. I wanna get to these wildfires. We've seen hundreds of wildfires, some of them massive, raging in Canada. That smoke has descended to the U.S. there was just wild pictures and video coming out from New York and Chicago and other cities across the north that just were blanketed in smoke. President Trump has now threatened tariffs on the Canadians, saying that their environmental policy has led to these fires. Would you support an idea like that?
- [60:29]
B
This is what's so crazy is I was Just talking to my mom about this last night because Washington has been rated the fourth worst air quality globally and not exactly something that I want to bring my infant daughter up to D.C. to experience firsthand. And so we were talking about this last night and it is so true. President Trump is 100% right. It is because of their we call them bunny hugger policies that they now have these massive fires because they refuse to do basic forestry management. These prescription burnings. They really do a lot in cutting away all that underbrush. And it makes it so you don't have these wildfires that rage out of control because you've done the maintenance, you've done the work in order to prevent it. And that is actually a good thing. You look at Florida, Florida is the number one lightning strike capital in the country. And we see where these strikes, they'll ignite a lot of fires because we actually do maintenance on our forests and our working forests. We don't have these out of control fires, despite the fact that we've had droughts. So, yeah, they need to take responsibility and accountability for their lack of basic maintenance because it's impacting America now. So I'm glad that the President is calling them out.
- [61:45]
A
I have one final question for you, this one on another somewhat random topic, but last week, Congress voting to make daylight saving time permanent, you voted in favor of that measure as well. There's been a lot of debate here. I'm myself still on the fence. So let me hear your pitch for why this is the right move.
- [62:05]
B
So I'll tell you, I'm actually pretty agnostic one way or the other whether it's daylight savings or standard time. However, the thing that I cannot tolerate again as a new mom is you get a sleep schedule for your baby and then the time changes. I think Americans collectively are sick and tired of the spring forward fallback nonsense. We've been doing this for way too long. Most people really don't care if it's standard or if it's daylight savings. They just don't want the clock to keep changing. And the science backs it up. The constant back and forth, it is actually a derogatory element to our basic health. But I could go either way.
- [62:43]
A
Honestly, I think that's the best argument for it. I have a two and a half year old and a six month old and I did not realize how much of an impact daylight savings had until I had children. Now I realize this throws them off for a week. So I think that's a compelling argument. Congresswoman, a pleasure to have you on. Thank you so much for making time for us. We really appreciate it.
- [63:03]
B
Appreciate you. Have a good one.
- [63:05]
A
Absolutely. That was Congresswoman Kat Kamek from the great state of Florida. And this was wired in. If you're on Apple or Spotify, I will see you guys tomorrow. If you want to keep the show going, you want to join our live listener Q and A, you got to go sign up@dailywire.com subscribe. I almost forgot. I've said that a million times and I almost forgot. So go subscribe, become a Daily Wire member and join the live chat. We'll see you guys tomorrow.