Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 5, 2025 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:29:17

A Big Announcement! Plus Trump’s NEW Travel Ban!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Tons coming up on today's show.
	A huge announcement coming up in just a moment.
	Plus, we talk about President Trump's new travel ban on a bunch of countries trying to keep bad people out of the United States.
	We're joined by Representative Elise Stefanik, who may be running for governor of New York into the New York mayoral debate.
	Plus, Tucker Carlson is attacking Mark Levin with, I guess, inside information from the White House or something.
	But first, give dad what the culture won't.
	Common sense.
	Get 40% off Daily Wire Plus gift memberships for Father's Day and give dad ad-free daily shows from the most trusted voices in conservative media.
	Use code DAD40 at dailywire.com slash.
	Already, folks, today I have a huge announcement.
	My first book in four years is coming out on September 2nd.
	It's titled Lions and Scavengers.
	I started writing this book in a white heat at a specific time and place.
	Outside London in November 2023, where I was preparing to do a series of debates at Oxford Union and Cambridge.
	I'd been thinking about the themes in the book for a long, long time.
	It all truly crystallized after October 7th, 2023.
	Not because of the barbaric terrorism of the terrorist group Hamas.
	None of that was particularly surprising.
	But because of the response in the West, where hundreds of thousands of born and bred Westerners took to the streets before Israel had even responded in order to rally to the side of terrorists who murdered babies in front of their parents, women.
	And kidnapped Holocaust survivors.
	Something deeply wrong had happened in the West.
	And so I spent the course of the next year thinking and traveling and writing.
	This new book is a work of the heart and of the mind.
	I think it's my most important book.
	It's certainly my most passionate.
	Lions and Scavengers took shape as I traveled from Washington, D.C. to Oxford University, from the southern border of the United States with Mexico to the drug-infested areas of Kensington, Pennsylvania, from Buenos Aires, Argentina to Jerusalem, Israel.
	And the thesis of the book is really simple.
	Our civilization is now divided between lions and scavengers, and we must decide between them.
	So now I want to read you just the very beginning of Lions and Scavengers.
	Attention lies at the core of our being.
	It roils us.
	It churns our guts.
	It boils our brains.
	That tension lies between two opposing forces.
	Those forces beat within every man's breast.
	They fight for supremacy within every civilization.
	One must triumph and one must fall.
	The spirit of the lion.
	The spirit of the scavenger.
	I write these words in London, England.
	I write them in disappointment and horror and dismay.
	For London has been conquered by the scavengers.
	Just last weekend, London saw a massive river of protesters, hundreds of thousands strong, marching.
	Their banners unfurled.
	The banners of terrorist groups and of communists and of transgender activists gathered together to revolt against the civilization.
	That has given them their rights and their prosperity and their power.
	These marchers have gathered to protest in favor of the terror group Hamas.
	It has been just a few weeks since the slaughter of 1,200 Jews and kidnapping of 250 others on October 7, 2023, in the envelopes surrounding the Gaza Strip.
	Members of Hamas and Palestinian civilians flooded into villages, a music festival, homes.
	They dragged out men, women, and children.
	They live-streamed their crimes.
	And the scavengers have risen in rage in support of Hamas.
	As the savagery, mass murder, kidnapping took place, one commenter posted on social media.
	What did y 'all think decolonization meant?
	Vibes?
	Papers?
	Essays?
	Losers?
	Her comment received nearly 100,000 likes, and it spoke to the very core of the scavengers.
	All inhumanity against the lions is justified.
	And so the scavengers have gathered here in the beating heart of what was once the center of Western civilization to bathe for more blood and to scream at a West that insists that defense against terror is the first right of all men.
	They march with their red flags held high, ecstatically singing the praises of murderers.
	For this is their opportunity to castigate the lion's pride to bring it low.
	The British Communist Party issued a statement in solidarity with Hamas, condemning the Israeli government on the day after October 7th, before Israeli military action had even begun.
	Jeremy Corbyn, former leader of the Labour Party, appeared at rallies flanked by Palestinian flags.
	The hilariously bizarre group Queers for Palestine quickly formed in solidarity with people who would throw queers off buildings at the first available opportunity if given half a chance.
	Many of the most ardent libertines have thrown their support behind Hamas, claiming solidarity with those who would throw them off roofs at the first opportunity.
	Anything to tear down the pride.
	This is not mere anti-Semitism.
	Anti-Semitism is an age-old hatred rooted in a conspiracy theory.
	It takes many forms and has countless victims.
	This is something different.
	It is a united, coalitional hatred.
	Of the West.
	In The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R.
	Tolkien wrote of the hordes of Mordor, stand-ins for the Nazis and their allies by way of metaphor, gathering on the plains outside the gates of Minas Tirith, the last redoubt of mankind.
	Quote, The plain was dark with their marching companies, and as far as eyes could strain in the murk, there sprouted like foul fungus growth, all about the beleaguered city, great camps of tents, black or somber red.
	All day the labor went forward, while the men of Minas Tirith looked on, unable to hinder it.
	So it goes today, in London.
	The Marchers' March.
	Their numbers increase, and the scavengers cast their avaricious, ravenous eyes across the landscape and see no one to oppose them.
	The lions are gone, and without the spirit of the lion, our civilization collapses.
	That is the very beginning of my brand new book, Lions and Scavengers, available for pre-order right now at dailywire.com slash ben shapiro.
	I think it's incredibly important, not just for you, but also for your kids, because we do need to be a civilization of lions if we want to survive.
	We need to teach our children to be lions and to fight the scavengers.
	I hope that my brand new book, Lions and Scavengers, is a fitting start because the battle continues every single day.
	Speaking of the scavengers, Democrats are having a very, very difficult time right now.
	My book, by the way, has a fair bit of optimism to it because over the course of the year, from October 2023 to election 2024, some things changed.
	But the sort of fascinating devolution of the Democratic Party, is a study on what it looks like when scavengers have nothing to rally around.
	We saw that last night in a New York mayoral debate that just exploded into chaos when all of these bizarre left-wing perspectives came into conflict.
	So in this New York mayoral debate, New York right now is, of course, in serious political trouble.
	Eric Adams has been under fire for allegations of corruption.
	He's running as an independent.
	And meanwhile, there are nine Democrats who are competing essentially to run against him.
	The two leading Democrats are Andrew Cuomo, the disgraced former governor of the state, who spent his term grabbing ass and killing old people, and he ran out of old people.
	And then he was ousted for the alleged ass-grabbage.
	So Andrew Cuomo is the current frontrunner in the New York mayoral race.
	And then the person who's running second is a person named Zoran Mamdani, who's a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
	And he's basically an open communist.
	I mean, he has openly said that he wants government-run grocery stores.
	He has suggested that the government basically ought to run housing completely in the city of New York.
	And he is a full-fledged red communist, Zoran Mamdani.
	And he's running second.
	He's like 22% in the polls behind Andrew Cuomo's 35% in the Democratic primary polls.
	So this debate broke into absolute sheer chaos right from the beginning.
	And watching the competing strains of the sort of scavenger mentality go at each other.
	The intersectional coalition clawing at one another.
	It's pretty astonishing to watch.
	You wonder why Democrats are in trouble.
	This would be the reason.
	So Jessica Ramos is a New York state senator.
	She really has very little juice in this race.
	But just to show how radical the Democrats are, she suggested that because President Trump will not use federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize the transing of the children, that New Yorkers should withhold their own taxes.
	This is a serious proposal.
	From a person running for New York mayor is that people should stop paying their taxes unless Donald Trump restores the ability of taxpayer dollars to fund the transing of minors.
	Okay, here we go.
	Not only should my administration litigate to protect immigrants, to protect gender-affirming care, but we should be ready to withhold our federal taxes when Trump unlawfully takes away funding from the things that we need.
	Unbelievable.
	So unless you have open illegal immigration and transing the kids, then you should stop paying your taxes, according to a Democrat who's running for mayor of New York.
	She wasn't the only Democrat running for mayor.
	Michael Blake, former New York Assemblyman and vice chair of the DNC from 2017 to 2021, he jumped in to attack Andrew Cuomo.
	I have to say this was sort of amusing.
	He said that grandmothers don't feel safe around Andrew Cuomo because of his history of handsiness, shall we say.
	The people who don't feel safe are young women, mothers, and grandmothers around Andrew Cuomo.
	That's the greatest threat to public safety in New York City.
	Yeah, you have to be worried about the old people and who he might kill.
	I mean, good times over at the mayoral debate.
	Adrienne Adams is Speaker of the New York City Council.
	She also exploded on Andrew Cuomo.
	Clearly, Cuomo was the recipient of most of the ire on the stage.
	There were some nine candidates on the stage, and most of them were directing their anger at Cuomo because he's the frontrunner.
	Here he was.
	Mr. Cuomo, this question was about your personal regret in your use of politics.
	I said I regret the state of the Democratic Party is in that we elected Trump.
	No regrets when it comes to cutting Medicaid or health care.
	No regrets when it comes to cutting child care.
	No regrets when it comes to slow walking PPE and vaccinations in the season of COVID to black and brown communities.
	Really, no regrets.
	So in a little while, we're going to have on Representative Elise Stefanik, who may be running for governor of New York, to talk about what's going on here first.
	There's a lot going on economically, like a lot going on.
	And some of it's good, some of it's bad.
	All of it creates uncertainty.
	And so what that means is that you should seriously be thinking about precious metals.
	Because in uncertain times, if you are building a house, if your house is your finances, the foundation of that house needs to be something stable and solid that you know is not going to collapse in on you.
	And that's why I just bought more gold.
	From Birch Gold.
	In the past 12 months, the value of gold has increased by 40%.
	Central banks everywhere are buying gold in record quantities.
	With our debt problems, that makes sense.
	Demand isn't going to subside anytime soon, in my opinion.
	Again, this is one of the reasons why I'm investing in precious metals.
	I'm looking around the market.
	I see a lot of bubbles everywhere.
	And during bubble times, that's a good time to move towards something that actually is going to be a solid store of wealth.
	Birch Gold, as I've personally experienced, makes the process of owning physical gold really simple by offering convenient options to either transform your existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA backed by physical gold or to acquire gold for safekeeping in your home.
	Just text my name, Ben, to 989898.
	Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.
	There's no obligation, only useful information.
	With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, tens of thousands of happy customers, including me, take control of protecting your savings today.
	Text the word BEN to 989898.
	Also, when we started Daily Wire, it felt like we had to figure everything out with minimal help.
	Editorial guidelines, studio setup, production schedule, branding.
	It was totally overwhelming.
	New decisions were needed daily.
	Finding that one tool that simplifies everything when starting a business becomes a game changer and a lifesaver for millions of businesses.
	That tool is Shopify.
	Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the United States.
	We even use it for our own daily wire shop to make sure things are running smoothly and efficiently so you can get all the goods.
	You might be asking, what if I can't design a website?
	Or, I'm worried people haven't heard of my brand.
	Not a problem.
	Shopify's got you covered from the start with beautiful, ready-to-go templates that match your brand style and help you find your customers through easy-to-run email and social media campaigns.
	And if you need a hand with everyday tasks, their AI tools created specifically for commerce can help enhance product images, write descriptions, and more.
	Plus, their award-winning customer support is available 24-7 to share advice if you ever get stuck.
	Turn those dreams into...
	Sign up for your $1 per month trial and start selling today at shopify.com slash shapiro.
	Go to Shopify.com slash Shapiro, Shopify.com slash Shapiro.
	Meanwhile, Zelnor Mayre, another one of these quasi-anonymous state politicians, he's a New York state senator.
	He says that New York should stop carrying out federal immigration policy altogether.
	So these are Democrats who are all stampeding to the left off the cliff that's legitimately right there.
	Thank you.
	We have to stand up.
	They are snatching people out of our schools.
	They're snatching people out of our courthouses.
	We cannot stand for that in this moment.
	I have a frontline agenda.
	I want to hire 50 more lawyers to the law department.
	I want to go on the offensive.
	I want to utilize the 10th Amendment to ensure that we are not carrying out the federal government's immigration policies.
	So were he mayor, he would not hire more cops.
	He would hire more lawyers to challenge President Trump on illegal immigration.
	Genius level stuff.
	Zoran Mamdani, who again is running in second place.
	He is so radical that he refused to acknowledge that Israel should be a Jewish state.
	He says it should exist, just not exist.
	Which is hilarious.
	Here we go.
	Yes or no, do you believe in a Jewish state of Israel?
	I believe Israel has the right to exist.
	As a Jewish state?
	As a state with equal rights.
	He won't say it has a right to exist as a Jewish state.
	And his answer was no, he won't visit Israel.
	That's what he was trying to say.
	Unlike you, I answer questions very directly.
	And I want to be very clear.
	I believe every state should be a state of equal rights.
	He clearly does not believe that.
	He has never called on any Muslim state to be a state of equal rights ever.
	And when it comes to equal rights, of course, Israel is the only state in the region that actually does have equal rights for Muslims and Christians and Jews.
	All the other states are privileged in the region toward Muslims, like far and away, not close.
	In any case, that guy's running second in the New York primaries.
	Andrew Cuomo eventually got mad at the moderators and he started ripping into them.
	He was just given a chance to actually address the clear claims that were stated and ignored it.
	OK, we do have to move on because we have other candidates on stage and we want to hear about their subway.
	Mr. Schringer, can we please hear about your subway?
	Mr. Schringer, we are moving on.
	I'm a- Thank you.
	And this is what happens when you have people who never build anything and just seek to tear down the civilization in which they live.
	They end up clawing at each other when there's nobody else in the room.
	And here's what it sounds like.
	Interesting, Mandami never denied saying Obama was evil and a liar.
	I believe neither of you denied the quotes that were raised.
	Neither of you denied the quotes that were raised.
	But we are here to talk at this moment about public health.
	I need just five minutes.
	I understand that education is very important.
	Please don't force us to.
	Education is a very important issue to New York City.
	I'm proud that I raised.
	Mr. Myrie.
	Now, things are going well over in that New York mayoral Democratic primary.
	Things are going so well for the Democratic Party, in fact, that Karine Jean-Pierre, who was the White House press secretary under Joe Biden and clearly knew that the man was no longer mentally capable, she has now decided she's no longer a Democrat.
	She is now independent.
	I know, I know.
	It's a little late to run away from the sinking ship, especially when you are the person who actually drilled the holes into the ship.
	But Corrine Jean-Pierre is now trying to do that and make money off it.
	She has a brand new book that is coming out titled Independent, which is hilarious.
	The least independent independent of all time.
	According to Politico, Corrine Jean-Pierre's announcement that she's leaving the Democratic Party, timed with the rollout of a new book, has detonated long-simmering grievances among her former White House colleagues about Jean-Pierre's pursuit of celebrity and personal media exposure.
	While serving as then-president Joe Biden's press secretary, the attention-grabbing ploy lit up Democrat and Biden alumni, texting groups, and reignited frustrations that burned for years about Jean-Pierre, according to seven former Biden administration officials granted anonymity to describe private conversation.
	So first of all, we should point out at this point, everyone knew she was incompetent.
	I called her for years the world's worst White House press secretary because she was.
	She was awful at her job, truly terrible at her job.
	A joke.
	And Democrats kept defending her.
	Why?
	Because, of course, she was intersectional.
	She was a black lesbian who was also the White House press secretary, even though she was wildly incompetent.
	So you basically had a DEI hire covering for a dead man in the White House.
	And everybody in the Democratic Party thought this was perfectly fine until the moment it imploded in on them.
	According to Politico, one former official recalled that Jean-Pierre had joked about becoming an independent even while on the job in the Biden White House.
	An off-key comment for someone ostensibly serving as a major messenger for the Democratic Party.
	Another former official said that Jean-Pierre had begun working during the Biden administration with a New York-based publicist and had copied that person on official emails before some of Jean-Pierre's White House colleagues intervened.
	Everyone thinks this is a grift, the first former official said of Jean-Pierre's book project.
	And then this is the reporting for Politico.
	This is the objective reporting.
	It happens to be true.
	Quote, She frustrated colleagues throughout the West Wing for focusing on raising her own profile while leaving the hands-on management of media relations and the White House press shop to other aides.
	While it's unclear how she will portray Biden or her time in the White House in the book titled Independent, a look inside a broken White House outside the party lines, several former colleagues expressed confusion at how Jean-Pierre seemingly intends to paint Biden as a victim while pinning her own decision to leave the party on his broken White House.
	So, that's going to be fun.
	And it'll be fun to watch Democrats tear each other apart over all of this.
	And again, the sort of self-sabotage of the Democratic Party is the realistic response of a party of people who can't build things and right now are facing down a relatively impregnable Trump administration.
	They've just decided not to attack any of the vulnerabilities of the Trump administration.
	They're spending all their time focusing inward.
	And they can't help but do so.
	Because the reality is that their own politics is so broken and so angry and vicious and just anti-American in so many ways that they're just tearing one another apart.
	You can see this in a fascinating column by David Wallace-Wells, who is a columnist for the New York Times.
	It's a piece titled, Our Regression on Gender is a Tragedy, Not Just a Political Problem.
	And this piece is all about lamenting the fact that Democrats have lost young men.
	The young men don't want to be part of the Democratic Party.
	And there's a reason young men don't want to be part of the Democratic Party.
	The reason is because the Democratic Party has spent literally decades telling young men that they are completely useless and or counterproductive, violent, a threat to the system, and a threat to women.
	When you make men feel as though they are useless and counterproductive, they are going to leave you and not be with you.
	That is true personally, and it is true politically.
	And the Democratic Party has spent years building up a feeling among young men that they are not wanted.
	And so, David Wallace-Wells' lament is, why won't they stick around and be part of the matriarchy, essentially?
	Quote, on the surface, the Trump coalition might appear powered by an unapologetic, rakish UFC party bro energy.
	Think of the glimpses we've gotten of Pete Hegseth's naked torso, or the way his confirmation hearings were meme-ified as a hard-ass man accused of sexual assault staring down a hectoring panel of hysterical grandmas.
	Or, for that matter, the time when the White House press secretary, Caroline Levitt, invited her Instagram followers to observe her working out in a sports bra.
	And there may not be a more representative clip about the vibe shift of 2024 than the comedian and podcaster Andrew Schultz explaining his supposed defection from the Democrats by explaining that he liked the dudes that have sex, using a crude term for female anatomy, and say whatever they want.
	And David Walliswell is upset about this.
	Why?
	Well, because what this suggests is that men would actually like to be men again.
	And one of the things the Democratic Party has been focused on for a very long time is that men essentially need to be castrated, that men need to not be treated as men, that men's aggressive instinct to create and protect is inherently bad and insulting to women.
	Thank you.
	According to Wallace Wells, in 2022, fewer than 30% of Republican men believed the proposition that women should return to their traditional roles in society, according to the views of the Electoral Research Survey assessed by a group of political scientists writing for The Times.
	Two years later, that number was 48%.
	Republican women underwent a similar surge from 23% in 2022 to 37% in 2024.
	Today, political scientists note, 79% of Republican men and 67% of Republican women say they believe American society has gotten too soft and feminine, with 43% of the country overall agreeing.
	According to Pew, the share of Republicans who say American society has gotten too accepting of men taking on traditionally female roles, like nurses, presumably, or school teachers, has grown by 40% since 2017.
	But that's not what those polls are saying.
	What they're saying is that the traditionally female role, just for all of human history, Taking care of the home doesn't mean that women can't work also.
	You can find women engaging in commerce going all the way back to the book of Proverbs.
	In fact, we Jews, every Friday night, we actually sing a song that is a quotation from the book of Proverbs that talks about all the wonderful things that women do, including being active in the marketplace.
	What people are rebelling against is the idea that men and women are essentially androgynous widgets, and that when men take on female roles, or females decide that they no longer need no man, That that is somehow good for society.
	Because in general, it isn't.
	In general, men need to be told and they need to be trained to be protectors and providers.
	They need to be trained to be lions, as I talk about in the new book.
	And women actually need, if they wish to be fulfilled, to have a part of their life that is dedicated to things like childbearing and childbearing.
	This is perfectly natural and there's nothing wrong with saying it.
	And it is specifically because the Democratic Party has said that the highest form of womanhood It's to treat, as Michelle Obama said, the reproductive system as non-reproductive.
	She literally said this just a week ago.
	She said openly that the female reproductive system, the least important thing it does is reproduce.
	Wrong, madam.
	Actually, it is the most important thing, just as the male reproductive system.
	The most important thing it does is reproduce, actually.
	That's literally why it is called the reproductive system.
	It's why there's so many parts down there.
	It is amazing.
	The Democrats have run headlong away from reality, and then they are upset.
	When reality clocks them back into place.
	Coming up, Elise Stefanik will be joining us.
	First, you find yourself tossing and turning all night, constantly flipping the pillow to find the cool side.
	If you're a hot sleeper, summer night can become a battle with exhaustion, overheating, the restless cycle of too hot, too cold, too hot, too cold, never quite right.
	It can leave you longing for the cool, comfortable sleep you deserve.
	Well, good news, Bowl& Branch is the best.
	I mean, they get everything, but they have best-selling percale sheets, which mean that you will finally be able to get that cool sleep you've been dreaming of.
	These aren't just any ordinary sheets.
	They're crafted with a special cooling weave using the finest 100% organic cotton that feels crisp and breathable against your skin, even if you're the sweatiest sleeper in the house.
	That's typically me.
	You'll stay comfortably cool all night long.
	Their product's just that good.
	The best part?
	You can try them risk-free with their 30-night guarantee.
	I mean, you're not going to want to give them up.
	No matter your bedroom style or mattress size, Bull& Branch has designs and colors to match perfectly.
	These all-season sheets start with breathable, unmatched softness that only get better with every single wash.
	Again, Bull & Branch practice is so good, I literally travel on the road with it.
	It is that good.
	Feel the difference for yourself without any catches or commitments.
	If these sheets don't deliver your best night's sleep ever, simply return them for a complete refund, no questions asked.
	Feel the difference an extraordinary night's sleep can make.
	With Bull & Branch, get 15% off, plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at BullAndBranch.com.
	That's BullAndBranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, Branch.com.
	To save 15% exclusion supply, See site for details.
	Also, you're probably great at protecting your personal information.
	You do what they say.
	Use strong passwords and the two-factor authentication.
	But here is the reality.
	No matter how careful you are, your information exists in a bunch of databases that you don't actually control.
	Companies, medical offices, government agencies, they all have pieces of your personal data.
	They might not be protecting your data the way that you would want them to.
	That is where LifeLock comes in.
	They monitor millions of data points every single second, watching for identity threats.
	If your identity is stolen, a U.S.-based lifelock restoration specialist will handle the recovery process on your behalf, guaranteed, or your money back.
	You can't control how others handle your information, but you can help protect yourself with LifeLock.
	Our office is still fighting over who gets producer Jessica's LifeLock subscription.
	She left, but the subscription stayed.
	Right now, producer Zach is in the lead.
	We'll keep you updated.
	Save up to 40% your very first year.
	Call 1-800-LifeLock.
	Use promo code Ben or go to LifeLock.com slash Ben for 40% off terms.
	Apply LifeLock.com.
	Go check it out right now.
	Also, as I mentioned at the very top of the show, my brand new book, Lions and Scavengers, is available for pre-order right now at dailywire.com slash benshapiro.
	If you believe Western civilization is worth defending, this is the book for you.
	If you want to tell your kids why it's worth defending, this is the book for them.
	It's a direct challenge to the destructive lie that all cultures are equal and that success is something to be ashamed of.
	My brand new book, Lions and Scavengers, drops September 2nd.
	Pre-order it today at dailywire.com slash benshapiro.
	The movement of men away from the Democratic Party is not because they need more messaging from the terror supporter Hassan Piker who works out a lot and wears pearls.
	That's not why you're losing men.
	The reason you're losing men is because your vision of masculinity is unattractive to men.
	Men do not want to be the kinds of men that you are talking about.
	And by the way, women don't like those kinds of men anyway.
	That is why you're falling apart.
	But the Democrats have to tear each other apart because, again, they're running up against reality.
	And this is the thing that David Wallace-Wells is fussing about.
	What he should be doing is reminding Democrats, hey guys, there is a reality.
	Men are men.
	Women are women.
	They don't generally want all the same things.
	There's some crossover in that Venn diagram.
	But men actually want to live their lives differently than women.
	And if you alienate men, then you're going to alienate them by telling them that they can't be men anymore.
	But according to David Wallace-Wells, again, they have a vision.
	They have a vision of a society in which men are torn to the ground.
	Quote, There's a reactionary turn outside the workplace, too.
	There's been a similar drop in surveyed backing for gay rights, with Republican support for marriage equality falling 14 points in three years, according to Gallup.
	And the economist YouGov reporting that nearly two-thirds of Republicans are now in opposition.
	By the way, the reason for that is because the promise of gay marriage back in 2013 or so, when Obergefell was decided, was that it would essentially be, okay, so men are going to marry men sometimes, and women are going to marry women sometimes, but how does that affect you and your family?
	And then it turned into a giant push.
	For the idea of sexual fluidity for all children, including gender transformation.
	And we're going to teach this to your kids.
	It turns out it was never about being left alone.
	It was about completely changing every social standard in society.
	Some of us were arguing that for years before this happened.
	But that has always been the program.
	And that program was revealed.
	And now you're seeing a reaction to that program.
	Says David Wallace.
	Well, we're not living in that world.
	When you could look back on the previous decades and probably see below the ups and downs of partisan conflict.
	The broad strokes of a basic cultural consensus, one that pushed toward a stronger embrace of markets and consumption in the realm of economics and toward more personal autonomy and freedom of choice in the social sphere.
	Like the just-so story of free markets, the just-so story of reliably expanding civil rights and opportunity looked at the time, if simplistic, also not inaccurate.
	But, he says, now that's over.
	Now there's been a backlash against the culturally liberal project.
	And that's terrible.
	There's an awful lot to chew over about the reactionary turn of young men.
	The way elite liberalism might have contributed to male alienation, it is the sole reason for the male alienation.
	The way that deindustrialization may be to blame.
	Well, no, actually, because America has been moving away from a manufacturing industrial base since essentially the 1970s.
	That would not be the thing.
	The way that the MAGA dream of re-industrialization may be an effort to reverse those forces and the sexual dynamics that may result.
	Again, it's not about.
	It is about you forcibly decided to teach young men that they are useless and counterproductive and bad and that all basic masculinity is the same as quote-unquote toxic masculinity.
	That's the reason.
	But the Democratic coalition doesn't have a place to go.
	They are stuck.
	And it's a real problem for them.
	And they find themselves defending some of the worst people on earth and some of the worst ideas, which is what you were seeing in that New York mayoral debate.
	Joining us online to discuss the state of New York is Chairwoman Elise Stefanik, who's representative for New York's 21st District, the most senior elected Republican in New York State.
	She's currently the chairwoman of House Republican leadership, and she recently launched a Save New York PAC design at helping Republicans in local races around the state.
	Representative Stefanik, thanks so much for joining the show.
	Really appreciate it.
	Great to be with you, Ben.
	So why don't we start with the state of play in New York?
	Obviously, this New York City mayoral race is a complete bleep show.
	And it is a disaster area.
	The debate that they had last night was a complete mess and indicative, I think, of the state of the Democratic Party in the state of New York.
	What do you make of the state of play in New York, which of course has been a Democratic stronghold forever at the state level and also in New York City?
	Well, you talk about how it's a Democratic stronghold and the result of single-party Democrat rule over years.
	And in fact, I've seen this over the course of my lifetime.
	You've seen absolutely no rule of law.
	You've seen releasing of criminals.
	You've seen putting illegals first, the highest taxed state in the nation, the least friendly to small businesses.
	We lead the nation in population exodus.
	And as a result, in the past few election cycles, no state has moved more to the Republican direction than New York state.
	If you look at President Trump's performance in 2024, he did historically well in communities in the Bronx and Queens, for example, than any other Republican.
	What is interesting today, Ben, and very concerning is you saw the Democrat mayoral primary last night, the debate, and it was the epitome of the just absolute challenges and catastrophe in today's Democrat Party.
	Every single candidate has been on record for defunding the police.
	Every single Democrat candidate has supported failed bail reform, which of course caused this crime crisis and the skyrocketing of danger in New York State.
	You had candidates like Zoran Mamdami, who didn't want to acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.
	You had a failure of candidates to combat and condemn anti-Semitism, which is raging on the streets of New York.
	And, of course, you saw what has happened at Columbia.
	So these are real crises, and they're created by Democrats.
	The polling shows that over 60% of New Yorkers want to elect someone new.
	And if you look at voter registration, it is increasingly Republican.
	So there is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save New York once and for all.
	And that starts at the local level.
	As you know, I've been in office.
	This is my 11th year in Congress.
	I flipped a district.
	We win not only Republicans, but Democrats and independents as well.
	And we've built up this local infrastructure and grassroots, flipping multiple counties in my district.
	We're hoping to do that across the state to lay the groundwork for next year.
	You know, one of the big missions that you've been on also is to go after the university system that you mentioned there.
	You talked about Columbia University.
	You obviously famously had all of the heads of some of the major universities in front of you who refused to condemn anti-Semitism.
	What do you make of the Trump administration's attempts to curb anti-Semitism by pushing on some of the funding mechanisms for these major universities?
	Well, I called on President Trump to do that and worked very closely with him.
	He followed those hearings incredibly closely.
	It's an issue that I've discussed with him extensively going back the past few years.
	And I applaud this administration for stepping in and holding these universities accountable.
	We saw, Ben, they had an opportunity to save themselves.
	They failed.
	They failed at the highest levels, but it is an endemic within these institutions, whether it's the offices of DEI, whether it's the rise of anti-Semitism, even previous.
	You see the decline of admissions of Jewish students.
	You see assaults, physical threats, verbal threats against Jewish students.
	You've seen Hillels who have been targeted at these schools across the country.
	You've seen professors who are spewing vile anti-Semitism, and yet they're propped up by these universities.
	In the state of New York, look at what has happened to Colombia.
	These are once great institutions that have failed at all levels.
	They have fundamentally lost their way.
	So it is important for this administration, and it's why Congress has stepped in as well to use the power of the purse when it comes to ensuring that U.S. taxpayer dollars don't go to prop up this anti-Semitism.
	You know, one of the things that was astonishing watching some of the debate last night was the openness toward immigration from some of the worst places on Earth and of some of the worst people.
	There are people on stage who are literally saying that you should withhold your tax dollars.
	From New York, if New York complies with federal immigration law in consilience with the Trump administration, the Trump administration right now is trying to reduce the number of people coming in from abroad who hate the country.
	This is something the Secretary of State Rubio has talked about, obviously, and in the aftermath of a person who pretty clearly is an illegal immigrant throwing Molotov cocktails at Jews in Boulder, Colorado for the great sin of rallying for hostages.
	And the Trump administration is trying to deport the family and a judge is standing in the way.
	It's never been more important for the White House and for the and for the federal government to stand in the way of the importation of people who hate the country, hate the West, hate Israel, hate Jews.
	I mean, they're not in they're not in coordination with American values.
	And yet there are Democrats who want to bring more of these folks in.
	I stand strongly with President Trump, and it is important that we take a moment to comment on the action.
	Ben.
	This is happening on U.S. soil, and it's a result of policies.
	And what did you see from New York Democrats?
	By the way, a party that Kathy Hochul leads, you saw that they want more illegals, that they're putting illegals first, but they also want to keep importing people that...
	And that's why you are seeing electorally increasing numbers of votes in key parts of New York moving towards the Republican direction, because enough is enough.
	You also heard on the debate stage last night the fact that they want to continue using U.S. taxpayer dollars for illegals housing, for illegals health care, for illegals first and New Yorkers last.
	New Yorkers don't want that.
	New Yorkers want to put New Yorkers first, and that's what I intend to do.
	That's what I've done in Congress, and we're going to be supporting candidates to do that at the local and all levels up and down the ballot.
	Now, speaking of your role in Congress, obviously the big, beautiful bill has just recently passed Congress.
	It is now sitting in the Senate where it's being renegotiated, and then eventually there will be reconciliation between the bills that come forth from both houses.
	What do you make of the debate over the big, beautiful bill?
	Obviously, you voted in favor of it.
	There's been a lot of talk about the debt ceiling and debt.
	What is your take on that conversation?
	My take is this is the centerpiece of President Trump's agenda.
	This is what we ran on.
	We owe it to the American people to deliver border security, energy independence, tax cuts, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime.
	These are very key provisions that President Trump ran and he won on, and we fully support that.
	I was the deciding vote, Ben.
	That is how important it is.
	And that's why I'm still in Congress, to make sure that we hold this House majority.
	And I was proud to cast that deciding vote.
	There are going to be bumps along the road, as there always is when you work.
	Currently, the Senate, this bill is in front of the Senate.
	There's a lot of discussions, but it needs to be a bill that can come back and pass the House, given our very slim majority.
	So we are working very hard to stand up for the American people.
	Again, the key provisions are the border security aspect, the economic package of that, whether it's the tax provisions or energy independence.
	So yes, I know the day-to-day news headlines can make it seem rocky, but we've been able to deliver.
	And most importantly, President Trump has been able to deliver and has a way to be able to work with All of these members, all of whom he knows, including all the senators, all the House Republicans, to get this done for the American people.
	And I'm particularly proud of the important economic piece is cutting taxes, not only for Americans, but specifically for New Yorkers, which has been a very important part of our delegation's effort.
	So Representative Stefanik, you're also on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
	Obviously, one of the big issues at the forefront of what the president has been considering right now is negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program.
	He has said for 10 years that the Obama JCPOA is the worst deal in the history of mankind.
	He has said clearly and concisely that there should be no nuclear development in Iran, period.
	What do you make of the intelligence that's coming in about Iran's actual nuclear development, their levels of nuclear development, how urgent is the situation, and what do you make of the negotiating strategy of the United States?
	Well, first of all, President Trump is the master negotiator.
	We have seen this, whether it's the Abraham Accords, whether it is his trade deals, and it will be the case in this as well.
	I absolutely—we need to make sure that it is zero, zero.
	No nuclear—not for power, not for anything.
	It needs to be zero nuclear resources when it comes to Iran.
	And the president has stated that over and over again, and the president is in the position to be able to deliver on that.
	I am deeply concerned Iran is just a— We know that Iran is the backing of Hamas and Hezbollah, and of course that led to October 7th, the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust.
	So we need to see this regime for what it is.
	It's a regime of terror, and we can never let them get a nuclear weapons capability.
	What have you seen in terms of the intelligence that you can reveal with regard to Iran's nuclear program?
	I know, obviously, there's a lot of dyspepsy among Republicans, and there has been for a long time because of all of the botched intelligence around the Iraq War.
	So what do we actually know about Iran's nuclear program?
	You know, I can't get into the specific intelligence that I'm seeing, Ben.
	You know, that's done in a classified setting.
	What I can say that is we have been crystal clear, the House Republicans and this administration, that this will be zero when it comes to nuclear weapons capability.
	We can never let Iran get a nuclear weapon.
	And that has been clear from the from the first term under President Trump.
	And that remains clear today.
	Representative Elise Stefanik, check out her Save New York PAC, which, of course.
	We hope we'll turn the politics of New York State completely.
	Representative Stefanik, really appreciate the time.
	Thank you so much, Ben.
	A little later on in the show, I'm going to get to Tucker Carlson attacking Mark Levin.
	First, I always assumed restless sleep was inevitable.
	Night after night, tossing, turning, waking up with that aching back.
	I'd convince myself that's just how sleep was supposed to be.
	Then I tried Helix Sleep and everything changed.
	It's transformative for my sleep quality.
	Now I fall asleep easily in just seconds.
	What makes Helix different is they don't just sell you a random mattress.
	You're not going to a big box store and lying down on the thing for five seconds and being like, oh, this is fine, and then you sleep on it for the next 10 years.
	Instead, Helix actually matches you with a perfect mattress for your body and sleep style.
	Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, or somewhere in between, they've got you covered.
	They make it so simple to get your best night's sleep every night.
	All you have to do is take their sleep quiz and get matched with a custom mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences.
	And trust me, when you find the right match, don't wonder how you ever slept on anything else.
	And it's great.
	I've got the firm but breathable mattress, which is what I need because I tend to heat up at night, as I've said.
	Right now, Helix is offering an incredible summer sale.
	Visit helixsleep.com slash Ben.
	Get 20% off site-wide.
	That's helixsleep.com slash Ben for 20% off site-wide.
	Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know that we sent you again.
	Just visit helixsleep.com slash Ben for this exclusive offer.
	Also, I've discovered an incredible tool that gives me real-time insights into my metabolism through something as simple as my breath.
	It is called Lumen.
	Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach.
	All you need to do is breathe into it first thing in the morning.
	You'll know exactly what's happening with your metabolism, whether you're burning fats or carbs.
	Based on your measurements, Lumen creates a personalized nutrition plan just for you.
	What's awesome about Lumen is that I can breathe into it before and after workouts and meals, so I know exactly what's going on in my body in real time.
	That is a fantastic feature.
	Then, Lumen gives me tips based on those readings to keep me on top of my health.
	Since your metabolism is basically the engine behind everything your body does, when it's working really well, you get all kinds of great benefits.
	You'll find it easier to manage your weight, you'll have more energy throughout the day, You'll see better results from your workouts, and you'll even sleep better.
	It all connects back to having a healthy metabolism.
	The warmer months are coming.
	Spring back into your health and fitness.
	Go to Lumen.me slash Shapiro.
	Get 10% off your Lumen.
	That is L-U-M-E-N dot M-E slash Shapiro for 10% off your purchase.
	Thanks to Lumen for sponsoring this episode.
	L-U-M-E-N dot M-E slash Shapiro.
	Get 10% off.
	Alrighty.
	Meanwhile, President Trump has correctly announced yet another travel ban.
	You remember during his first administration, there was all sorts of Last night, he said it again, as we should.
	Why are we importing people who are unvetted from countries that, generally speaking, do not have cultures that adhere to American values or are even friendly to American values?
	Basic, obvious kind of stuff.
	A great example of this, by the way, would be the family of the terrorist who just threw Molotov cocktails at Jews in Boulder.
	While declaring that Allah was going to destroy America.
	That guy came on a visa, and then he overstayed his visa, and then he was given asylum for no reason at all.
	And now, by the way, a judge has ruled that his family cannot be deported, which is totally insane.
	And so President Trump's like, you know what?
	If you're not going to let us deport people, then how about they just don't come here in the first place?
	How about that?
	Here's President Trump yesterday, correctly.
	Very simply, we cannot have open migration from any country where we cannot safely and reliably vet and screen those who seek to enter the United States.
	That is why today I am signing a new executive order placing travel restrictions on countries including Yemen, Somalia, Haiti, Libya, and numerous others.
	The strength of the restrictions we're applying depends on the severity of the threat posed.
	The list is subject to revision based on whether material improvements are made, and likewise new countries can be added as threats emerge around the world.
	This is perfectly rational, in the same way that it is perfectly rational for Secretary of State Marco Rubio to say that we are not going to allow visa holders to come to the United States hating America and then just overstay their visas.
	It turns out that when they do that, Sometimes they're really, really bad, and they don't help the American body politic.
	And there is a left-wing sentiment in the United States that somehow we owe everyone on Earth citizenship in the United States.
	And if they come to tear down the society, so much the better.
	Because after all, we bear some sort of blood guilt for the fact that there are other countries that are less successful on Earth.
	It's a stupid proposition, but it has come to dominate a lot of the talk on the left.
	The ban will fully restrict entry of nationals from 12 countries, according to CNN.
	Afghanistan, Myanmar, also known as Burma, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
	There are another seven countries that have partial restriction.
	That'd be Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, The proclamation includes exceptions for lawful permanent residents, existing visa holders, certain visa categories, and individuals whose entry actually serves American interests.
	This seems well calibrated.
	One of the critiques that I've had of the Trump administration is that sometimes I love This is a well calibrated policy.
	Obviously, it's a leftover from Trump won when they actually had to slug it out over this policy.
	White House Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson wrote, quote, President Trump is fulfilling his promise to protect Americans from dangerous foreign actors that want to come to our country and cause us harm.
	These common sense restrictions are country specific and include places that lack proper vetting, exhibit high visa overstay rates, or fail to share identity and threat information.
	I mean, yes, that makes, again, all of this makes perfect, perfect sense.
	And the reality, which is that left-wing judges are now trying to make sure that bad people stay in the United States means it's even more important to make sure these people never come to the United States in the first place.
	As I mentioned, according to the Washington Post, a federal judge on Wednesday barred the Trump administration from deporting the wife and children of an Egyptian man accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at a pro-Israel demonstration in Colorado.
	By the way, it wasn't a pro-Israel demonstration.
	Pro-hostage demonstration, trying to free the hostages.
	U.S. District Judge Gordon Gallagher found that deporting the family, quote, without process, could cause irreparable harm and said he was issuing his order due to the urgency the situation presents.
	The development came after lawyers for Hayam El Gamal and her five children filed an emergency petition earlier in the day arguing that their detentions were illegal.
	Now, again, it is worth noting that these people are in the country illegally.
	They came, they overstayed a visa.
	They claimed asylum, falsely, and then they've been here ever since.
	Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that ICE had detained Soliman's wife and children, and the Trump administration said that they would process their cases via expedited removals.
	In the court filing Wednesday seeking the family's release, lawyers said the couple and their children had applied for and obtained visitor visas and entered the United States in August of 2022.
	Suleman quickly applied for asylum for the entire family in September 2022.
	So they got visitor visas, and within a month, they had been trying to get asylum visas.
	Those were handed out like candy by the Biden administration.
	The basic rule was, if you claimed asylum, they just gave you asylum status.
	All are citizens of Egypt.
	So, they could leave and go to Egypt.
	Why can't they be in Egypt?
	What is the problem?
	Probably the worst headline of the day.
	Came courtesy of Michael Loria over at USA Today.
	Quote, bolder suspect's daughter dreamed of studying medicine.
	Now she faces deportation.
	Well, I mean, there are medical schools in Egypt as well.
	It turns out you do not have a right to study medicine in the United States if we do not wish you to be here.
	We have a lot of doctors in the United States, a lot of people who went to medical school.
	And there are plenty of people who need a doctor over in Egypt.
	Many of them agree with the principles espoused by your dad.
	So, bye.
	Would be the proper response.
	Meanwhile, Team Trump continues to go after colleges and universities that have been shuttling in these radicals.
	That includes Columbia University.
	According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration attacked Columbia University's accreditation, arguing the school is in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.
	The Education Department told the organization through which Columbia is accredited that the school has violated civil rights law over its handling of campus anti-Semitism and no longer appears to meet the standards for accreditation at all.
	That doesn't actually revoke Colombia's accreditation, which would basically destroy the university, but it's a significant escalation of the government's battle with the school.
	The government urged the accreditor to work with the school to make sure it comes into full compliance with federal law.
	Colombia said it's aware of the government's concern and it's addressing them directly with the accreditor.
	So the administration is opening up all of the guns on these universities that are in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
	Now again, I hear all these people right on the left say, well, what about the free speech of the universities?
	Why can't they just espouse?
	The destruction of the state of Israel, why isn't that?
	Okay, so here is the deal.
	The Civil Rights Act applies to Jews the same as it applies to black people, the same as it applies to Hispanic people.
	You may not like the Civil Rights Act.
	I mean, I think that there are elements of the Civil Rights Act that go too far.
	I've been saying this literally my entire career, controversially.
	Barring government discrimination, good.
	Moving into the private sphere and regulating private conduct, problematic from a First Amendment constitutional perspective.
	But can we stop pretending for a hot second?
	That the left has not completely restructured American life by using the Civil Rights Act as a club against all of its political enemies for as long as it has existed.
	Because that's what's happened.
	And now Trump has discovered the weapon and he is using it on behalf of perspectives that the left does not like.
	And now the left has decided that it doesn't like the weapon anymore.
	Well, weird.
	Weird how the rules only apply when you are the ones in power.
	That means they are not rules.
	That means it's a weapon.
	Good for President Trump for using the weapons at his disposal that the left left.
	They literally left him lying right there for President Trump.
	Your fault, guys.
	You blew it.
	And frankly, your complaints about lack of freedom of speech at Columbia or Harvard.
	I went to Harvard Law School.
	I went to UCLA.
	You just say freedom of speech was not perfectly free at these places well before President Trump got there.
	There were consequences that attended to some of the mildest conservative speech.
	At these places.
	So now you're all hot and bothered because President Trump is actually invoking the Civil Rights Act to tell you to abide by the very laws that you yourself espoused.
	Aw, poor babies.
	Cry yourself to sleep at night.
	Very, very, very sad.
	Okay, meanwhile, lots of turmoil over the big, beautiful bill.
	Elon Musk continues to call for the defeat of the big, beautiful bill because he is upset about the levels of spending.
	He says mammoth spending bills are bankrupting America enough.
	Okay, now, Again, don't disagree on principle.
	I agree with that.
	Obviously, massive spending bills are bankrupting America.
	But we should be clear here that this bill is not a spending bill.
	Tax reduction is not a form of spending.
	It's a basic philosophical distinction between the right and the left.
	If you reduce taxes, that is not spending.
	It is not.
	What is spending is when the government takes money from you or from your ears and spends it.
	If you want to reduce spending, that has nothing to do with tax revenues.
	Deficits go up.
	When the tax revenue is lower and the spending is higher.
	But lowering tax revenue is not a form of spending because it wasn't the government's money to begin with.
	It is your money.
	The government taking less of your money is not a government increase in spending.
	Government increase in spending is government increase in spending.
	That's the problem.
	We're spending $4 trillion a year in 2019.
	We're spending $7 trillion a year now.
	Is that a problem of tax revenues?
	If you saw a chart, by the way, of American tax revenue.
	It does go consistently up and to the right over the course of the last 50 or 60 years.
	But when Musk says that we're bankrupting America with our spending, that, of course, is true.
	However, President Trump actually doubled down on the idea of scrapping the nation's debt ceiling entirely, right?
	This is where the battle needs to happen.
	If you want to have a battle over the debt ceiling, if you want to have a battle over debt, this would be where the battle lies.
	And this also happens to be a place where President Trump, I think, can make some concessions.
	So President Trump.
	she's suggesting there's a $4 trillion deficit opened up by the bill.
	I like that also, but it would have to be done over a period of time, as short as possible.
	Let's get together.
	He shared Warren's post on the social media platform X from Friday where she agreed with President Trump that the debt limit should be scrapped and called for a bipartisan bill to get rid of it forever.
	Okay, again, the sort of idea of unlimited debt where Congress has no say, that is in fact a bad idea.
	And President Trump has been pushing for it for quite a while.
	Rand Paul is offering an off-ramp here.
	He says, listen, I get it.
	We're trying to lower the taxes.
	I'll do it if we don't increase the debt ceiling that much.
	This, again, I think is a more rational perspective from Senator Paul.
	I don't think there are enough spending cuts in that.
	I'm worried about that.
	I wish there were more.
	But I still would support the tax cuts and some spending cuts.
	If they weren't forcing conservatives to vote to raise the debt ceiling $5 trillion.
	That concerns me because when you extend the debt ceiling, this will be the largest increase in the debt ceiling ever.
	This will be the first time that Republicans alone will be responsible for the debt.
	The debt will be basically owned by Republicans.
	And I'm not for borrowing $5 trillion over the next two years.
	I've told the president if they will separate the debt ceiling vote out.
	They very may well have my vote on this.
	Okay, so again, not a terrible perspective from Rand Paul, basically saying that if you get rid of the attempt to leverage out the debt ceiling, that that will be something he'll vote for.
	That makes some sense to me.
	Speaker Johnson, for his part, says that he's surprised by Elon Musk's criticisms because this is a bill about keeping the tax rates the same.
	And it actually does make cuts as opposed to what was going to happen without the bill.
	Here is Speaker Johnson.
	Elon and I left on a great note.
	We were texting one another, you know, happy text, you know, Monday.
	And then yesterday, you know, 24 hours later, he does a 180 and he comes out and opposed the bill.
	And it surprised me, frankly.
	And I don't take it personal.
	We don't take it personal.
	You know, policy differences are not personal.
	Now, again, I think that Speaker Johnson is correct about this.
	The CBO is saying that the Big Beautiful Bill would add $2.4 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years and leave something like 11 million people without health insurance.
	That's not actually what would happen.
	It would actually happen as people would shift onto private health insurance.
	States would pick up a lot of the burden here.
	One of the things that's happening is that the federal government, in putting work requirements, for example, on Medicaid, would just shift that burden over to the states, who presumably would then increase the amount they're spending on their own Medicaid.
	But the bottom line in all of this is that without the bill, recession is coming.
	That is a point made by the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vogt.
	He says, listen, we would love to bend the cost curve, but the reality is that if the taxes increase, we've got a recession on our hands.
	If H.R. 1 fails, if whatever comes back from the Senate fails to get to the desk of the president and signed into law, what happens at the end of this year?
	I think we'll have a recession.
	I think we will be, economic storm clouds will be very dark.
	I think we'll have a 60% tax increase on the American people.
	Okay, and again, he is right about that.
	The Wall Street Journal makes the point, bottom line, this is a tax bill.
	You can call it a spending bill all you want.
	It is a tax bill.
	It is a bill that prevents the taxes from increasing.
	They point out, we are now at the Congressional Budget Office panic stage of the budget debate as Democrats in the press pretend to care about the federal deficit and debt.
	Congress's budget gnomes estimate that the House bill would add $2.4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
	This includes what CBO says are some $5.3 trillion in tax cuts, offset by some $2.9 trillion in tax increases and spending reductions.
	The report kicked off the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth whenever Republicans propose to reduce taxes, though not when Democrats are advocating.
	Do you remember the consternation when Joe Biden and Democrats passed their Inflation Reduction Act?
	We don't.
	CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the energy and climate provisions of that bill at $391 billion over 10 years.
	But the subsidies were actually open-ended.
	Goldman Sachs said it would cost $1.2 trillion.
	The Wall Street Journal points out the CBO is not a peerless oracle.
	It is often wrong.
	It estimated the 2010 federal takeover of student loans would raise money for the government, but instead it cost the Treasury hundreds of billions of dollars.
	And the Wall Street Journal acknowledges that there's a bunch of problems with the bill.
	Add that to President Trump's tariffs, and a recession becomes probable.
	And if there's a recession, then the deficit actually soars because economic growth has to occur in order for there to be higher tax revenues.
	Speaking of the tariffs, by the way, the Congressional Budget Office delivered two reports yesterday.
	One was about the probable impact of the bill.
	They say a $2.4 trillion increase in the debt based on But they also put out a report about the tariffs.
	And this report is kind of fascinating because this report says that the tariffs announced through May 13th would actually reduce the cumulative budget deficit by $3 trillion or $2.8 trillion after adjusting for the hit they caused to growth and investment.
	So in other words, if the tariffs stayed in place and the tax cuts went through and you added it all together, theoretically, the budget deficit should decrease.
	Because if you are getting $2.8 trillion of reduction in the budget deficit from the tariffs and $2.4 billion in increase in the budget deficit from the tax cuts, that is a net of $400 billion to the federal government.
	CBO also calculated the tariff policies will increase inflation by 0.4 percentage points in 2025 and 2026, reducing the purchasing power of households and businesses.
	Now, again, the CBO has opened up critiques on all sides.
	I think you can say that the CBO is far too optimistic about democratic spending.
	I think, frankly, they're far too optimistic about the tariffs.
	I think the idea that the tariffs are going to bring in that level of revenue, I have my doubts on all of that for sure, especially because I think people, if the tariffs are high enough that people stop buying from abroad, then you don't make tariff revenue.
	If the tariffs are not high enough and people keep importing stuff from abroad, you don't get a reconstruction of the manufacturing base in the United States.
	This is the puzzle in which.
	That puzzle was made clear by the Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick yesterday, who seemed to be sort of unclear on whether tariffs are good in and of themselves, or whether the goal is to get other countries to lower their tariffs in reciprocal fashion.
	There was a pretty fascinating exchange he had with Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana.
	Are you or are you not seeking reciprocity in these trade deals?
	We are absolutely seeking reciprocity with respect to things that can be reciprocal.
	But you just said that if a country came to you and offered you the ultimate reciprocity, no tariffs, no trade barriers, in return for us doing the same, you would reject that.
	Of course, because they buy from China and send it to us.
	Don't you agree with me?
	Suppose they said we won't buy from China.
	Now we're talking.
	Now we're talking.
	If it was Vietnam, would you accept that deal?
	We would consider it.
	So the problem for Lutnik is that Lutnik believes that tariffs are inherently good, that they bring in revenue.
	And so his idea is that we should keep the tariffs on countries, even if they offer us basically zero tariffs and zero non-tariff barriers.
	So which is it?
	Are we doing reciprocal tariffs?
	Or are we actually just tariffing people because we think tariffs are inherently good?
	This is one of the conflicts inside the tariff policy.
	All of this sort of unease and unrest in the markets means that the Federal Reserve is less likely to move.
	So Jerome Powell yesterday announced that the rates would remain unchanged, mainly due to the uncertainty in the market.
	So yeah, inflation is down year on year.
	It's down to about 2.1%, which is where you want it to be.
	That doesn't mean it's time to open the spigot, says Jerome Powell, because we don't know what's happening, really.
	In support of our goals, today the Federal Open Market Committee decided to leave our policy interest rate unchanged.
	The risks of higher unemployment and higher inflation appear to have risen, and we believe that the current stance of monetary policy leaves us well positioned to respond in a timely way to potential economic developments.
	So what he's saying is we still don't know how this is going to shake out and we would like to have the tool in our arsenal of being able to lower interest rates if things actually do start to slow down.
	The bottom line is that.
	Tariffs remain on the table.
	Unclear which direction those moves.
	And as I've said a thousand times at this point, uncertainty is its own form of risk when it comes to the markets.
	Meanwhile, on the foreign policy front, a wide variety of countries are reorienting not toward the United States, but toward China in the aftermath of the trade war.
	In South Korea, Lee Jae-myung.
	who rose from childhood poverty to become South Korea's leading liberal politician, vowing to fight inequality and corruption, will become the country's next president on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press, after an election that closed one of the most turbulent chapters in the Young Democracy.
	Lee is the candidate of the Liberal Opposition Democratic Party and is taking office for a full single five-year term, succeeding Yoon Suk-yeol, the conservative, who's felled because he briefly imposed martial law back in December, claiming that essentially the parliament was thwarting his efforts to actually do anything.
	Unclear what this is going to mean for foreign policy.
	But Lee has been accused by his critics of tilting toward China and North Korea and away from the United States and Japan.
	And he apparently is reluctant to negotiate with the United States over tariff rates on Korea.
	Instead, he seems to want to negotiate more with the North Koreans and with the Chinese.
	His critics view him as a dangerous populist.
	He has promised to develop an alliance with the United States and solidify the Seoul-Washington-Tokyo partnership.
	But we will see whether that is true or not, or whether he is going to reorient toward China.
	Again, when it comes to the tariff hikes, apparently he's reluctant to actually restructure.
	Along those lines.
	And one of the problems with declaring a tariff war is there are people on the other side who may not very much like the tariffs that are being levied on them and may in fact respond in a rather different way.
	Speaking of shifts away from America based on the trade war, Canada is doing the same thing.
	According to Politico, the new finance minister, François-Philippe Champagne, is signaling a bold shift in Canadian defense spending, one where the military is a national priority.
	They want to rebuild their armed forces and rebuild their infrastructure.
	They're not going to actually buy their stuff from the United States.
	Instead, apparently, they want to buy their stuff from Europe.
	They're reorienting away from the United States.
	So, and that is one of the predictable results of the fact that the United States has drawn itself away from Canada.
	And there's geopolitical risks to the kind of games that are being played economically.
	And what we are watching in real time is the development of regional blocs all over the world.
	You're seeing this happen in Europe as well.
	So in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin continues to be wildly intransigent about any sort of serious negotiation.
	And that means that the Europeans are going to have to step up weaponry production.
	The United States seems to be, despite Putin's intransigence, actually drawing down our support for Ukraine.
	So, for example, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the Trump administration is redirecting a key anti-drone technology earmarked for Ukraine to American forces, a move that reflects the Pentagon's waning commitment to Kiev's defenses.
	The Pentagon quietly notified Congress last week that special fuses for rockets that Ukraine uses to shoot down Russian drones are now being allocated to U.S. Air Force units in the Middle East.
	Now, to be fair, that may not be about Ukraine.
	That might be about the risks of Iran, which we'll get to in a moment.
	However, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth skipped a meeting Wednesday at NATO with European defense ministers on coordinating military aid to Ukraine.
	He's warned European allies must provide the overwhelming share of future military assistance to Kyiv while casting the Western Pacific As the Pentagon's priority theater.
	Again, if the idea is we need to shift resources to fight off China over Taiwan, that's fine.
	Or if the idea is that we need to shift resources to prevent the nuclearization of Iran, that's fine.
	If the ideas were just withdrawing from Ukraine, not so fine.
	That would be the big problem.
	Because, of course, Russia continues to be on the move throughout all of this.
	The Russian government continues to be very loud in its rejection of calls for peace talks.
	Senior Kremlin official Dmitry Medvedev, who was formerly the president of Russia, when essentially Putin stepped out of the position for a moment and was using him as a marionette.
	He wrote on Twitter, quote, that negotiations in Istanbul are not aimed at a compromise peace based on someone else's delusional terms.
	The goal instead is, quote, our swift victory and the complete destruction of the neo-Nazi regime, which is how they describe Zelensky's government in Kiev.
	President Trump said on Wednesday that he had spoken by phone to Vladimir Putin for 75 minutes.
	There is no new interest in peace.
	He wrote, quote, President Putin did say, and very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attacks on the Russian airfields.
	And then later, he posted a link to a column supporting a Senate sanctions bill against countries that buy energy from Russia.
	But will the Senate go ahead with it?
	Unclear.
	Again, the Trump foreign policy is still taking shape along a wide variety of lines.
	NATO's Mark Rudy is saying that Russia is producing four times more weapons in a year than all of NATO.
	So, even if the United States wishes to withdraw from its support of Ukraine, if that happens right away, that's a disaster area for Ukraine and for NATO.
	At the very least, we need to cover until NATO fills the gap.
	First of all, let's agree why it is necessary to spend so much more.
	That is because the Russian threat is there, is there for the long term, and the Russians, as we speak, are reconstituting themselves at a rapid pace.
	I mentioned this number before, the fact that with only having only a 2 trillion economy compared to a 50 trillion economy for NATO, 25 times bigger, they producing four times more in terms of ammunition than the whole of NATO is doing.
	They produce in three months what the whole of NATO is producing in a year, whilst they are only 2 trillion compared to our 50 trillion, so 25 times smaller than NATO.
	you Totally great.
	We should be doing that.
	NATO should do that.
	At the same time, if we leave a gap big enough for Putin to drive a Mack truck through, that's going to be a major problem for NATO and for broader American defense priorities.
	Meanwhile, speaking of foreign policy threats, Iran makes clear every single day that they are not interested in denuclearization.
	The reason being, presumably, that their entire pitch to their people is that they need to become a nuclear power in order to threaten the Jewish state The regime remains in place.
	Because what Iran knows, by looking at North Korea, for example, is that you can completely repress your people for literally generations the minute you have one nuclear warhead.
	And you can threaten people around you in more solid fashion.
	Well, Iran keeps saying this over and over and over.
	So the United States has sent over, of course, Steve Woodcoff, the special envoy, to negotiate.
	President Trump has said over and over for more than 10 years at this point that the JCPOA, the Barack Obama era, Terrible Iran nuclear deal was, in fact, the worst deal ever cut by an American president.
	Denuclearization is the goal.
	President Trump has said that.
	Iran's supreme leader is saying the opposite.
	So, yesterday, he effectively rejected a U.S. proposal that would allow even temporary uranium enrichment in the country before ending it completely.
	Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, speaking Wednesday on the anniversary of the death of his predecessor, said the recent U.S. offer to Iran to resolve the standoff over Tehran's nuclear program breached Tehran's principles of independence.
	Quote, To the American side and others, we say, why are you interfering and trying to say whether Iran should have uranium enrichment or not?
	That's none of your business.
	Well, then what the hell exactly are the negotiations over?
	I'm confused.
	Are we negotiating over Iran's magical peach supply?
	Like, what are we talking about here?
	The whole thing is about uranium enrichment.
	So if Iran is saying you have no say in it, then the negotiations are effectively over.
	According to the Wall Street Journal, Iran and the United States have held five rounds of nuclear talk so far.
	The two sides have clashed.
	Over Washington's insistence that Tehran give up enrichment.
	Iran keeps saying its nuclear work is peaceful, but of course, that's absolute trash.
	It's not true.
	Last week, President Trump's Special Envoy Steve Whitcoff submitted what the United States called a term sheet to Tehran, which one official said allowed Iran to enrich a limited amount of uranium for a period of time before phasing it out.
	So that was better than any prior sort of offer, and Iran turned even that down publicly.
	There would be a consortium that would presumably allow Iran to have peaceful nuclear energy, but it would be run by non-Iranians.
	And Iran's like, nope, we're not doing that.
	Why do you think that is?
	The reason that is is because they don't care about peaceful nuclear energy.
	Why do they need it?
	They're one of the most gas and oil rich places on planet Earth.
	They don't need a nuclear facility for any reason whatsoever, except to develop nuclear weapons.
	That is the whole shtick.
	And well, some of this broke out into a bit of a public tête-à-tête, mainly from Tucker Carlson.
	So Mark Levin, of course, I'm friends with Mark.
	Mark, according to Tucker, went to the White House yesterday.
	Tucker put out a statement that I think is factually incoherent about Mark Levin's position on Iran and Iran itself.
	It's rather lengthy.
	He says, Mark Levin was at the White House today lobbying for war with Iran.
	To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war.
	This is one of Tucker's schticks, is that if you are not currently serving in the military, then you have to be in favor of apparently dismantling the American military or something like that.
	The basic argument seems to be that unless you personally plan to fight in a war, then you can never be in favor of American military threat or intervention on any level, which is a weird position to take because I assume he doesn't take that position about the police, that unless you're a member of the police force, you have to be in favor of the police never policing crime.
	I don't mean here that we are the world's policemen or anything like that.
	I mean that civilians in the United States have opinions that they vote on on what the non-civilians do.
	We are a civilian-led country.
	The civilians get to tell the military what to do.
	The president is a civilian.
	He tells the military what to do.
	We are the voters.
	We elect the president.
	When it comes to the police department, the police department works for the general public.
	The police department doesn't get to make its own decisions about what to do about crime.
	The general public decides what to do about crime and thus hires police officers and backs police officers and supports police officers.
	He says he's demanding that American troops do it.
	We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.
	He and like-minded ideologues in Washington are now arguing.
	They're just weeks away.
	So first of all, that's not Mark and like-minded ideologues.
	That's Donald J. Trump.
	That is President Trump.
	We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.
	He's a Donald J. Trump position.
	It has been a Donald J. Trump position for well over a decade.
	So if Tucker wants to argue with somebody on that, he should be arguing with the President of the United States.
	By the way, that also happens to be the stated position of the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense.
	So if Tucker is in favor of the proposition that no one needs to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, perhaps you should take it up with the administration.
	Quote, if this sounds familiar, it's because the same people have been making the same claim since at least the 1990s.
	It's a lie.
	In fact, there is zero credible intelligence that suggests Iran is anywhere near building a bomb or has plans to.
	None.
	So first of all, I wonder what Tucker's intelligence capacities are.
	What is his access to this special intelligence of which we know?
	Not.
	He says anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant or dishonest.
	So he has special knowledge.
	Or you're a liar, is I guess the two choices.
	If the U.S. government knew Iran was weak from possessing a nuclear weapon, we'd be at war already.
	But I thought that we wouldn't be at war already, even if Iran was weeks from possessing a nuclear weapon, because we don't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon, according to Tucker.
	By the way, people who say that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon and nuclear fuel and all that, that would be the IAEA, which...
	One suggesting that on Saturday, again, the IAEA is not a Zionist outlet, okay?
	The IAEA published Saturday that Iran has accumulated more than 400 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium.
	Civilian nuclear energy is like 3.67%.
	The only reason you're enriching to 60% is to get to a bomb.
	If enriched to 90%, such a quantity is enough for 10 nuclear bombs.
	A second IAEA report published Saturday made clear that Iran hasn't given satisfactory answers to IAEA investigations regarding several undeclared nuclear sites in the country.
	So, I mean, that's some evidence.
	I mean, that's not none.
	Beyond which, here are tweets from the Ayatollah Khamenei over the course of the last week.
	Thanks to the intelligence of our youth and the dedication of our scientists, Iran has succeeded in achieving a complete nuclear fuel cycle.
	So today we're capable of producing nuclear fuel, starting from the mine and all the way to the power plant.
	Quote, A few years ago, one of the U.S. presidents said he would dismantle the nuts and bolts of Iran's nuclear industry if he could.
	Of course, he admitted that he couldn't.
	Those in power today, the Zionists and the Americans, should know they can't do a damn thing in this area.
	So, who's talking about nuclear power?
	The Ayatollahs?
	The IAEA?
	Literally everyone.
	So that's not no evidence.
	That seems like fairly solid evidence.
	Actually, like publicly stated evidence.
	And that's not even getting into whatever is in the SCIF, whatever is in the special intelligence rooms.
	So unless Tucker has some secret knowledge, which he probably should share with the world, that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has no plans to, contra literally all available intelligence, then maybe he should reveal it.
	Tucker says Iran knows this, which is why they aren't building one.
	They're not building a nuclear weapon.
	Iran also knows it's unwise to give up its weapons programs entirely.
	So now he's trying to say that Iran isn't building one, but also they are building one because if they were to give up building one, then bad things would happen.
	Okay?
	Seems to contradict itself, but all right.
	Muammar Gaddafi tried that and wound up sodomized with a bayonet.
	Okay, so here I do agree with Tucker.
	The American actions in the overthrow of Gaddafi were a disgrace.
	I said so at the time.
	The Hillary Clinton-led intervention in Libya was a disaster area.
	It never should have happened.
	Well, Mark Gaddafi had given up his nuclear weapons and the attempted overthrow and successful overthrow of the government of Libya did not end in good fashion for the United States, considering the burning of the embassy in Benghazi and the killing of our diplomats.
	He says as soon as Gaddafi disarmed, NATO killed him.
	Iran's leaders saw that happen.
	They learned the obvious lesson.
	So why is Mark Levin once again hyperventilating about weapons of mass destruction to distract you from the real goal?
	Which is regime change.
	Young Americans headed back to the Middle East to topple yet another government.
	Okay, literally no one says this.
	No one.
	Mark hasn't said this.
	I haven't said this.
	No one has said that we should be sending hundreds of thousands of American troops to topple the regime in Iran.
	No one.
	Zero people.
	So that is total projection or speculation by Tucker.
	And it's basically John Kerry, Barack Obama logic, which is that you have to let Iran go nuclear or you have to topple the regime.
	There's no third choice.
	And that if you actually do, Well, I've never suggested that Iran is going to nuke Los Angeles.
	I've suggested that Iran is a threat to all of our regional allies at the very least.
	And we'll reshape the map of the Middle East, which has serious resource implication and alliance implications for countries that Tucker likes, like Qatar, for example, or the UAE or Saudi Arabia.
	Saudi Arabia and UAE are virulently opposed to an Iran nuclear program.
	So, talking about manufacturing hysteria, then he gets to the manufacturing hysteria section here.
	He says, they don't really mean this.
	And you can tell they don't by what they omit.
	At least two of Iran's neighbors, both Islamic nations, already have nuclear weapons.
	He says that fact should scare the hell out of Mark Levin.
	So first of all, which?
	I mean, that's fact.
	Is there a second one?
	I know Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
	Is there another nuclear-armed Muslim nation there?
	If so, Tucker should probably tell us about that.
	That seems like kind of a problem.
	Unless he's aware of, again, facts that we are not aware of, and I don't know why he would be privy to such facts.
	He says that fact should scare the hell out of Mark Levin, yet for some reason he never mentions it.
	How come?
	Because it's not the weapons he hates, it's the ideology of the Iranian government, which is why he's lobbying to overthrow it.
	Well, it's not just the weapons, it is also the ideology.
	Like, the UK has nuclear weapons, and I don't oppose the UK having nuclear weapons because their ideology does not oppose the West and call us the Great Satan.
	So yeah, I'm a little more concerned when a country that calls America the Great Satan has nuclear weapons than when France has nuclear weapons, or Israel has nuclear weapons, or India has nuclear weapons.
	He says it goes without saying there are very few Trump voters who'd support a regime change war in Iran.
	I agree.
	I would not support a regime change war in Iran that involves hundreds of thousands of American troops.
	Agree.
	Donald Trump has argued loudly against reckless lunacy like this.
	Trump ran for president as a peace candidate.
	That's what made him different from conventional Republicans.
	It's why he won.
	Well, actually, that's not true.
	Iran is a peace through strength candidate.
	And then during his first term, he actually made that happen with the Abraham Accords by killing Qasem Soleimani.
	I still am wondering what Tucker's opinion is.
	On the killing of Qasem Soleimani, I believe he thought that would lead to a regional war as well.
	A war with Iran would amount to a profound betrayal of his supporters who would end his presidency.
	That may explain why so many of Trump's enemies are advocating for it.
	Well, again, no one is advocating...
	No one is advocating for a full-scale war with Iran.
	We did not go to full-scale war with Iran when Ronald Reagan sank their entire navy in 1988.
	And then there's the question of the war itself.
	So here is Tucker's hysteria about what it would mean for there to be a strike on nuclear facilities.
	Iran may not have nukes, but it has a fearsome arsenal of ballistic missiles, many of which are aimed at U.S. military installations.
	A surge in oil prices would be very short-lived considering that all the major oil producers who are not Iran are allied with the United States against the Iranian nuclear program, including, by the way, the United States, the number one oil producer on planet Earth.
	Right now, the price of oil is so low that we're not even opening new fracking wells in the United States.
	Saudi doesn't want an Iranian nuclear program.
	UAE does not want an Iranian nuclear program.
	When he says the first week of a war with Iran would easily kill thousands of Americans or could, I assume he said the same thing about Qasem Soleimani.
	It didn't.
	And the reason for that is obvious.
	If Iran were actually to fire a bunch of ballistic missiles at American military bases around the region, we would, in fact, use our air power to decapitate the regime, and they know it.
	Which is why, for example, after Israel completely defenestrated its own air defense, it didn't launch several thousand missiles at Israel because it knew that if it had done that, then there would have been full-scale attempts to decapitate the regime.
	Iran knows that.
	It is a weak regime.
	Economically?
	It is a weaker-than-expected regime militarily.
	Its terror proxies all over the region have been wildly hampered, including Hezbollah, which is so ineffective that it lost Syria, not just Lebanon.
	Tucker says, the second week of the war could be even worse.
	Iran isn't Iraq or Libya or even North Korea.
	While it's often described as a rogue state, Iran has powerful allies.
	It's now part of a global bloc called BRICS, which represents the majority of the world's landmass population economy and military power.
	Iran has extensive military ties with Russia.
	It sells the overwhelming majority of its oil exports to China.
	Iran isn't alone.
	An attack on Iran could very easily become a world war which we would lose.
	So his theory now is that the BRICS nations will suddenly solidify as an axis against the United States if we hit their nuclear facilities or if Israel does?
	That's the idea?
	Really?
	Okay, let me just explain which nations are members of BRICS.
	So Iran is, of course, a member of BRICS.
	I'm trying to remember all the other members of BRICS who are the BRICS.
	I'm asking our sponsors at Perplexity really quickly, who are the other members of BRICS?
	Just to remind me.
	The BRICS group is 11 member countries.
	Originally, of course, it was Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.
	Those were the ones that I knew off the top of my head.
	But in 2024, 2025, there were a bunch of other countries that were added.
	That'd be Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
	Brazil.
	Brazil is going to join like a military alliance with Iran.
	They have some warm relations.
	They're going to join a military actual alliance with Iran, is the theory.
	China is going to join a military alliance with Iran, sufficient that they're going to get involved in a world war around losing its nuclear facilities?
	Are you even kidding me?
	What?
	What?
	China won't even risk that over Russia having its airplanes being blown up on the ground in Ukraine.
	And Russia is a way more important ally to China than Iran is.
	By the way, other members of BRICS include Egypt.
	Which doesn't want a nuclear program in Iran and hates Iran.
	The UAE, which despises Iran and the nuclear program.
	It includes India, which is allied against Pakistan.
	That's that other Muslim country with a nuclear weapon.
	India does not exactly have warm relations.
	India is going to jump in in a world war on the side of Iran.
	Really?
	South Africa, which again, I wasn't aware that we care very much what South Africa does considering.
	That they are the source of, as President Trump has suggested, tremendous racism against whites.
	Ethiopia, ah, the deep and abiding threat of Ethiopian military prowess.
	I'm sure the United States is deeply concerned.
	Indonesia ain't jumping into nothing.
	So what is it?
	And he says Russia.
	Russia can't even handle the Ukrainians right now.
	So his theory is that if the Iranian nuclear facilities are blown up by Israel or by the United States in the absence of some sort of basic capitulation to Iran.
	Then Brazil, Russia, China, India, Ethiopia, South Africa, Egypt, UAE, and Indonesia are all going to jump in on the side of Iran to launch a world war against the United States.
	And he's saying that people who worry about the Iranian nuclear program are hysterical?
	That's the hysteria?
	Honestly, I need a step-by-step here.
	I need a step-by-step on how that happens.
	Truly.
	And what the chances are.
	He says none of these are far-fetched predictions.
	I mean, yes, they really, really, really are.
	He says most of them comport with the Pentagon's own estimates.
	Many Americans would die during a war with Iran.
	Now, again, he is characterizing a war with Iran as full-scale invasion of Iran.
	Yes, if we did a full-scale invasion of Iran, many Americans would die.
	If we hit the nuclear facilities, that is a far less likely possibility.
	And if Israel does it and we're not even involved, it's an even lower possibility.
	And then Tucker gets into his favorite game, which is to accuse.
	The people he's talking about are not caring about Americans.
	This is his favorite game.
	He loves doing this.
	It's amazing.
	Tucker will impute to people who disagree with him characterizations about him that they've not made.
	He's done this with me.
	He does it with Mark as well.
	He says, people like Mark Levin don't seem to care about this.
	It's not relevant to them.
	So he basically says that Mark does not care about Americans dying.
	So I guess Mark hates America is basically his proposition.
	It's not relevant to them.
	Instead, they insist that Iran give up all uranium enrichment, regardless of its purpose.
	Regardless of its purpose.
	Please explain the need for a uranium enrichment program, Tucker.
	They know perfectly well that Iran will never accept that demand.
	They'll fight first.
	And of course, that's the whole point of pushing for it.
	To box the Trump administration into a regime change war in Iran.
	Again, it is the stated position of Donald J. Trump for 10 years that Iran cannot have nuclear capacity.
	That is not Mark Levin's position.
	The president, as we have very well learned on every available topic, The president has his own mind.
	The president makes up his own mind.
	And Tucker's attempts here to sort of force Trump into a position by suggesting that Mark is manipulating Trump or something.
	Absurd.
	Absurd.
	The one thing that people like Mark Levin don't want is a peaceful solution to the problem of Iran, despite the obvious benefits to the United States, says Tucker.
	Well, actually, I'm sure that Mark would very much like a peaceful resolution of the problem in Iran.
	If Iran, for example, were to say we will give up all nuclearization efforts monitored by the United States today and we will stop building ballistic missile programs and we'll stop supporting terror groups all over the region, I'm sure Mark would be on board.
	I would be on board.
	I don't know anyone who wouldn't be on board.
	The terms of a deal are what makes a deal bad or good.
	And then Tucker says they denounce anyone who advocates for a deal as a traitor and a bigot.
	This is such absolute projection.
	Mark has not called Tucker a traitor or a bigot.
	He's not done any of that.
	I have not called Tucker a traitor and a bigot.
	Tucker has called both of us traitors and bigots.
	But we have not done that.
	It's absolute sheer projection.
	Since they tell us with a straight face that Long Island native Steve Witkoff is a secret tool of Islamic monarchies.
	Well, no.
	What we've said, what I've said about Steve Witkoff is that Steve Witkoff appears to not be a particularly useful special envoy and that Steve Witkoff has deep and abiding business relationships with Qatar, which is true.
	That happens to be the case.
	Says they'll say or do whatever it takes.
	They have no limits.
	These are scary people.
	Now you get into the emotional and overwrought and rather hysterical characterization of his enemies as they'll say or do whatever it takes.
	They have no limits.
	They're scary.
	Pray that Donald Trump ignores them.
	If something can be characterized as hysterical here, it would be this post from Tucker.
	And I felt like it was worth going through in detail because there are so many factual errors and logical mistakes here that it demonstrates, I think, a serious flaw in thinking.
	Again, President Trump has made clear that JCPOA was a bad deal because it was.
	He ran on that.
	He won on it twice.
	He undid JCPOA in his first term.
	He killed Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian terror master, in his first term.
	No world war broke out.
	Joe Biden came in.
	He restored sanctions relief to Iran.
	Joe Biden came in.
	He loosened everything he could on Iran.
	And the result was a built-up Iranian bulwark all over the region.
	That allowed for a massive seven-front terror war against Israel and Iran threatening other neighbors, including Saudi and UAE.
	And now Donald Trump came back in, promising not to do that anymore.
	If Tucker wants to go to war with President Trump's actual stated policy preferences for 10 years, he's free to do that.
	But you'll notice that he's attacking Mark based on, I guess, a leaked conversation.
	So again, I have a few questions.
	What special knowledge does Tucker Carlson have about What special insight does he have into what goes on in the Oval Office and why?
	I mean, like the secret meetings that are happening or people who are talking in the Oval Office, somebody is leaking to him.
	And finally, what is the logical proposition that is even being expressed here other than in the end, that Tucker doesn't care if Iran goes nuclear?
	I just don't see, does he care?
	I mean, if he does, he should speak up.
	Does he care if Iran gets a nuclear weapon?
	He seems not to.
	So if he doesn't care, then he should just say so.
	Truly.
	Because he seems to want it both ways.
	He seems to say that if Iran gains a peaceful nuclear program because he trusts the Iranians, I suppose, then that's no problem to him.
	But if they openly threaten that it's going to go nuclear, that makes sense and it's fine with him also.
	So I have a simple question.
	Is he fine with Iran going nuclear in terms of weaponry?
	If the answer is yes, then let's have that discussion.
	Why is he okay with that?
	Does he think that's fine?
	If he thinks that's fine, that at least is an honest conversation.
	But imputing to all of his opponents a lack of patriotism, a hatred for American troops, a lack of concern about American soldiers' lives in the Middle East, a desire, a deeply rooted desire for a full-scale war with Iran, imputing those motives and opinions to people who literally do not hold those motives and opinions is scurrilous.
	It's scurrilous, whether he's doing it about Mark, whether he's doing it about me, whether he's doing it about others.
	And we should note that the position that he is taking a position against, a non-nuclear Iran, is the opposite of President Trump's position and has been, again, for a decade.
	By the way, I will say it again because I've said it now about a thousand times.
	Tucker has said many things about me over the course of the last almost two years at this point.
	And I've offered him multiple times, publicly and privately, to come on the show or have a discussion anywhere about these topics.
	That invitation remains open.
	Alrighty, folks, the show continues for our members right now.
	We're going to do something lighter.
	There is a new Wicked trailer, Wicked Part 2, and I'm strangely excited.
	Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code SHAPIRA.
	Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

▲