Joe Kent and Tyler Robinson dominate the episode as Kent potentially testifies in Kirk's assassination trial, risking a hung jury by alleging an unproven foreign nexus despite strong DNA evidence against Robinson. The discussion expands to Tom Homan's ICE deployment at airports and the administration's refusal to surrender enforcement powers amidst Democratic funding threats. While students at Turning Point USA chapters express political engagement, they remain divided on immigration and Iran policy, highlighting a complex landscape of enforcement, legal challenges, and campus activism following recent events. [Automatically generated summary]
I run the largest pro-American student organization in the country fighting for the future of our republic.
My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth.
If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're going to end up miserable.
But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful.
College is a scam, everybody.
You got to stop sending your kids to college.
You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.
Go start a Turning Point USA college chapter.
Go start a Turning Point USA high school chapter.
Go find out how your church can get involved.
Sign up and become an activist.
I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade.
Most important decision I ever made in my life.
And I encourage you to do the same.
Here I am.
Lord use me.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserve Gold, the leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends, and viewers.
All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
It is March 24th, 2026.
Blake, how you doing?
I was better a few minutes ago, Andrew.
And we will get into that in just a second.
So, moments ago, a new report from journalist Michael Schellenberger dropped.
As you know, yesterday we covered the backstory, but what really happened with the screen grabs, the notorious screen grabs now.
And I revealed to this audience that I did, in fact, share that screen grab with Joe Kent.
And Joe suggested that I leak that publicly.
I declined.
He actually, I went back through our messages and he suggested I do so twice.
I declined.
Obviously, those were private messages.
I wanted to keep them private for Charlie's sake.
I thought it was honoring my friend.
Anyway, so this new report comes out from Schellenberger, and it says, as you see on your screen, that Joe Kent says he's willing to testify at the trial of Tyler Robinson.
So this is obviously a huge bombshell and escalates everything to a much bigger level.
I have reached out to Michael Schellenberger, and he has agreed to come on the show today.
He interviewed Joe Kent for this report.
So these are Joe Kent's own words.
It's going to be an important conversation.
And Blake, let's just take this out a step and explain why this is actually a really important thing.
As you know, there's a lot of conspiracy theories that we do not indulge, that we do not discuss.
This is different.
Joe Kent was a government official at a very important post, and now he's saying he's willing to testify ostensibly on behalf of Tyler Robinson.
Yes.
This is a bigger deal.
This is a line crossed that we have not seen.
Yes, I mean, let's just recite it where he says, Kent, this is Schellenberger's reporting on Substek.
Kent said he knew he might be called as a witness before he made his statements that a quote foreign nexus may have been involved in Kirk's assassination.
I was definitely warned of that over and over again, said Kent.
If I end up having to play that role, then I'll do it.
It's not something I'm seeking.
When pressed that his testimony could help the Robinson defense, Kent said, then honestly, so be it.
If it gets us to the truth, that's obviously the risk I'm taking.
Neither Robinson's attorneys nor the prosecuting attorneys responded to a request for comment.
And then looks, I'm not sure if there's more I might have to pay for Schellenberger's subscription.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'm sure it does go further.
And we're going to, like I said, be talking to Michael Schellenberger.
And this to me is This is Galaxy Brain run amok.
And let me explain why I say that.
Jonathan Turley, who is a, I guess he's a contributor to Fox News, legal contributor.
He's a professor of law at George Washington University, said that 90% of the evidence accumulated against Tyler Robinson could be thrown out.
So the defense could be successful in throwing out 90% of the evidence, and he would still be found guilty of murder.
Let's refresh people.
There is a murder weapon that was found near the site of the shooting.
It was owned by Tyler Robinson's family.
Given to him by his grandpa.
Of the caliber used to shoot Charlie.
It has his DNA all over it.
All over the casings.
They release a photo of the shooter.
They are not able to find him otherwise.
Tyler Robinson's parents see that photo and think that looks like Tyler.
They begin asking him things like, where is your, I believe it was his grandfather's gun.
They start asking him this.
Tyler Robinson starts talking like he might kill himself.
They get a friend of the family to sit down with him.
He actually, he admits that it's him.
They get him to drive up to Oram and turn himself in.
His parents helped him turn him in.
And you run into people who say that that didn't happen or that's fabricated.
There's digital confessions.
There's digital confessions, but also his parents are out there.
They have never stepped forward and said this is a lie.
They could easily do that.
It would be trivial to do that if it was the case.
They have not done that.
His parents turned him in.
That is the most obvious piece of evidence in the world that nothing can argue around.
And some people are so obsessed with the same conspiracies that they concoct for every other thing that ever happens.
And so they have to shove it into this one too because they care more about their conspiracy theories than about the person who murdered my friend facing justice.
I am fed up with it.
Yeah, and you should be.
And this is, I mean, this is a tough job for us today, to be honest, because this is really personal.
I have been open to everything.
I think, candidly, I don't get enough credit for even the fact that I shared these group chats in the first place.
We shared a lot of information about trans, about Charlie, how Charlie was more concerned about than any other community about the trans coming after him.
You want to know the truth?
That's actually the truth.
I heard over the course of the last two years of Charlie's life, probably about 50 references of how he knew the trans Tifa was going to come after him.
And he was worried about that.
That's the truth.
Never mentioned one time about the Jews, okay?
Never once.
And here's why it's so frustrating is because there is going to be even more evidence that is presented to the public in May at the evidentiary hearing.
Okay?
And it's a mountain of evidence, some of which has been made public, some of which has not been made public yet.
And the prosecution is going to lay out its case against Tyler Robinson.
And I'm told it's a whopper.
I'm told they've got this guy dead to rights.
And meanwhile, you have government officials that are now saying on the record to journalists they are willing to testify on behalf of the defense to get, ostensibly, to get Tyler Robinson off the hook for something that he did.
And so the level of betrayal that I currently feel is dramatic and extreme.
The level of just frustration, the idiocy that is on full display, we have to call it out because if this ends up screwing up the jury pool, if this ends up in some ways getting a hung jury, getting This case thrown out, or even just getting the death penalty off the case, off the potential list of consequences here.
I'm not going to be happy with that.
I'm telling you that as somebody who was open to all different options, I didn't care where the truth led.
This is where the truth led.
Evidence Behind Strong Allegations00:15:46
This is it.
And for any fair-minded person, this is crackpot conspiracy garbage brain rot stuff.
And now it's gotten really serious.
This isn't podcaster junk.
This isn't like social media conspiracy nonsense.
This is an actual government official who's now going to be called to testify on behalf of the defense.
And that is a bridge too far.
That is a line in the sand that we must hold because this could negatively impact the trial of the assassin of my friend, of Blake's friend.
So that's the breaking news.
This is an egregious, egregious moment that we're having to live through.
When you read food labels today, it's obvious we've overcomplicated nutrition.
Chemical names you can't pronounce, ingredients that sound like they belong in a lab instead of a kitchen.
Here's the simple truth: plants have their own nutrition.
They're called phytonutrients, and your body knows exactly what to do with them.
That's what drew me to Balance of Nature.
They take fruits and vegetables and put them through a special vacuum-cold process to stabilize that phytonutrition.
Nothing weird, nothing artificial.
Their whole health system gives you fruits and veggies plus fiber and spice, 47 whole food ingredients.
I take it every day because it's simple and it works with my routine.
If you want to make nutrition simple again and fight the good fight, go to balanceofnature.com to subscribe and save today.
Join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing their lives for the better.
All right.
As we mentioned earlier, we were going to be joined by Michael Schellenberg, and he's joining us now.
Welcome to the show, Michael.
It's great to have you.
Thank you for, you know, we talked this morning after your story broke.
And boy, oh boy, this is a big one.
And you interviewed Joe Kent, and so I'll let you say it in your own words.
What did he tell you?
Hey, thanks for having me on, Andrew, inviting me on.
Yeah, I mean, I think it's pretty big news.
Joe Kent, of course, the former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, has been saying for the last week that he thinks that he doesn't buy the lone shooter theory of the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
He suspects there's a foreign nexus, was the words he used involved in that assassination.
He said that the FBI prevented him from investigating it and that he viewed that as suspicious.
And if there was nothing there, he told me then why did they prevent him from investigating it?
I asked him if he was aware before he went public last week that Tyler Robinson, the suspected assassin of Charlie Kirk, that his defense attorneys might actually call Kent to the witness stand to argue that Robinson could not be convicted because the prosecutors had not given them all the information they had available to them.
That's something known as the Brady rule, named after a Supreme Court decision, I believe in the 1960s.
But nonetheless, most people are familiar with it from television, which is that the prosecutors can't deny, federal government can't deny, the government can't deny the defense any information.
And Kent is saying that there is information and that the investigation itself was inadequate.
And that, you know, I spoke to a constitutional law legal scholar yesterday who said, you know, it would be a no-brainer for the defense attorneys now for Robinson to use Kent's statements as a way to gain an advantage or potentially a hung jury or a mistrial or something of that nature.
So it's pretty serious for people that are interested in seeing justice served with the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Well, listen, Michael, I know that you have to be sort of dispassionate.
You're a reporter.
But to me, this feels like a giant red line.
This feels like Galaxy Brain run amok.
Did you get a chance to ask him just straight up?
Just because he didn't get let into the investigation doesn't mean it wasn't investigated.
Yeah, I mean, thanks.
I appreciate the point.
I mean, I'm trying to, you know, I mean, the truth is I actually like kind of everybody involved in this.
I've always, I've actually admired Kent and the things he said in the past.
I also care a lot about the transgender issue.
We reported it exclusively on leaked files.
I'm amazing on this issue, Michael.
Just to underscore your point, you have been one of the lead voices exposing some of the craziness and the zaniness behind the transgender radical trans ideology.
So I just wanted to give you some bona fides there.
Thank you.
Yeah, obviously it's a big issue.
And I think many Americans felt that they didn't need to pay attention to the issue at all.
But now we've seen trans-identified people engaged in shootings, obviously, or maybe not obviously, probably obviously to your audience, it was the last thing that Charlie Kirk was talking about before he was assassinated.
It appears as though the evidence that Tyler Robinson committed that assassination is pretty overwhelming.
And to be fair to Joe Kent, he didn't dispute that.
What's really what he's raising here is that there may be some broader conspiracy.
And there's not a lot of evidence for that.
But nonetheless, because Kent is such an important voice, he could easily be used by the defense attorneys.
I did directly ask him repeatedly that, you know, given that his agency is an intelligence gathering, a really intelligence synthesizing and coordinating agencies, part of the broader coordinating intelligence mission of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, he didn't have the authorities to do a law enforcement investigation.
It was an FBI investigation.
And didn't he sort of need to trust that his colleagues at the FBI and elsewhere or also with the Utah police, law enforcement, at some point, you can pass along a tip or an idea, but don't you at some point have to sort of trust unless you have other evidence, you know, and I asked him if he had other evidence of some sort of corruption or conspiracy.
And he said he didn't.
So it kind of raises the question of, you know, what is this sort of based on?
Because I think it's worth pointing out to people that the restrictions on Kent's authority to investigate the Kirk murder are not arbitrary.
It's not something that Director Kash Patel, whatever you think of him, sort of invented as a way to stymie a proper investigation.
Those restrictions on investigative power are what protect us as citizens.
It's written into our Constitution.
It's part of our lock-in system of government.
And I think we saw the intelligence community abuse those powers to create the Russia Gate hoax, you know, the Russia Gate conspiracy hoax.
So, and it's not just that.
I mean, we can go through, you know, that wasn't the first time the intelligence community had abused its powers.
But when you go through, so these the restrictions on Kent that I think for people that maybe haven't thought about it a lot or haven't, you know, that don't work, don't aren't familiar with the intricacies of why these laws exist, I think it's important context.
Like these laws are not there to prevent a thorough investigation or to cover up things.
And it certainly wasn't a subjective determination by the FBI director.
It's written into laws, and those laws are there, you know, first and foremost to protect us, obviously.
But obviously, part of the process of protecting innocent civilians is also to make sure that you get the guilty party and you don't go off and engage in activities that would potentially entrap innocent people.
So, two questions for you, Michael.
So, first of all, I just want to really harp on this point.
He didn't present any, did he present a single example of evidence against Tyler Robinson that he believes may have been flawed or mistaken on one end?
And on the other end, did he give you a single concrete example of evidence in the case that he believes specifically that went uninvestigated by the FBI or by any other law enforcement?
I'm afraid I can't answer all of these questions because I have to protect, but I will say that he presented nothing on the record and hasn't presented anything on the record.
Okay.
So, I want to love to follow up on that, but I have a feeling that we're going to, yeah, there's nothing you can you can say.
Yeah.
I mean, here's here's the problem, though.
So, he's now essentially said that he's willing to go testify ostensibly on behalf of the defense on Tyler Robinson's defense.
I've heard him say in other interviews that, you know, he said, I'm sure there's a slam dunk case against Tyler Robinson.
I'm not saying it wasn't him, but now it seems like almost he's moved on from that point.
Did you ascertain his sense, his internal sense of the guilt of Tyler Robinson or not?
Well, this is, let's get into this part because this is extremely important and important to understand.
And I posted all of the on the record portions of our interview, I posted and also was very careful to make sure that the stuff that was posted was on the record after the fact, confirmed it with Kent earlier today before publishing.
So everything that's in that recording, it's over 30 minutes.
I think what's he also said that he thought that there was a strong case against Robinson, and I don't think he's changed that view.
I'm not, well, I should put it this way.
I don't think anybody in the media had yet asked him directly and kind of consistently if he was aware that his allegations could be used by Robinson's defense team to argue that Robinson was potentially a victim of a wider conspiracy.
And Kent said that he was aware of that before going public.
The Brady rule is not an obscure rule.
I mean, everybody knows that the defense attorneys are going to need to know everything that went into some investigation, any government investigation.
That's a really important civil liberties protection.
And similarly, it's a protection, it's a protection of the innocent.
It's a strong protection of people, of defendants that people may be very convinced are already guilty, but it's also there to make sure that you're not, like we've been talking about, abusing those authorities.
But he said he was aware of that.
He said he wasn't like volunteering to testify, but he said he was aware that he might be asked to investigate.
And like I said, I think if I'd be shocked if Robinson's attorneys don't use this.
Well, of course.
Yeah, this is the obvious, this is the obvious result of this, is that he's doing this PR tour.
And that's what infuriates me is he's like endlessly, he's like someone who's vague posting on Facebook where he's like, ooh, there's things I might know.
People should know.
I might.
But I can't tell you what those are.
But I can't go on the record with this reporter that I'm talking to.
I can't.
State what you actually think happened.
If you want to do that, you can at least argue with him.
But like this endless appeal to, well, I had the senior job.
I saw things everywhere.
I'm sick and tired of seeing this.
And I always see it from the same people who are maximally conspiratorial.
Here's what I want everybody to know.
Shortly after Tyler Robinson's arrest, the prosecutors released a probable cause affidavit detailing the evidence gathered immediately after Charlie's assassination.
The evidence presented at that time was overwhelming.
But people also need to remember this.
In the months that have followed, we know the investigation has continued.
More details will come out in May when the assassin has a probable cause hearing, and we are certain there will be even more evidence submitted against Tyler Robinson by the state.
And that's a so the frustration here, Michael, is that we have this vacuum, this void that's been created where the investigation is kind of still ongoing.
They're still gathering it, getting it presentable for this May probable cause hearing, but the internet never stops.
And Joe Kent resigned when he did, and now he's doing this PR tour.
And it really does, and I want to get this through the audience's head.
This really does have a potential to not only taint a jury pool, but to undermine the very prosecution of Tyler Robinson, who I am 100% convinced pulled the trigger and killed Charlie Kirk.
Could you just speak to that?
Yeah, sure.
I mean, I think, you know, the first thing that's just worth acknowledging is that, you know, the American people, all of us, have seen, you know, real world conspiracies exposed.
And I mean, by conspiracies, you know, illegal secret activity by the government.
Russia Gate collusion hoax is the most famous.
We uncovered a censorship industrial complex whereby government officials working with intelligence community officials or recently departed intelligence community officials pressured social media companies to engage in mass censorship.
We saw a cover-up of the science of COVID's origins almost certainly in a laboratory in China.
So I think Americans are, and that's not even to get into other spectacular potential conspiracies like JFK or UAE.
We've been on all of that stuff as well, Michael.
I'm not, we like the conspiracy theorists have been proven right about a lot, but that was before you had people that Charlie helped get in these positions in the first place, you know, as part of the investigative arm.
You know, I just, anyways, I'm sorry, I cut you off.
Please.
Well, no, so I mean, I think that's just important context that I, you know, I'm, I'm, my opponent, my critics call me, they accuse me of being an irresponsible conspiracy theorist.
So, but I also just think it's important, you know, obviously, that you have evidence to allege potential, you know, you know, really strong evidence, especially behind really strong allegations like this one.
And I think a lot of times right now, you know, because the social media and podcasting is so powerful that I think, you know, it's fun, it's entertaining.
You know, everybody loves a good conspiracy theory.
And I think that's, you know, I think actually some amount of speculation is necessary.
I think you should ask.
Asking even outrageous questions is totally appropriate.
I think too, I think, though, that there are consequences potentially if that starts to affect things like juries, you know, and it starts to, you know, I think the point is that we want to have trust in our institutions.
It's not that we want to be in a state of permanent distrust.
We need to have, that's why you need irregular changes of government to have, you know, clean house.
I have seen no evidence that anybody in this administration would do anything.
I mean, this is an administration that's absolutely passionate about Charlie Kirk.
You know, I think everybody knows that the reaction from the Trump administration, the White House, all the federal agencies was of just shock and horror and outrage.
So I just don't see how any broader conspiracy could be either carried out or covered up in the ways that I think Joe Ken is suggesting here.
Motive and Ample Evidence00:03:36
And so, you know, like, you know, if there, there's just really not anything here that would suggest that there's a cover-up going on that I'm seeing or that anybody else was involved than Tyler Robinson.
You know, and I think Kent at one point sort of, or a couple of points maybe in the interview, sort of agreed that you don't need anybody else.
I mean, Tyler Robinson, you know, it appears from the evidence that's been released so far, there's ample motive and a lot of evidence that he did it.
So I don't, I just don't see the need to add something else to it.
And again, you would think, well, maybe it's just for fun and, you know, just, you know, podcasting entertainment.
But in this case, I think the consequences could be quite serious.
Yeah.
And that's what I think we're all terrified of.
And I just want to make a point here.
I am for asking questions.
This is why I shared the group chat with Joe Kent in the first place.
I'm not afraid of the answer to those questions.
If Israel had a hand in killing Charlie, I want to know.
I wanted to know.
What I'm telling you is that we've had six months plus since that time to track down all those leads, none of which have been corroborated, none of which have actionable evidence behind, none of which have been presented in any way, shape, or form to suggest there was a probable that there's any evidence.
Overwhelming evidence very rapidly as well.
There's zero evidence.
That's my point.
Yeah, I am willing to ask the hard questions.
We want the truth.
But when there's no evidence and there's no facts that would back up those questions, then you have to say, okay, moving on.
All right.
You couldn't corroborate it.
Okay.
So I'm not anti-asking questions.
I'm not anti-conspiracy theories.
I'm open to it all.
Okay.
But you have to have facts.
And the recklessness with which these accusations are being thrown out now has real world implications.
And I just, it's this brain rot, Michael, that's driving me insane being on the other side of it.
I will never look at a conspiracy theory the same way having been on this side of it because people make jumps to conclusions, they jump to conclusions.
They connect disparate pieces of evidence and they connect them in ways that don't make any sense.
So anyways, I guess final minute to you, Michael.
Where does this leave us and what do you expect to happen next?
Yeah, I mean, for me, I, you know, having worked on this for now a couple of days and really it's been heavy focus on it, I kind of walk away just reminded that these restrictions on what intelligence agencies can do are really good and important and we wouldn't want to reduce those protections.
I'm not seeing evidence of a wider conspiracy.
I don't think anyone's presented evidence of that.
I am very worried about this affecting the trial.
I think most people, when they think about what's occurred now, would share that concern.
And, you know, I think that people sometimes want to have a bigger meaning for the Charlie Kirk assassination.
Like it couldn't just be one guy.
I mean, because the assassination is just, it's one of the, you know, most significant political assassinations in American history.
And so to kind of go, it was just a guy, you know, you know, that had a maybe a furry fetish and a trans-identified boyfriend.
I think for a lot of people, that might feel like not big enough or something or significant enough.
And I would say it is big enough.
I mean, Charlie Kirk's whole legacy is tied up with him not going along with the idea that he needed to agree with a belief that you could change your sex or that men could become women.
Healthy Cells for Healthier You00:02:50
It's a powerful insight, Michael.
We got to wrap it up.
That's a powerful insight.
It's not psychologically satisfying enough, the truth, for some people, but the truth has to be the truth at some point.
Thank you, Michael, for joining us on short notice.
Thanks for having me.
Hey, everyone.
We're excited to tell you about Charlie's favorite supplement.
If you experience brain fog, low energy, frequent illnesses, or if you just wake up stiff and achy every day, you've got to try Strong Cell.
Charlie took it every single day.
He frequently talked about it on the show, and he even traveled around the country bringing it with him.
For Charlie, Strong Cell helped keep his mind sharp and focused for all the debates he was engaged in.
Strong Cell gives clean, natural energy without jitters, weird spikes, or afternoon crashes.
It makes you feel like a younger version of yourself.
People would often ask Charlie, What is Strong Cell exactly?
Strong Cell uses a proprietary delivery of NADH to make sure it goes straight to your cells to help your mitochondria.
And since there are cells in every area of your body, then healthier cells equals a healthier you.
Strong Cell is a nutritional supplement that leverages a remarkable enzyme called NADH.
Think of it as the power source for every single cell in your body.
With over 30 trillion cells working for you, imagine how great you could feel when they're all functioning at their very best.
Unfortunately, as we age, our body's NADH levels naturally decline, leading to all kinds of ailments and health issues linked with poor cellular health.
Unlike many supplements that simply mix ingredients and hope for the best, Strong Cell has a proprietary delivery system designed to ensure that those ingredients effectively get into your bloodstream where they can truly make a difference.
This is crucial as many supplements on the market are just pretty packaging with no real benefits.
Here's the exciting part: you can give Strong Cell a try completely risk-free.
Thanks to Strong Cell's 90-day money-back guarantee, you can experience this revolutionary product with no worries and no hassles.
If it's not for you, no problem.
They'll refund your money.
With nearly 2 million units sold, it's no wonder that NADH has become a highly sought-after remedy.
Remember, what you put in your body matters, and you truly get what you pay for.
Strong Cell doesn't cut corners.
They use the finest ingredients and they adhere to the highest manufacturing standards.
So if you're tired of feeling tired, battling brain fog, or just not feeling like yourself, check out Strong Cell today.
Visit strongcell.com and use the code Charlie for 20% off your order.
Charlie always recommended giving Strong Cell six to eight weeks to experience its full benefits.
So do yourself a favor.
Get Strong Cell today and give it the time it needs to work its magic.
That's strongcell.com forward slash Charlie.
And don't forget to use special discount code Charlie at checkout to get a special 20% off just for Kirk listeners.
Strongcell.com forward slash Charlie.
Check it out right now.
Shared Values and Discount Code00:08:26
You, Blake, and Jack Pesobic did a pick up the mic event.
We did.
We did you yesterday.
We did.
We did.
How'd it go?
I was super nervous beforehand, and once it began, I love that about you that you're willing to admit that you were nervous.
You know, that's actually what we talked about.
We spoke for a few minutes, and I just talked.
You know, I know obviously Charlie is far more memorable, remembered, looked up to than I am.
So I talked about the process that went into it.
It's a conversation I had with Brian on our team once where he said, one of the most common questions Charlie would get is, Charlie, how can I be like you?
And Brian would say, they don't actually want to be like him because it's a ton of work because Charlie had to be so disciplined with his time in a way that most people just cannot manage.
He was studying all the time.
He was prepping all the time.
And I told the story, you know, the last conversation I had with him, you know, why is monogamy great?
Like, let's get all the talking points.
That was a great time.
We were on that group chat together.
It was a great conversation, but it was also, that was daily life for him, always getting those talking points.
And that Charlie, he succeeded so much because he failed so much that any debate, he didn't do perfectly.
Any debate, I mean, he lost some debates.
And that was always the chance to get better.
So we talked about that at the start, which I thought was a very good tribute to him.
And then they asked us questions, a lot of different ones.
And I finally felt what it was like to be Charlie.
Did you get challenged?
What kind of questions they asked you?
Man, I didn't join in this one.
Jack got a question about the Spanish Civil War, which I'm a big history dork, so I kind of wanted to jump in, but it was aimed at Jack because Jack had talked about it.
We got a question about anti-Semitism on the right, so that was a good one to answer because, let's be real, it is going up.
It is increasing.
It is something we run into a lot.
I think I did an okay answer on that.
I think there's a few things I would have added if I could have, if I could revisit it.
Foz says, one of our producers said, Blake hit a home run on the Israel first question.
Oh, it was all right.
It was all right.
So these are going to be clipped up and put on social.
Just like we got a question about global warming.
That felt like a blast from the past.
You don't have a lot of people asking about global warming anymore.
It's very 2014 era liberalism back when.
You know, it's funny.
You still can't get those clips on Facebook.
I think they'll still get if you if you don't tow the oh, there's still it's like a vestigial.
It's gonna be a vestigial thing.
Like they, you know, AI will have cooked everyone's brains.
They won't know how to change the code to make it so you can't sell it.
Yeah, because it doesn't exist on some of the social media platforms.
No, but it actually is very funny.
Just you don't run into it that much because they moved on to systemic racism or whatever.
But we still have the remnants of it.
Like, you know, you still can't get a plastic straw in Tempe, I think.
Seriously?
Well, I don't know.
I got a paper straw the other day when I was at a restaurant and I found it really annoying.
So this was interesting.
So we wrapped the show yesterday, and then like almost immediately after we're done with it, we get told that there are protesters out front.
And I think we have some pictures here, if the team can show them up.
So it's this other group.
Yeah, so they're outside and they got a film crew.
And then, so Blake, I didn't even see Blake after the show.
Like, you were just gone.
And then I was like, where did Blake go?
And they were like, oh, protesters out front.
You got to go confront them.
And I was like, I do.
You know, that doesn't seem like a security protocol.
So I was like, all right.
So, but that turns out it's this progressive group that we mentioned were flipping off Charlie's memorial and doing all sorts of deranged things outside of the HQ before that, the day before that or over the weekend.
So I joined Blake out there.
And then next thing I know, Jack is out there.
It was such a funny conversation because they were mad.
I mean, they were posting images of them flipping off a memorial and all of that.
And they were mad because they blamed us for getting an event of theirs at ASU canceled.
And we go out and they ask us about this.
And we just go, speaking truthfully, that wasn't us.
We don't have that kind of pull with ASU.
They, in fact, quite dislike us.
And then it was almost like they hadn't considered that possibility.
And they instantly got more fun.
They're like, oh, well, yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah, because our day event also got disallowed.
I actually was confused.
I thought until I hadn't really been paying close to the moment.
So I thought the event was actually going to be around noon.
So this is true.
I came in.
I go, what time's your pick up the mic?
And he's like, ah, this afternoon.
I was like, I thought it was a night event.
And nobody had told Blake.
Well, they told me and I hadn't looked close.
I'm self-conscious.
So when they sent me the announcement, I didn't want to look at it because it had my dorky mugshot looking photo.
And so I was like, I actually love that you were nervous because it shows the reverence that you have for CK and just how many reps he put in in that format.
And it is a powerful format because it really is the collision of ideas and there is nothing off limits and it's mental sparring and you got to make your point.
As a matter of fact, when we went out to confront this left-wing group that was taking all these terrible pictures, that was my first thing.
They were like, they started with, look, do you condemn President Trump for what he said about Bob Moeller?
And I was like, Do you condemn your friend over here for flipping off Charlie's memorial and doing all this other gross crap?
And her response was, Well, I thought that you guys canceled our event.
So I take it back and I'm sorry, I'll delete that post.
It's like, even if we did cancel your event, which we didn't, you should not be doing that.
You're a grown woman that is giving into this like online culture of just being, you know, really gross.
And by the way, like when you've done the reps that Turning Point's done with all these campuses across the country, maybe then we'll take you more seriously.
Up until now, you guys are just a bunch of trolls.
And I don't take you seriously.
I don't because all you're trying to do is leech off what we're doing.
You're trying to draft off what we've done and what we've built, what Charlie built.
And so, you know, good luck, I guess.
And welcome to university bureaucracy.
This is how it works.
You know, you win some, you lose some.
By the way, this is a lot of people.
I'll initially get a kick out of them thinking like we would want to shut down a left-wing group that would ask questions at our events because very obviously there's a symbiotic relationship there.
Like we want liberals to show up at our events because that's how you get the debate.
That's how that's how you get viral clips.
Charlie would never want to go to a campus and only get people who agree with him.
That would be incredibly lame.
Yeah, no, exactly.
And by the way, it's like we don't, first of all, we're not threatened by it.
Second of all, I didn't even know who these people were.
I mean, I knew kind of a little bit from Texas A ⁇ M.
They tried to counter our event or something.
And that was a great event.
And then my favorite part about that event was when they tried to counter-program us, the sprinklers turned on.
That was probably our doing too.
We probably have more pull at A ⁇ M than we do at ACU.
We probably had the keys to the sprinkler system.
And we probably, no, that didn't happen.
This is what's hauling in.
No, it was like, no, it's the time.
Go now.
And anyway, so it was kind of a fun little moment, but it kind of, and there was all this press energy.
Like, everybody wanted to see what we were doing at ASU versus the, I got these inquiries, like, did you block their event?
I'm like, no, but they would love for you to think that we did.
Okay.
Like, so it was, it was kind of a nothing burger in the end, but nevertheless, fun to get back on campus.
Fun to see you guys doing it and honor Charlie that way.
So I was proud of you guys and more to come.
I think I'm going to do GCU soon, which will be fun here in the Valley.
So we'll keep you posted on that.
And as the clips come up, maybe we'll show some of them on the show.
You know, we spend a lot of time on this show talking about culture, about why strong families matter, why values matter, why faith matters.
But here's something practical.
If you actually want to build a strong family someday, you have to start by meeting someone who shares those same values and convictions.
And in today's culture, that's not always easy.
A lot of apps are built around casual connections, instant gratification, no long-term vision.
And that's just not what many of you are looking for.
You want something better.
That's why I like Upward.
Upward is a dating app designed around faith and shared values.
People who care about commitment, integrity, marriage, and family.
You're starting from common ground instead of trying to negotiate your core beliefs three months later into the relationship.
Building a Strong Family Today00:14:29
That kind of clarity really matters.
If faith is central to your life, or even if it's something that shaped how you were raised and how you see the world, Upward connects you with people who take that seriously.
If you're tired of the confusion and you're ready to date with intention, with marriage and family in mind, download Upward and start building on the right foundation because strong relationships don't just happen by accident.
They start with shared values.
Download the Upward app today.
When you see ICE agents being deployed, what goes through your mind is I like it.
I mean, I think Trump's going to holler at all.
I like it.
Most of the travelers we spoke with say, well, it's disappointing the current shutdown is having a negative impact on TSA staff.
They're pleased to see ICE agents stepping in.
They're protecting us.
Yeah.
Well, people love their ICE agents at the airports.
Lines, wait times are dropping like crazy.
You know, we have like the thin blue line, the thin red line.
Is this like the thin security line?
Thin cold line?
Yeah, I don't know.
The thin ice line.
Here to help us break this down is none other than Borders Art Tom Homan, National Treasurer.
Thank you, sir, for joining us and making the time.
What can you tell us about what we're seeing, ICE agents at our airports?
I think President Trump made a brilliant move.
He called me late Saturday night with this idea, and I liked it.
I mean, ICE agents are being paid.
TSA agents aren't.
Lines are backing up.
And this heightened security posture we're in right now, because it's going on in the world, we need to secure the airports.
We need to secure the airways.
And we need to get American people through those lines.
I mean, especially now during spring break and Easter and so forth.
So I thought it was a great idea.
And so I've worked very closely with the ICE director and the acting administrator of TSA.
We put that plan together in less than 24 hours.
And now we're sitting in about 16 airports now.
There'll be a few more added.
It's going to constantly be changing, but we're there filling jobs that's going to release more TSA agents to work right in those security lines, especially the x-ray machines and the administration and secondary security, where they're very well trained to do.
We're going to take people that are doing other security jobs and we're going to fill those gaps so they can release those highly trained TSA officials to help with the lines, maybe open up more lines because we got more people looking at X-ray monitors.
So it's a great idea.
And I think the lines are going down quickly.
And I think President Trump not only made airports more secure, more safe, he's moving the traveling public through quicker.
I love it.
Well, I mean, I put up a few posts on X yesterday and they went viral because everybody loves this idea, Mr. Borders are.
But it does raise this other thing that's getting the Democrats all freaked out.
And we'll just have President Trump in his own words describe it.
SOT 3.
Will we see arrests for illegal migrant arrests at airports, sir?
Will we see ICE arresting illegal migrants at airports?
Are we talking about the city?
That's why the Democrats are going crazy because they've allowed by what they did and the holdout, we put ICE who are a very high-level.
I mean, they really are a high-level group of people.
And they love it because they're able to now arrest illegals as they come into the country.
That's very fertile territory.
But that's not why they're there.
They're really there to help.
All right.
So it's very fertile.
I've thought about this a lot, Mr. Bordersar, that the airports are where so much of this is happening.
So it makes sense to have ICE agents there.
Explain how that will work.
Will they be processing somebody through the security line?
And then they'll be like, oh, you're actually an illegal immigrant.
And you're now going to be removed from the country.
Well, look, you know, CBP and ICE have always had a presence at the airports.
Not a big presence because we do a lot of human trafficking investigations, smuggling investigations, bulk cash smuggling.
So we have a presence there.
CBP also has a presence there because they're the ones that screen everybody coming into the country from other nations.
So, but we're looking our number one mission, as the president said, is support TSA and move those lines quicker and enhance security.
However, the instructions I gave to ICE was they're going to enforce immigration law also.
If they see criminal activity, they're going to take action.
There's a lot of people who say, well, you should just help TSA with a security posture and not enforce immigration law.
I'm not going to do that.
We're going to force immigration law.
I'm not going to ask any ICE officers to ignore the oath they took and not enforce immigration law.
So you will see immigration arrests.
So they got two missions.
One, support TSA.
Two, enforce law.
Yeah.
Well, I think that makes all the sense in the world.
Yeah, go ahead, Bill.
Well, I'm just, first of all, I want to tout.
I was reading, actually, we were doing an ASU event yesterday and I was studying up for it and I saw that the overall pace of ICE arrests per day has doubled since last spring.
So congratulations for that.
But the rational follow-up, of course, is how much will, let's say this airport strategy of the Democrats keeps going.
Is there a risk that this will significantly slow down those arrests?
Like, could Democrats embrace this as a way to hamper immigration enforcement by diverting so many agents?
Look, will have an effect on arrests?
It would have a small effect on arrests, of course, because more people fall the field to the airport.
But look, the men and women of TSA, they're not being paid.
This is the third time in the past year they've suffered.
So, you know, bottom line is the Democrats up on the Hill are punishing TSA, Coast Guard, CISA, cybersecurity, FEMA.
They're punishing these employees by not paying them because they're mad about immigration enforcement.
And, you know, bottom line is I've been meeting on the Hill, you know, having discussions, but bottom line, but we're not going to give up ICE authorities.
We're not going to legislate or codify changes in policy because what I've explained from day one to people that are at the negotiating table, policy has not changed.
The same policy we're using now was there with Clinton and Obama and Bush one and Bush two.
I've been doing this a long time.
It's not about policies.
It's about execution.
And, you know, as I said, it's all started up in Minnesota.
And I said, look, Minnesota, one other, it wasn't perfect.
There were changes that need to be made.
And we made those changes.
And those changes are in place now.
So I find it shocking that any member of Congress, I don't care what party you're in, does not want to open up the government, does not want to fund the Department of Homeland Security that keeps this nation safe, especially, again, this elevated threat posture.
Everybody in DHS should be working, working hard.
So we need to get the government back open.
President wants the government back open, and we'll get it back open, but we're not going to surrender immigration authority.
We're not going to do that.
That's off the table.
Mask off the table.
I mean, we're going to do our jobs and we'll keep our officers safe.
Okay.
Well, that's good to hear the masks off the table.
We've got a clip here.
It's too long.
Hakeem Jeffries, though, says that we're not going to fund DHS.
Democrats are not going to fund DHS unless Democrats are assured that ICE will not monitor polling places.
What's your reaction to that, sir?
Are illegal aliens voting?
I mean, bottom line is, what are they afraid of?
And they say illegal aliens don't vote.
But look, part of DSS job is secure elections.
And I'm not going to say, you know, what our plan is going forward, but if only U.S. citizens can vote, I don't see the issue, what they're concerned about.
They ought to be concerned about the safety and security of this nation.
And why is the Department of Homeland Security not funded?
That's what they need to explain.
And look, they can get angry at ICE all they want.
You've got to remember, they set the stage, right?
They baked this pie, right?
Four years of open borders, four years of no immigration enforcement.
We had historic illegal immigration on the southern border.
They knew it.
And the members of Congress stood silent.
They're complicit.
They didn't do anything to Secretary Mariorkas when he said under oath the border is secure.
So they're to blame for this.
And what ICE is simply doing is responding to four years of open borders and historic illegal immigration on border that brought millions upon millions of people to the border and release the United States.
That requires an historic deportation operation.
It's just simple math.
So they got to remember: why are we in this position?
Why is ICE hiring more people?
Why was President Trump elected to be the President of the United States and put in the Oval Office to secure the border and enforce immigration law?
That's what we're doing.
And they set the stage for the open border for four years.
They can't forget that.
Yeah, amen to that.
So you have a new, as of yesterday, Senator Mark Wayne Mullen is now Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen, DHS Secretary.
What do you expect?
Any changes during his tenure?
Have you spoken directly with him?
What can we expect as the American people?
I speak to Mark Wayne Mullen every day, sometimes several times a day, ever since President Trump announced him as a nominee.
I'll be with him today when he gets sworn in.
I mean, I've said it a hundred times since he's been nominated.
I think he's the right guy at the right time and the right job.
He understands our challenges.
He understands, you know, as a member of Congress, he understands what Congress is upset about and what false narrative they're pushing and how we can, you know, work across the aisle.
And I think it's a game changer, and I'm looking forward to working with him.
And again, we have a close relationship.
And even though he wasn't a secretary yet, I read him in on the operation and what we're doing at the airport speak because I want him to hit the ground running.
And my office and many others has offered him any resources he needs to hit the ground running on day one.
He's already started.
I mean, he's already engaged.
He may not be the second, he may not be sworn in yet, but he's already being read in on things he needs to be read in on.
So he hit the ground running the minute he's sworn in.
Yeah, it's for people who are curious.
There was only one Republican that voted against.
That was Rand Paul.
Wasn't necessarily a surprise.
After seems pretty personal.
Yeah, there's some beef there.
But then two Democrats, Fetterman, and then a senator from New Mexico.
I forget his name.
Not only that, but a lot of Democrats I've talked to.
A handful.
I know he's talked to many more.
They want to vote for him, but it's election year.
But I think there's a lot more Democrats to support him that's known.
And look, he's going to prove to him.
He's going to prove to him he's the right guy.
And I think give him a few months.
I think he's going to impress this country with his drive to maintain the most secure border in the nation at the same time, enforce immigration law in a smart, effective way.
And look, FEMA needs some attention.
You know, TSA needs attention.
Secret Service needs attention.
All these things that he can wrap his arms around.
And he's got a talented staff.
Look, what Mark Wayne Mullen has told me, you got career officials at ICE, been there for decades.
You got career officials at CBP, Border Patrol, that have been there for decades.
He's going to count on these career officials who've done this for decades to do their job.
And I think that's the smart way to go about it.
Let the people who've done this for decades who know.
Look, for instance, I have a close relationship with him.
I've worked for six presidents on immigration.
I've seen hundreds of policies come and go.
I know what worked.
I know what didn't.
And the same thing with CBP and ICE and these other agencies.
Count on these career officials who've been on both sides, who've seen successes versus failures.
Count on them and their knowledge.
And it's a winning game, winning formula.
I wanted to, you were talking about how Mark Wayne Mullen, Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen, can be effective in this role.
I said, and I defended you publicly on this, what you did in Minneapolis was an absolute masterstroke.
You got cooperation at the local prisons and the county jails.
Explain what you did there and how that can be a model of working with these blue jurisdictions, these sanctuary cities across the country.
Well, look, we know that we have a problem with sanctuary cities because we know they're releasing public safety threats back into the community.
They're releasing public safety threats back into the public, which I think is just plain stupid.
So when we got to Minnesota, I met with the governor and the attorney general and the mayors about cooperation.
I explained to them more agents in the jail means less agents in the street because we can arrest a criminal, illegal alien in the safety and security of a jail where it's safer for the alien, safer for the officer, certainly safer for the community.
But when they release him to the street, we got to send a whole team to go look for him because officer safety concerns.
And in Minneapolis, things are out of control.
So not only do we send a team to go look to arrest a bad guy, then we had to send an additional team as backup because of the chaos that was going on, the threats against ICE officers.
So what one officer could have done in the jail or two, now we got 14, 15 guys out there in the street for that one guy.
And when you got, you know, 20 different teams out, you're talking about hundreds of people out to arrest a few people.
So I explained, and I understand that that raises fear in the community that you have a bunch of ICE officers out there in tactical gear to arrest a bad guy.
Smarter Enforcement Tactics Now00:05:23
I said, you want those, want that vision to go away?
Then let us in the damn jail.
And, you know, we got unprecedented cooperation.
So it was a win.
But we also got to remember that we're out there enforcing immigration law.
We got, as President Trump said, we got to prioritize public safety threats and national security threats.
We got almost 700,000 illegal aliens, criminals that are walking the streets of this country.
We got to get the worst first.
And I think that's a smart way of doing business.
It's not less enforcement.
It's smarter enforcement.
If you got a criminal here, non-criminal here, who are you going to arrest first?
Who's the biggest threat to our community?
Of course, the criminal is.
But as I said in day one, if you're in the country legally, you're not off the table.
We're going to find you.
We're going to deport you.
It's just a matter of smarter enforcement.
Targeted enforcement.
When we leave the building every morning, we know who we're going to look for.
We know a lot about his criminal history and his immigration history.
Pretty much got a pretty good idea of where he lives, where he works.
And that's the way they do operations.
It's safer for the agents, safer for the communities.
And that's where we're going to go move forward.
As President Trump committed to on day one, prioritizing the worst first.
Again, doesn't mean amnesty.
It doesn't mean if you're in the country legally, you didn't commit another crime.
You're off the table.
That's not what it means.
It's about smarter enforcement.
Blake, I know we have an audience question.
Yes, we have.
I think I've told you about this in private, Tom, but I wanted to get it on the air.
We have a viewer who emails us very often, and he asks if you can say publicly to announce to all of America confidently that any illegal aliens who try to vote in the coming elections will be caught and will be deported.
After we prosecute them, I mean, it's a crime to vote illegally in the United States, so we're going to take it seriously.
You want to go to prison?
Try it.
But after we prosecute you, you will be deported.
Absolutely.
Now, the president has made that clear.
And that's why, look, that's why Congress needs to pass Save America.
know why anybody wouldn't require identification to vote.
I pick up tickets at Will Call to go to sports event.
I got a show ID.
I go pick up my dry cleaning.
I show ID.
So why wouldn't you want to show ID to take advantage of the most significant thing this country has, your ability to vote for your next leader.
I mean, it's a sacred, it's a sacred ability, and we ought to keep rules wrapped around it.
If you're not a citizen, don't vote.
If you do vote, we're coming for you.
How does that work?
When you prosecute an illegal alien that has attempted to vote, do we throw them in prison or do we deport them once they're convicted?
No, they're going to prison time first.
Then we'll be waiting at the door when it gets released and we'll send them home.
Got it.
Yeah.
I'm going to play a clip here from Gavin Newsome and I'll have you respond quickly here.
SOT 6.
It's self-evident.
It's suboptimal advice.
Do the work that's going to say when it back is ICE and the conditions that have been perpetuated on the streets of America of what often is described as secret police that took an oath of office, not to the Constitution, but to Donald Trump.
The whole thing is rather reverse.
And I don't know how it ends well.
I'm not suggesting it's going badly.
I just the behavior of this administration to negotiate an agreement with Democrats to address the ICE Americans concerned about how ICE is currently being deployed and utilized.
I just wish the president would take responsibility.
So this is him playing off a narrative from the left where somehow ICE agents at airports or whatever, this is secret police.
They're going to, there were some senators that were saying they were going to shoot people in the airports.
So we end where we begin.
Tom, your reaction to this narrative that they're trying to build.
The same people who push this negative narrative against ICE agents are the same ones that want us to take the masks off.
They're a reason we're wearing the masks.
Their hateful rhetoric is convinced that small percentage of people who are already nuts to take violent acts against ICE officers.
So if their hate porrhetic doesn't decrease, threats will continue to rise.
Assaults will continue to rise.
Puts our officers at great danger.
And it gives us more reason to try to protect themselves and their families.
So, you know, and I'll say this.
Democrats, members of Congress can argue and complain all they want.
We're enforcing laws they enacted.
If they don't like it, change the law.
If they want to call us Nazis for enforcing the law that they wrote, what's that make them?
They created the law.
So we're going to keep enforcing laws as mandated by Congress.
That's appropriated funding to do this.
That's exactly what we're going to do.
The American people have spoken.
They put Donald Trump in the old office to enforce immigration law and security border.
We've got the most secure border in the history of this nation, and we're doing record number arrests and deportations.
And it's not going to stop.
And Mark Wayne Mullen is the new secretary of DHS.
Commas, not dramas.
I believe that that is our future.
Let's wrap this man in bubble wrap, national hero and treasure.
Borders are Tom Holman.
Thank you, sir.
We'll see you soon.
Thanks for having me.
Hi, folks.
Andrew Colvett here.
National Hero Mark Wayne Mullen00:15:49
I'd like to tell you about my friends over at YReFi.
You've probably been hearing me talk about YReFi for some time now.
We are all in with these guys.
If you or someone you know is struggling with private student loan debt, take my advice and give them a call.
Maybe you're behind on your payments.
Maybe you're even in default.
You don't have to live in this nightmare anymore.
WhyReFi will provide you a custom payment based on your ability to pay.
They tailor each loan individually.
They can save you thousands of dollars and you can get your life back.
We go to campuses all over America and we see student after student who's drowning in private student loan debt.
Many of them don't even know how much they owe.
WhyReFi can help?
Just go to yrefi.com.
That's the letter why then refi.com.
And remember, whyReFi doesn't care what your credit score is.
Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrew sent you.
All right, here we go.
Without further ado, we have Addison Marquert and Danielle Cosetto.
Danielle is the ASU chapter chair.
She runs their social, right?
Their social account, the ex account, all this stuff.
And Addison is the ASU chapter vice president.
So welcome.
Welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show.
Thank you for having us.
All right.
So the real most important question is who did better yesterday, Jack Posobiec or Blake Neff?
Jack.
Oh!
She's not.
Can I just turn around so that you can stab me in the back?
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, Jack is not here.
You had an easy layup, but that's fine.
I appreciate the candor.
All right.
Let's see wins.
Yeah.
So tell us, what was it like kind of getting back into the event world, pick up the mic, having it on your chapter yesterday?
Oh, it was awesome.
It was very expedited.
So it was fun to see all of the hard work put into it.
And it was definitely hard to flyer and get it advertised, but I think we had a good turnout, and it was really great having Blake and Jack.
So it was awesome.
Yeah, it's an important muscle memory for chapters to have.
It's like, get out and fly or get out and do the thing.
Table, announce the event.
What was the reaction from students?
I think it was well received.
And I think students appreciated the fact that they could go up to the mic and, you know, if they disagreed, that's okay.
Being able to hear both sides of the conversation, which is, I think, the number one thing that Charlie prioritized.
Yeah.
So what has it been like in the aftermath of when we lost Charlie?
What's it been like for your chapter?
The chapter has grown exponentially.
It's been, so there's light at the end of the tunnel.
Silver lining.
Yeah, silver lining that everything.
It's been awesome seeing everyone who didn't necessarily think that they wanted to get involved in politics until obviously seeing how important it is to be involved politically and talking to your peers, getting involved on campus.
Because they didn't see that before.
They didn't think they needed the part to be a part of Turning Point because they were just like, oh, like it'll go how it goes.
But now they actually see a reason to, you know, step up and make their opinions heard.
Same question to you.
When Charlie died, I think it really just put a spark under our butts.
I know I got involved with Turning Point after Charlie was assassinated.
Yeah.
And just seeing how people have come together after that, it just makes our voices stronger.
Blake, I have lots of questions, but you know.
You're the one who went and spent time with them yesterday.
Yeah, I suppose.
I suppose.
Do you see any what do they sent in the wake of Charlie's loss?
Is there something that particularly appeals to him about his legacy?
Do you see them leaning more towards the faith side of things maybe than the past?
Or do they see him as a guy to look towards in terms of debate, argument, politics?
I don't know.
I'm trying to think of how young people look to Charlie now that he's no longer with us.
I can speak for myself, and I think that my thoughts on activism have certainly come up.
It makes me just want to get more involved with knocking on doors, getting people to sign up for being a PC, et cetera, et cetera.
And I think maybe for more people on ASU, just it sparks us to have even more open debates, hearing clearly what the other side has to say.
I think he remains controversial.
Definitely people who are part of the chapter obviously see him as a great debater, and it doesn't matter what they thought of him before.
They still appreciate what he's done for the youth and making our voices heard.
Unlike the liberal side of things, they don't like him still.
I don't think they hate him as much to the extent that maybe they did before because they see that.
It has to be asked: do you run into people?
Will people ever ridicule you about Charlie being dead?
What will they do?
Yeah.
They don't stop.
Yeah, they say like crazy things and they don't have a conversation with us.
Yes, when we're tabling, they'll walk past us and say something diabolical, and it's very rude, unprecedented.
I heard last night that apparently someone showed up at a meeting at, I think, when Erica showed up at the chapter, and they made some sort of joke about Charlie being dead or something.
And what happened with that?
Oh, well, he got put in his place for sure.
That's good.
I don't think he meant any malintent with that comment.
He didn't know Erica was there.
I'm sure he would have held his tongue a little bit more if he knew.
Because he's a great guy.
He was just trying to be funny.
Oh, dear.
Oh, well, that's not a funny thing to joke about.
By the way, that's what I told the whatever, the progressive group that's trying to troll and draft off Turning Point.
I just said, don't disrespect my dead friend.
And don't post pictures on social media.
It's not cool.
It's not funny.
You know, I don't care what Trump says.
Like, yeah, okay, he didn't.
They made this whole point about Bob Moeller and what was that other guy, the actor?
Rob Reiner.
Rob Reiner.
And I was just like, so what?
If you don't like it when he does it, why are you doing it to us?
Why are you doing that to Charlie?
Anyway, so I want to talk about some of the issues.
We've only got two and a half minutes in this segment, but we have a whole nother segment.
Iran, what are even Trump supporting students, students you know voted for Trump?
What are they feeling about the Iran war?
I think that mostly they're saying, you know, Trump said no new wars.
Now we're in a war.
Talking about prices going up, especially gas.
I don't know if you want to add on that, Addie.
Wait a minute.
Do students at ASU still drive?
Yeah.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, of course.
All right, okay.
You guys are living large.
I didn't have a car in college.
I don't either.
They're mixed.
People who voted for Trump are either in support of him or they're totally against it because, like Danny said, no new wars.
That's one of the primary reasons, at least I voted for him, and a lot of the people in the chapter voted for him.
And we don't want to lose American lives.
Does this change your opinion of the president?
My opinion of the president hasn't really changed all that much.
I obviously am not in full support for everything that he does.
And I didn't want any new wars.
I don't think interference in the Middle East is in America's best interests.
So they're the same.
So you still support the president, but you don't support this particular war.
That's correct.
Okay.
So when you hear people talking about, oh, they've been a threat to the United States for 47 years, the nuclear threat, what was that island?
The Diego Garcia Island.
When you see that they actually have the ability to shoot missiles extraordinarily far, I think that was like 2,000 miles away.
Does any of that change the way you think about it?
Is it still just like, hey, it's thousands of miles away?
We want a nation-build here at home.
Well, like you said, we've been saying Iran has been building a nuke for 47 years and they just don't have one.
So I don't really see them.
When you see Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff say, we sat with them and they said they have enough nuclear material to build 11 nukes.
Those kind of things don't change your calculus.
I'm not giving, I'm not trying to tell you right or wrong.
I'm just wondering, I'm trying to get inside your psyche.
Like, what, what works, what is persuasive, what's not.
Well, I think the military in the Operation Epic Fury, they've been targeting those facilities and they have hit them.
We've decimated their nuclear capacity from what I have seen.
Can I just add something?
I actually disagree.
I think that they're a threat to our national security.
And I think that what Trump is doing is a broader part of trying to limit long-term threats.
Fair enough.
Folks, let me tell you something straight up.
I'm extremely picky about what I put in my body and what companies we support here.
Blackout Coffee checks every single box.
This is a family-run American company roasting fresh coffee in the USA, built by people who believe in hard work, freedom, and America.
No global corporations, no fake activism, no lectures, just darn good coffee made by Americans for Americans.
This is coffee that actually stands for something, and I drink it every day right here on the show.
From Morning Reaper and Brutal Awakening to 1776 Dark Roast and their 2A medium roast, they've got something for everyone.
They even have instant coffee, real blackout coffee with no machine, no mess.
Just add water, stir, and you're ready to roll.
Go to blackoutcoffee.com/slash Charlie and use code Charlie for 20% off your first order.
That's blackoutcoffee.com slash Charlie.
Blackout Coffee.com/slash Charlie.
And for an even better deal, sign up for Blackout Coffee subscription.
Save money, get free shipping, and earn free coffee through their rewards program just for drinking what you already love.
Your coffee shows up fresh on schedule and you never run out.
That's blackoutcoffee.com/slash Charlie.
Check it out.
Promo code Charlie.
So you're saying I'm not persuaded by these, and let's just call them talking points.
They may be true, or they maybe some of them may not be true, but you've heard this like 47 years.
This is a war that's been going on or it's a problem that's been left to fester.
And so you're not persuaded by those.
You, it sounds like, are more persuaded.
What do you think about your peers, though?
If you had to like take a snapshot of the turning point chapter, a lot of conservative young people, is it 50-50, 70-30?
I would say it's 20-80, 80% being not.
Against it.
Against it.
Would you agree with that?
Okay.
Yeah, I mean, that's listen, there's no right or wrong answers here.
I just want to know the truth.
I want to get inside the brain of the Gen Z college student.
So I don't know if you have a follow-up on that, specifically on Iran, but it's fertile ground, obviously.
What do you want to see happen?
I mean, I would also just, I'd be interested in not just the war, but like the bigger picture.
Well, yeah, yeah, yeah.
But while we've got a minute and 50 seconds left here, so the point is, what would you like to see happen?
I mean, at this point, we're in it.
Do you just is it like the goal is to get out as quickly as possible?
That would be a win.
I mean, is there any salvaging this?
Do you think that do you think that you said 80 are against?
Do you think those 80% are still going to vote for President Trump in the midterm or the Republicans in the midterms?
Yes, I'll still think they vote for Trump in the midterms.
However, I think the end goal would be regime change, which I'm totally against.
I mean, Iran, when they experienced our interference with their regime, put it implementing the Shah, they overthrew it.
So I don't think the United States has very much.
Yeah, exactly.
And I would say the same for my peers.
And maybe take that same question, but outside of turning point.
You know, a lot of people voted for President Trump for the first time.
Maybe you were one of them in 2024.
I don't know if you were old enough yet, but do you feel like he's lost a bunch of people that are never going to vote Republican now, or do you think it's salvageable?
I don't know about a bunch of people.
I would say definitely the higher propensity Republicans will probably be voting for him again.
Maybe the lower propensity Republicans, that maybe this was their first time voting Republican, or they tend to lean more moderate.
I think maybe he might have lost some of their votes.
Got it.
All right.
Well, I think this is, listen, again, no right or wrong answers.
We just want to hear what you really think, okay?
This is not, you know, toe the party line hour.
So let's take this broader.
What are, would you say, are the main issues that students are talking about when it comes to politics right now?
Immigration, for sure.
That's definitely split up right now.
I would say the conservatives are for more mass deportations and liberals are more for, you know, aiding them and helping them.
And since they help out our economy, oh, they should stay here is definitely an issue.
And then again, affordability, prices are skyrocketed.
Wages are low.
That's exactly what I was going to say.
Immigration, too.
Immigration and affordability.
So obviously the turning point chapter wants more of a hardline immigration approach, but what about the larger student body?
I think at ASU, I conducted interviews regarding ICE.
We had a bunch of ICE protests on campus.
When was that?
Like a month ago, maybe?
And it was an overwhelming response of F-ICE, get them off of our campus, get them out of America.
You know, like nobody's, you know, like on stolen land, you know, kind of stuff.
Nobody's illegal on cheaper and all that good.
Yeah, I mean, we conducted maybe 20 interviews that day, and I think we only got two people that were pro-ICE.
So that was really eye-opening.
So maybe them helping with the TSA lines is this huge new PR blitz where they're going to generate all this goodwill.
I mean, I'd love to believe that.
My guess is you actually probably just need to steamroll this sentiment, is my guess.
What do you mean?
Well, like, I don't think the kind of person who thinks ICE is a fascist paramilitary because they enforce our laws are going to be won over by anyone working in a TSA line.
I think they just kind of have a virus in their brain.
I mean, especially if they're also falling for, oh, like, the U.S. is on stolen land, land back.
These people, they just want to destroy America.
Yeah, unfortunately, a very tempting attitude.
So what about jobs?
When we talk about immigration, H-1B, there were some students we'd had on that were super focused on H-1B.
Do you guys talk about H-1B?
Maybe stealing college grads' jobs?
Here and there.
It's definitely, there's way too many H-1B visas going out that should be going to American citizens first.
However, that's not very important.
It's not super top of mind.
What about jobs in general, the AI revolution?
I did.
So one of Jack's talking points was in the agricultural sector, which immigrants work in, replacing them with AI when they're deported because, oh, the wages are so good.
You mean like robotics and things?
Yeah, mechanization, things like that.
I totally disagree with that.
I do think it should be going to Americans, even if that means corporations and farms have to raise their wages to incentivize people to do that.
I think automation is probably coming one way or the other.
But maybe there's some, yeah, I agree with you in general.
If there's jobs that need to be done, give those to Americans too.
Exactly.
Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, go ahead, Blake.
Men Haters and Social Media00:04:10
Okay.
So what are the big topics?
Maybe they're related to politics, maybe they're not, that are top of mind right now.
What are people, what are kids talking about on college campus right now?
Well, I think because we're in the political part of campus, we interact with a lot of political people.
Politics is obviously one.
Donald Trump is a huge one.
Just constantly.
No one likes him.
His executive cabinet, they're all questioning him.
Maybe social media as well.
That's a big topic.
Just like the dating market.
They don't like it.
Looks maxing.
Yeah, looks maxing.
Yeah, we talked about that actually on our call.
Well, ASU is, well, ASU has that guy, ASU Frat Leader, as some character on the internet now.
Is that an actual student at ASU?
He's not.
He doesn't even go to ASU.
Of course he doesn't.
He's too busy breaking micro fractions.
Now you're thinking of a different, you're thinking of clavicular dots.
ASU frat leader is actually the name of that.
Why do you know this?
Because you have to do it for the show.
We're educating our audience.
We need to know the important issues today.
So do women in general, because you two are women, if there was a guy here, I'd ask them the same question in reverse.
But do women, when you're thinking about dating young men, is it bleak out there?
Is it hard to date?
Are you guys happy with your choices?
At ASU, it's looking pretty dim.
Okay.
I feel like a lot of women say that about their local community.
Oh, I think the guys are great.
Okay, so we have a difference of opinion here.
I guess.
Okay, well, what's your beef?
What's your I think that they're too focused on lust over love.
And also, I'm young.
I'm 18.
I don't know.
Like, I just want to.
Okay, so you're like a freshman then.
I am a freshman.
I just want to do my own thing.
I don't want to have to.
You know what I mean?
I don't need to date right now.
No, you're 18.
You're totally right.
Right approach.
What year are you?
Sophomore.
I'm 19.
Okay.
And you think you have no issues?
Being surrounded with conservative boys, like for most of my week, yeah, they're great.
And there's good people in the world.
And sure, social media can portray these guys as lustful creatures.
Well, innately they are.
I think there's more good people in the dating realm than there's not.
Do you feel like young men are taking their faith seriously about at least the conservative guys?
I mean, there was that NBC poll that pulled all the men and the women, and it was actually the men that wanted to get married, have families.
Like that was their top priorities.
And it was the women that put that way down at the bottom of the list.
They wanted their careers.
They wanted to be boss babes.
Do you see that, the boss babe thing, the career drive?
Is that still top of the list for women, you think?
Oh, definitely.
It may be dilated because of what I view on social media, but there are some serious men haters, and they're definitely doing the right thing, getting a career, going to school.
But there's a balance that we have to achieve with that.
Yeah, what do you think about the whole career versus family thing?
How do you break it down?
I think you can have both.
I don't understand why you can't have both.
I think a lot of women, maybe it's just on social media, like you said, but I feel like they think they can only have one or the other.
And that's just not true.
You can have both.
Well, I've heard it said that you can have both, but not necessarily at the same time.
And listen.
I don't agree with that.
Yeah, well, I mean, you're 18.
You haven't done it yet.
I have three kids, and I will tell you that prioritizing family is a way better long-term payoff.
That's what I would say.
Easy for me to say.
I go to work every day.
But my wife is very in agreement with that.
Well, you guys, this has been fascinating and a really good conversation.
And so thank you guys for making the time and coming.
Thank you for supporting Blake and Jack yesterday at what seems like it was a great event.
It was great.
Yeah, fantastic.
More to come.
More to come.
Congratulations on the chapter exploding.
And we'll see you guys soon.
Thank you guys.
God bless you guys.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.