The Birthright Citizenship Scam + Rating Trump's Week 1 ft. John Eastman
Did the authors of the 14th Amendment really intend for every illegal immigrant or tourist to be able to cross the border, pop out a baby, and have them be a U.S. citizen for life? John Eastman joins make the case this was obviously not the plan, explain the real goals of the 14th Amendment, and make his guess about how the Supreme Court will rule. Then, Blake and Andrew react to Karoline Leavitt's first press conference and rate the first week of the new Trump Admin.Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
All right, everybody, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Andrew Colvett in for Charlie Kirk, who is with Vice President J.D. Vance today.
We have a phenomenal conversation off the heels of the Caroline Levitt White House press briefing, the first of many from her.
We welcome...
Constitutional scholar, legal expert John Eastman to the show to talk about birthright citizenship.
This is an issue that is going to be heating up and I believe is an open and shut constitutional case, but our country has gone afoul from that.
Where did it come from?
What were the original drafters of that amendment thinking when they wrote it?
Why have we gone astray?
And do we have a chance of setting things right?
Then I bring in Blake Neff to respond to all...
Well, not all of them.
There was a lot that happened.
But most of the best clips from Caroline Levitt's press briefing.
And a tone shift.
What we're seeing, the tone shift at the highest levels of our government is truly stunning.
Join us at members.charliekirk.com.
It's the place to be.
We have thousands of new members.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Members.charliekirk.com, your one-stop shop for...
All things exclusively Charlie Kirk.
Members.CharlieKirk.com Buckle up.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of The Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals.
Learn how you can protect your wealth with Noble Gold Investments at noblegoldinvestments.com.
That is noblegoldinvestments.com.
It's where I buy all of my gold.
Go to noblegoldinvestments.com.
So without further ado, John Eastman, Senior Fellow at Claremont Institute.
And all things constitutional scholar, legal scholar, we're so honored to have him.
Welcome, Mr. Eastman, to the show.
Thank you, Andrew, for having me on and give my regards to Charlie.
I will.
I will.
Now, first, before we get into birthright citizenship, which you have written extensively about, I think your writings on it are the most clear-minded.
Please give us an update really quick.
Well, you know, despite the resounding victory that President Trump was delivered by the American people back November, the left doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.
They're still proceeding full force with the criminal indictments in Georgia and in Arizona.
We're still dealing with the California bar attempt to disbar me.
And, you know, I think the left, they're bound and determined to get people's scalps to scare other lawyers away from ever taking on clients or causes that the left disagrees with.
This is a threat to our rule of law, our adversarial system of justice, our constitutional rights.
And that's why I'm fighting it so hard.
You know, and there's a new documentary movie about all this called The Eastman Dilemma, Lawfare or Justice.
People can watch it for free right now before it goes up on the paid platforms just by going to EastmanDilemma.com.
I hope people watch it and circulate it and have viewing parties with their friends and neighbors because people need to understand what's going on here.
Well, I mean, we have your back 100%, John.
And what they've tried to do to you is just unconscionable.
And on behalf of a nation that is healing and I think ascendant once again, we, you know, we have your back and we're just, you know, I apologize on behalf of all of us, what you've had to endure.
And you're a great American and we have your back.
So, John.
You know, you have written, and go ahead and throw this graphic up, guys.
Birthright citizenship, a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment.
Now, this was one of the president's executive orders right out the gate.
I 100 and 1,000% agree with this executive order.
But this was instantly challenged, I believe, in Seattle.
There was a press briefing right after.
And one of the quotes was that this judge had never seen such a brazenly...
So, I found that laughable, John.
Now, you are the expert here.
I want you to walk our audience through in the time we have with you.
Why is the 14th Amendment, why should it not apply to illegals?
Frankly, it should go further than that, but this executive order deals with illegal immigrants, the children they're of.
So, make the case, explain the history, the floor is yours.
Well, I think Senator Hiroma from Hawaii, on her tweet about this, indicates the problem.
She eliminated the key words from the 14th Amendment.
She said all persons born here are citizens.
Well, the clause she omitted from that is all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
And so the fight is what that phrase means.
And we don't have to speculate about it.
The drafters of the language, the people that proposed the 14th Amendment, The folks who ratified it all understood it meant complete jurisdiction, not what they called mere territorial or partial jurisdiction.
And if I can explain the difference with an analogy, suppose somebody from Great Britain is visiting the United States on a student visa or a work visa or just as a tourist.
They're subject to our laws while they're here.
That's subject to the territorial jurisdiction.
But they don't owe allegiance to country.
They're not subject to our more complete jurisdiction that was intended by that clause.
We can't charge them with treason if they take up arms against us, although that would probably be a crime as well.
We don't draft them into our army.
They don't get to vote while they're here.
They're not subject to that more complete jurisdiction.
They've never sworn an oath of allegiance to us.
And so President Trump's executive order picks up on that original understanding of the phrase.
And it's not just, you know.
My reading of those debates, the U.S. Supreme Court said the same thing in 1872 and 1884. The leading treatise writer of the day, Thomas Cooley, said exactly the same thing in his treatises in the 1870s.
The Attorney General of the United States and formal Attorney General opinions for the State Department said the same thing in the 1880s.
Children who were born here while their parents were temporarily visiting were not citizens.
The U.S. Congress.
After a Supreme Court decision awarded citizenship to the child of a lawful permanent couple from China.
You're talking about the case Wong Kim Ark, right?
Wong Kim Ark, 1898. And a lot of the critics of Trump's order are relying on that case.
But it dealt with the children of lawful permanent residents, green card holders in today's formulation.
But it repeatedly says they were permanently domiciled in this country.
And so that distinction, whether that case...
Itself went too far or not.
It clearly didn't go any further than that.
It clearly doesn't address children of temporary visitors here, and it clearly doesn't address people who are here illegally in the first place.
So Wong Kim Ark does not settle the question, as many are now claiming.
Honest scholars for decades have recognized that.
If it did settle the question and anybody born on the U.S. soil was a citizen, then why did Congress need to offer citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to all Native Americans who were born on U.S. soil?
The fact is they needed to do that under the naturalization power because they were not guaranteed citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
And neither are temporary visitors.
Neither are...
Illegal immigrants to this country.
I think President Trump's executive order is going to force the court to finally resolve that issue in the way that the framers of the 14th Amendment actually intended.
I want to pause on this, the Native American piece of this, because I think this does not get enough play in this debate.
Framers basically had a discussion about that of the 14th Amendment.
There was a debate about this and they basically said of course they don't get citizenship.
There was actually a debate of whether or not they needed to add more language and they basically said of course not because they're only partially under our jurisdiction.
They owe allegiance to the tribal nations at the time.
So they did not benefit from this.
So the question then becomes why Would they not be automatically made citizens by the 14th Amendment when they were clearly born on American soil?
And the answer lies in this distinction that you're making about partial versus complete jurisdiction, which is kind of a wonky in the weeds argument, but it makes all the difference in the world.
And I think just looking on social media, I can tell that most of the rebuttals To these arguments, it's always like, well, of course they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
They're in the country, they're subject to our jurisdiction.
Well, yeah.
No, look, and they even make the silly argument.
Well, if they're not subject to our jurisdiction, then we can't deport them for violating our laws.
That's just utter nonsense.
The distinction between territorial jurisdiction and complete jurisdiction is what they intended.
It's easy enough to understand for normal people.
And that's what the 14th Amendment says.
And by the way, you know, the notion that our leading enemies on the world stage, Russia with birth tourism in Miami, or China with birth tourism in Los Angeles, you know, put out 50 or 100. Charlie Kirk here.
In this new year, it's going to be exciting.
2025 is bringing a regime change in America, a chance to reorder and make things right again in our country.
Why not do the same thing for you and your family?
Now's the time to hit your financial reset button.
And my friends, Andrew Del Rey and Todd Avakian with Sierra Pacific Mortgage are the only ones I trust to help you do that.
Andrew and Todd are your friends in the mortgage business, like-minded individuals who can make your financial goals a reality.
They can help you reduce your overall monthly payments, pay off those high-interest credit cards, and have money to fund that big project.
And as a direct lender, they make it easy because they manage the entire process.
2025 is the year to make it happen.
Activate your financial power now.
Click in the description at andrewandtodd.com or call 8888-1172.
I think the world of these two men, they've helped me with so many different issues and problems.
High integrity, Christian, they share our worldview.
Go to andrewandtodd.com.
I want to go through a couple of facts here for you, John.
Now, these are not as much in the legal.
Weeds here, but I just want everybody to understand the impact of granting automatic birthright citizenship to any child born on US soil.
In 2023, there was between 225,000 and 250,000 babies born to illegal immigrants in the United States.
That's more than the babies born in all but two US states, if you take them individually.
That's also more than the total number of babies born.
To legal non-citizens.
So we have a whole category for legal citizenship, right?
The babies born of that category is not as much as the babies of illegals.
That's how big the problem has become.
Right now, there are reports, especially within the Indian community, of mothers lining up for preterm C-sections to beat President Trump's February 20th cutoff date.
That's right.
They're lining up.
Some of these mothers are as early as seven months gestation.
This is a verified reporting.
France, New Zealand, and Australia have all abandoned birthright citizenship in the past few decades.
Ireland was the last country in the European Union to follow the practice, and they ended it in 2005. So, they call it, you know the pronunciation better than I, but it's jus soli, which is kind of the old Latin term for it, the legal term.
It was a tool that was used by colonialists.
To incentivize settlers to the new world.
That's why if you look at the map right now, most of the countries that have birthright citizenship are in the Western Hemisphere.
But a little bit seedier version of that reading is that it was used to displace native populations in the new world.
It was trying to bring settlers from the old world to the new to displace those people and to create a new civilization.
They want to break the systemically racist cultural back of America is what they see of it.
So my point to you is this is not some in the weeds thing.
This is having a fundamental cultural, civilizational, legal impact.
Here and now.
Look, I agree.
Birthright citizenship is one of the three primary magnets for illegal immigration.
You know, getting a job and making a better life for your family is probably the primary one.
But birthright citizenship is one of the top three.
And they think they get the Holy Grail of United States citizenship by merely having their children born here.
It's just not true.
That's not what the 14th Amendment said.
But look, the idea of youth solely, that's the old English common law, and it had two components.
If you're born on the king's soil, you are the king's subject, and you can never leave as a king's subject.
You're irrevocably the king's subject.
He has control over you for the rest of your life if you're born on his soil.
That was you solely.
We repudiated that with the Declaration of Independence in explicit terms at the end.
We hereby absolve all allegiance to the king.
I mean, they could not have been more clear that they were rejecting you solely.
This birth citizenship notion.
And it was birth subject ship.
It was an outgrowth of feudal Europe.
And we rejected it.
We instead formed governments based on mutual consent of the governed.
And what birthright citizenship does is let people to whom we have never given cent to join our political community.
To demand it unilaterally by their own actions, even if they are in violation of our laws at the time they're doing it.
That completely destroys consent of the governed, the cornerstone principle of our system of government.
I've never heard that point made, John, and that's really, really profound.
And actually, the framers of the Constitution never actually defined...
Citizenship.
So the point that's very interesting here is that the 14th Amendment, during the debates, they say this is going to clarify this once and for all of who can be a citizen and who cannot be.
And it's just amazing if you read back into the writings of that time.
It's rather sparse, but they're very clear that, of course...
This would not include foreigners.
Of course, this would not include people that owed allegiance to other nations, including Indians.
It was specifically to right the wrong of slavery and the children born of slaves and to rectify that historic wrong.
It was not to reward people who broke our laws.
And I believe that the language is very clear in that.
And I want to give you a chance to respond about...
The 1866 Civil Rights Act, for example, attempting to codify the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
So some people have made much of the fact that the language in the 66 Civil Rights Act more clearly bars The reason the language was changed is because the controversy over whether Native American tribes were foreign powers or domestic powers.
And they're domestic powers.
So they changed the language to be not subject to the jurisdiction thereof to cover both domestic powers like Indian tribes and foreign powers.
And that was all it was designed to accomplish.
And there was a whole debate about this.
Well, don't we also need to say, and Indians not taxed like we do with the 66 Civil Rights Act?
And they said, no, that's already covered by the subject to the jurisdiction clause because they're not subject to the complete jurisdiction.
And if you're not subject to the complete jurisdiction, this clause of the Constitution does not guarantee you automatic citizenship.
Now, I want to I want to take this to our current day.
Do you expect the current Supreme Court, including Amy Coney Barrett and all of this, will they support the president's EO or do you expect there to be a split court or ruling against this?
I don't know the answer to that.
You know, the Supreme Court has never addressed this issue square on.
Wong Kim Ark, as we pointed out, the 1898 case, it was limited to the children of...
Permanently domiciled parents.
They weren't citizens.
We wouldn't let them become citizens.
They had exhibited their allegiance to this country as far as we let them go.
And in a footnote in Dicta, in another case in the 1980s, they suggested that anybody born on the soil is subject to the jurisdiction there, is citizens.
But they never grappled with the question in that case.
So this will be the first opportunity for them to do so.
Very prominent judge.
Richard Posner in the Seventh Circuit out of Chicago some years ago, basically said, our reading of the 14th Amendment is right, and the government needs to get back on board with understanding what the amendment actually requires.
Other leading scholars, not just me, but my colleagues at Claremont Institute, like Ed Erler and Tom West, But Yale law professor and political science professors, Roger Smith and Peter Shuck, I think Roger Smith is now at University of Pennsylvania.
The late Lino Gralia at the University of Texas Law School.
A number of very prominent scholars that have actually done the work and looked at the original understanding and look at the original documents and the original debates have all come to the same conclusion that birthright citizenship does not extend to people who are, to use the language of the day, Temporary sojourners, temporary visitors.
That would include tourists.
That would include people on student visas or H-1B visas or work visas.
And then, of course, people who had never had any permission to be here in the first place.
Well, yeah, and you've got to imagine that the 14th Amendment framers, the drafters of that amendment, had no idea that even air travel...
Was going to be a thing.
They had no idea that human beings were going to be able to crisscross the earth as they do now.
And finally here, John, I just want to give you a second to react to this blizzard of activity from President Trump.
I know you've been with him in very intimate settings.
What do you make of it?
The floor is yours.
Yeah, no, it's shock and awe.
It's really stunning.
I mean, I knew they were working on a lot of major initiatives that they wanted to put in place quickly.
But even I couldn't have imagined how broad and how quick the turnaround that they have launched in our government.
Look, our government's been on autopilot getting further and further out of control for nearly a century.
And it was going to take a monumental effort to reverse that.
And Trump's done it in a week.
I mean, it's just, it's really stunning.
And, you know, more power to him.
But I don't think he would have had that ability.
To do that, if he hadn't seen the true depth of depravity of the deep state in his first term, and then had an election stolen from him in his second term that just gained him the resilience and the tenacity to do the kind of things he's doing this past week.
I have trouble keeping it up.
I kind of know a little bit about what's going on.
It's overwhelming, and it's exciting and encouraging.
John Eastman?
Thank you for your time.
Thanks for being flexible with us today.
God bless you, sir.
And we got your back.
Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here with New Year's Resolutions.
Many of us will vow to eat healthier, and that's a good thing.
But what about your beloved pets and their nutrition?
Naturopathic Dr. Dennis Black is on a mission to provide better nutrition for cats and dogs because truthfully, it's not what you are feeding your pet, it's what you are not.
Which is why he created Rough Greens and Meow Greens in the first place.
Bring their dead food back to life with live vitamins, minerals, probiotics, enzymes, omega oils, antioxidants, and so much more.
All in their tasty formula your dog or cat will love.
Improve your pet's coat digestion and energy and have...
Less vet bills.
Let 2025 bring a new year and a new pet.
Try it.
Get a Jumpstart trial bag.
Normally $20 free with promo code CHARLIE. Just cover shipping.
Resolve to provide what your pet's food has been missing with RUFFGreens.
To get your free Jumpstart trial bag, go to roughgreens.com.
Use promo code CHARLIE. So good, your pet will ask for it by name.
roughgreens.com slash charlie.
Let's go through this Caroline Levitt presser.
Let's just go ahead and play Cut 95. The first week that the president was in office, signed an executive order as it relates to birthright citizenship, trying to eliminate that.
Now, 22 state attorney generals have said that this is unconstitutional.
A federal judge has just agreed with their argument.
What's the administration's argument for doing away with birthright citizenship?
The folks that you mentioned have a right to have that legal opinion, but it is in disagreement with the legal opinion of this administration.
This administration believes that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, and that is why President Trump signed that executive order.
Illegal immigrants who come to this country and have a child are not subject to the laws of this jurisdiction.
That's the opinion of this administration.
We have already appealed the rule, the lawsuit that was filed against this administration, and we are prepared to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court if we have to, because President Trump believes that this is a necessary step to secure our nation's borders and protect our homeland.
Blake, I thought that was the appropriate place to start here, given the conversation with John Eastman.
What's your take on President Trump and this administration's odds of success at the Supreme Court?
You know, I have some friends who have clerked at the Supreme Court.
All the Supreme Court justices have clerks.
They're very important in the whole process of creating opinions, creating the rulings that they give.
And they can give a lot of insight into how the Supreme Court works because it's a bit of a black box.
And unfortunately, what they told me is they're skeptical on the birthright citizenship one.
The line I heard was maybe like two votes is the most likely.
And you're probably under 50% on the third vote, which they believed would be Gorsuch.
So you're looking at a tough uphill battle.
You're thinking, well, maybe Sotomayor will die or have to retire.
You could replace her.
Maybe Roberts will retire.
Maybe you get that fifth vote from Gorsuch.
But another thing that can be said is if this becomes a public debate, if you suddenly have it being made very clear that the new conservative consensus is This was wrongly decided.
People will start writing the papers, giving the lectures, laying out the Constitution.
Universal birthright citizenship is a misreading of the Constitution.
And Supreme Court justices, it's not even saying they respond to public opinion.
They're human beings, and they can be influenced by what the wider zeitgeist is, what the growing consensus is.
And you can maybe influence them.
In that direction.
It will also matter if they start getting clerks who have been raised in that sentiment in the Federalist Society and those groups that raise conservative guys.
That said, overall, I don't think our odds are great, but it would be better for us to get an explicit Supreme Court ruling on this than to have the existing situation where we're just going off a 150-year-old Supreme Court decision that...
Everyone is just taking for granted that it means this.
Explicitly lay out the supposed reasoning because then that reasoning can be attacked.
We can make it a new litmus test for future Supreme Court justices and so on.
Yeah, I'm worried you might be right.
I find that disheartening.
Let's go ahead and play cut 96. This White House believes strongly in the First Amendment.
So it's why our team will work diligently to restore the press passes of the 440 journalists whose passes were wrongly revoked by the previous administration.
We're also opening up this briefing room to new media voices who produce news-related content and whose outlet is not already represented by one of the seats in this room.
We welcome independent journalists, podcasters, social media influencers, and content creators to apply for credentials to cover All right, so I'm going to respond to this.
But, you know, I think this is massive, massive news.
And as somebody that part of my job is working with mainstream news media, legacy news media, I, you know, for those who don't know, I serve as the spokesman for Turning Point when Charlie's not available or chooses not to participate.
So I have to interact with these people a lot.
And I will just tell you that there is a...
Huge amount of them that are wildly unimpressive and that have their jobs simply because they've climbed through a pecking order and towed the party line.
There's editorial constraints involved.
For example, you have to call January 6th an insurrection at some of these outlets.
You have to say that the 2020 election was the most secure election in the history of elections.
These are things that they are forced To say in print or on air at many of the legacy news media outlets.
That is wildly out of step with the people that just elected Donald Trump as their 47th president.
So there is a fundamental disconnect between the people and the news agencies and the news outlets that are allowed into that room, or at least historically.
Caroline Levitt is blowing up an old paradigm.
It needed to be blown up.
It needed to be reset.
It needed to be reformulated.
All for it.
I think Joe Rogan should be in that room.
I think Russell Brand should be in that room.
I think Charlie Kirk should be in that room.
And if Charlie doesn't want to do it, me or Blake will do it for him.
But I'm so thrilled that we already have a Turning Point USA White House correspondent.
She's a true journalist, a real cut in the mold.
of truth and honesty, integrity.
Yes, she has a POV, but don't for a second think that these other journalists don't have a POV because they are absolutely water holders of the regime media.
They have been an enemy of the people because they have been an enemy of truth.
Now, I'm not saying they need to be arrested.
Some of you in the audience will disagree with me on that.
I'm simply saying that it is time for the scales of coverage and justice and truth to be rebalanced.
And this is a fundamental step in the right direction.
This was just a mic drop moment.
I'm going to play.
This is Caroline Levitt on illegal immigrants.
One of the themes from this was that legacy news media cared so much about illegal immigrants.
They call them undocumented migrants.
Well, that is a sleight of hand trick that they use to make you feel compassion for people that broke our laws and are not here under our welcome.
They will be removed.
Caroline Levitt made that very clear, 97.
Can you just tell us the numbers?
How many have a criminal record versus those who are just in the country illegally?
All of them, because they illegally broke our nation's laws and therefore they are criminals as far as this administration goes.
I know the last administration didn't see it that way, so it's a big culture shift in our nation to view someone who breaks our immigration laws as a criminal, but that's exactly what they are.
Blake, your thoughts on Caroline's mic drop moment.
Pretty cut and dry, as I would see it.
It gets at the most appealing thing about this early administration.
Well, second most.
The most appealing thing is how aggressive they've been, how they clearly came in with a plan.
We're going to do lots of stuff.
We're going to do this blitzkrieg, this shock and awe strategy.
It's going to overwhelm the 24-hour news cycle's ability to keep up with it.
But the other thing is just this total attitude shift.
And for you or I, you know, we grew up in this very, we came of age in this very defeated late George W. Bush and then later McCain-Romney era where conservatives were very, they were very overawed rhetorically.
They always kind of were apologetic.
They kind of needed permission for the opinions they would hold.
It made them naturally weak.
When you basically need permission to do anything from your enemies, shocker, they won't give you permission to do it.
So if you're going to be a winning party, you just have to be a lot more assertive.
And that's not just assertive in policy.
It's assertive in every single dimension of politics.
So they're vastly more gung-ho.
Just, yep, they're illegal immigrants.
They're here illegally.
We're going to do this.
They just have to play ball with it.
And so I even, you know, I've said it behind, like, I think the Gulf of America thing is kind of silly, and I'm probably not going to call it that myself.
But, like, the sheer cojones to make that push.
We're like, yep, we're going to be renaming things because, you know, the left renames things all the time, and you guys all cheerlead it.
We can do that, too.
It's this very aggressive posture that is the sort of thing that gets you wins.
The more aggressive party in politics, Yeah, I think that's right, Blake.
And I want to go back to what you just said, this assertive tone, this change.
You saw this also with the J.D. Vance interview with Margaret Brennan at CBS over the weekend, where he said, you know, frankly, Margaret, I don't care.
I don't give a damn with some of the memes that were coming out.
Let's go ahead and play, I believe it was this cut, cut two.
Well, Margaret, I don't agree that all these immigrants or all these refugees have been properly vetted.
In fact, we know that there are cases of people who allegedly were properly vetted and then were literally planning terrorist attacks on our country.
That happened during the campaign, if you may remember.
So clearly not all of these foreign nationals have been properly vetted.
No, but there are 30,000 people in the pipeline.
Afghan refugees.
But my primary concern as the Vice President, Margaret, is to look after the American people.
And now that we know that we have vetting problems with a lot of these refugee programs, we absolutely cannot unleash thousands of unvetted people into our country.
It's not good.
These people are vetted.
Just like the guy who played a terrorist attack in Oklahoma a few months ago, he was allegedly properly vetted.
And many people in the media and the Democratic Party said that he was properly vetted.
Clearly he wasn't.
I don't want my children to share a neighborhood with people who are not properly vetted.
And because I don't want it for my kids, I'm not going to force any other American citizens' kids to do that either.
Well, it didn't have that line, but it was still very, very good.
You know, Peachy Keenan, who's come on this show actually recently because her house almost burned down in Los Angeles, she made a really interesting point, Blake, about that look that legacy news media, that look that Margaret Brennan, where she kind of...
It's just an elitist smug tone where they try and get in like a point and sneer at you.
And it's basically like her observation, this is a look that these elitist journalists have been giving conservative politicians, leaders for a long time.
And it basically says, you're so dumb, like you don't deserve to be here.
And it's worked.
For years.
And that's why I think this tone shift is so powerful.
When we talk about what this is doing to the culture, we are seeing a re-emergence of this powerful masculine energy that wants to protect the country, and we won't be cowed by these women anymore.
Or men.
And just the sniping questions, all of that.
And I think that will also be a boon from the way they've changed the White House...
You know, the White House press briefings to incorporate more podcasters and the like.
And, you know, what's funny is if you watch Joe Rogan interview someone, it actually often comes off as more professional than, you know, that weekend interview was.
He's able to probe at someone.
He's actually able to interrogate someone's premises.
He can actually be a pretty aggressive, even hostile interviewer.
But he's also, at the same time, he's more professional.
It doesn't come off as a lecture.
It's such a different situation.
Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here.
We've all seen the headlines.
Cyber attacks on our power grids, drones in the sky, violent attacks on everyday Americans.
The ugly truth is no leader, no system can protect you from everything.
And the last thing I want to be in is standing in line depending on help that may never come.
And when the crisis hits, food is always the first casualty.
Everyone needs it and panic buying makes things worse.
That's why I've made sure my family's prepared with my Patriot supply.
Their four-week emergency food kit gives you the nutrition you need to stay strong in a crisis.
With 2,000 calories per day and 100% of your daily value of 12 essential vitamins and minerals, this kit keeps you going when every meal matters.
Right now, they're offering $50 off their four-week food kit.
So go to MyPatriotSupply.com to grab yours today.
That is MyPatriotSupply.com.
MyPatriotSupply.com to get your four-week food kit today.
I don't even want to play the clip.
You can just...
The floor is yours.
Take a bow on the UFO thing and I want to get into eggs.
Alright?
Alright.
Yes!
Alright.
Now, let us just all remember at the start of the year we had those mysterious sightings of all the drones.
No, it wasn't even at the start of the year.
It was the end of last year.
All those drones in New Jersey.
We debated it on the show.
What are the drones?
And I will just say I told you guys it's just people freaking out.
It's just a panic.
Everyone's going to forget about it once there's something new on television.
And it was true.
Everyone forgot about it once something new was on television.
But they came back to it today in the press conference.
Caroline Levitt delivered an update.
And it was approved FCC flights plus some hobbyists.
FAA flights plus some hobbyists.
And then people got excited and they were all looking in the sky and they started seeing things.
Normally, you don't look at the sky, but it was all normal.
It was just people freaking out.
Blake was right.
We'll give it to you, Blake.
We're going to move on to the eggs thing.
Yes, you take the bow, Blake.
The eggs thing, I think, is actually hilarious because I think it's a big self-own admitting that they are, in fact, losing on every single front.
So what is the left doing?
They're like, well, Trump's been in office for six, seven days, and he hasn't lowered the price of eggs.
Like, I'm sorry, but if that's what you're clinging to and you spent the last four years defending how high the price of eggs has gone, I think you should sit this one out.
But let's go ahead and play the clip.
Looks like, yep, clip 101. This is Caroline Levitt setting the record straight.
Egg prices have skyrocketed since President Trump took office.
So what specifically is he doing to lower those costs for Americans?
Really glad you brought this up, because there is a lot of reporting out there that is putting the onus on this White House for the increased cost of eggs.
I would like to point out to each and every one of you that in 2024, when Joe Biden was in the Oval Office, or upstairs in the residence sleeping, I'm not so sure, egg prices increased 65% in this country.
We also have seen the cost of everything, not just eggs.
Bacon, groceries, gasoline have increased because of the inflationary policies of the last administration.
Well, and what she doesn't mention there is the fact that 100 million chickens were killed because of an outbreak of avian flu, bird flu.
So the whole point here is...
These are adversarial media.
We get it.
They're going to try and play gotcha games with her.
But there's really no gotcha to be had.
The price increase that you're seeing in eggs right now was a process set in motion by the previous administration, both inflationary pressures and spending, but also because a lot of birds have been killed that lay eggs.
Therefore, the supply has gone down.
The price is going to go up.
Now, whether or not Trump can fix that...
You know, remains to be seen.
I would think there's some things we can do, but, you know, growing 100 million new and raising 100 new chickens to lay eggs is going to take a little bit of time.
But, Blake, just react to the fact that their best thing, I mean, this is like Harry Sisson, that Parker kid, they're all posting about eggs online.
They think it's like this big own on President Trump.
Is that really all they have?
Yeah, it's definitely a retread.
They just have to dig up.
Well, it worked on Biden.
But contextually, the reason it worked on Biden was a few things.
It worked on Biden because Biden very obviously did stuff to cause massive inflation.
He let a million people into the country.
He continued COVID lockdowns while continuing to give tons of stimulus to try to offset it.
And then, most importantly...
The Biden administration massively lied about it.
They said all of 2021, there's no signs any inflation is going to happen.
Definitely not.
Ignore what all of your friends are saying.
Ignore the menus at the restaurant.
They just lied about it for ages.
Then they belatedly admitted it was happening and then passed a bill that they called the Inflation Reduction Act that did nothing to reduce inflation and was in fact a bunch of additional spending.
The reason it worked on Biden was that everything in his terrible administration came together to force this giant inflation narrative.
Whereas, okay, Trump, egg prices are going up.
I suspect they will do their best to handle that, but it's not fitting into this wider epidemic of failure that was the Biden administration.
All right, Blake, last question.
Give the first week of the Trump administration a grade.
Honestly, I'm just going to say 10 out of 10. They actually came out.
They did the stuff that I wanted a Trump administration to do in its first week.
They have done.
I can't confirm.
It's all going to work out long term.
We'll see on Birthright.
We'll see on deportations.
But they are doing what I wanted them to do week one.
Maybe 9 out of 10 for Blake Neff.
Mr. Cynical, Mr. Contrarian.
I still think Gulf of America is a little whatever.
Oh, it's perfect.
I'm going to get a t-shirt made for the audience.
As a matter of fact, you can get that at charliekirk.com slash store coming out soon.
