Bulwark Takes - Tim GRILLS Daily Caller Editor (w/ Dylan Housman)

Episode Date: September 25, 2025

Tim Miller brings on Daily Caller editor-in-chief Dylan Housman to debate Trump’s bizarre interview with the publication, former Daily Caller co-founder Tucker Carlson’s extreme rhetoric, and debate over Trump’s handling of Ukraine and Gaza, ICE detainments without due process, his many corruption scandals, and the consequences of USAID cuts. Watch Tim and Sam Stein breakdown the interview, “Tim & Sam Try To Make Sense of Bizarre Trump Interview”

Grab a coffee and discover non-stop action with BudMGM Casino. Check out our hottest exclusive. Friends of one with Multi-Drop. Once even more options. Play our wide variety of table games. Or head over to the arcade for nostalgic casino thrills only available at BetMGM. Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only.

Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. But MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Hey, everybody. Tim Miller from the bulwark here. We're doing something a little different. I'm bringing in Dylan Hausman, who's editor and chief over at the Daily Caller. Many of you might have seen. We did a video, I guess a couple weeks ago now that was maybe mocking a little bit, an interview that one of Dylan's reporters did

with President Trump. The Daily Caller, a right-wing news outlet, dropped an interview with Donald Trump. I do believe that irony is dead following the interview. It is a doozy. There's much to get into much to discuss that was titled if you want to go watch that bizarre trump interview spirals into absurdity we'll put a link in the notes here dylan reached out thought maybe we were a little harsh or unfair and i thought this would be a good opportunity to uh to talk across areas of difference something i'm trying to do more over here on the page and um and so uh we're having them on here uh dylan for folks who don't know the daily caller how would you define the daily caller uh it's a conservative right wing however you want to define that news publication uh founded

15 years ago or so, founded by Tucker Carlson back in the day. He's no longer involved. He's once he went to Fox. But that was where it was founded. We do conservative news, some opinion stuff. But, you know, we try to be a news fact-based outlet, you know. I was going to go reflect on the interview first. Since you mentioned it, what do you make a Tucker these days?

You know, I think Tucker's doing really well with TCN, is my understanding. And I think he is certainly tapped into something that, you know, a lot of other commentators haven't. I think it started when he was on Fox News, frankly, and he was willing to talk about certain things that a lot of other mainstream commentators weren't. And so when he left Fox, I think he's continued to do that. And it seems to be going really well for him. I mean, some of the stuff seems pretty crazy, though. I mean, like, you know, the National Enquirer also taps into things that other people don't want. There's a lot of ways to tap into things that people want that it's maybe not healthy and nutritious for folks.

And what was with the hummus eaters in Charlie Kirk's funeral? And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamplit room with a bunch of guys sitting. around eating hummus thinking about what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us we must make him stop talking and there's always one guy with the bright idea and i could just hear him say i've got an idea why don't we just kill him that'll shut him up that'll fix the problem you know i i i didn't watch i did not watch the full uh charlie kirk memorial i have to say i watched erika's speech i watched trump speech uh so you know the hummusseater's comment comment, people, you know, he said he thought people were taking it out of context. He didn't think it came

across that way. So that was his statement on it and, you know, speaks for itself, I think. All right. Let's just talk to the interview. Mostly I actually want to get your take on the Trump administration broadly, because I think it's the thing that I have kind of the least grasp on, which is how people on the right, like, actually feel about what, about how the administration's doing. But before that, you know, since this was what was the prompt for the discussion, you know, the interview that you guys did with the president, for me, was, you know, a little bit of... And a little bit of a suck up. A little bit of a suck of. I mean, we start with media bias. We talk about whether we're going to name things after him. It's going to be on Mount Rushmore. I mean, what, where did you feel like we're unfair in the critique? So, Tim, I don't know if you've ever interviewed the president or if any of your reporters have.

This president? Donald Trump? This president or any president, I guess. You know, we had like an hour with him to sit. down and talk to him, is in the Oval Office. I think with this president, if you want to make news, if you want to get interesting things out of him, you have to get him comfortable and have him in a place where he's not going to be overly defense. He does not like the media, as we know. You don't want him to be closed off and defensive and just, you know, be shut down. And so, you know, you guys pick certain moments from the interview that were lighter-hearted or maybe not the hardest-hitting journalism to highlight. That's, you know, you're right. That's what your audience wants to hear. But there were plenty of moments that were very newsworthy. We asked him

certain questions that he was not comfortable with. We asked him about Chinese students being to the United States, which a lot of his supporters are not happy about. We asked him about Israel, and he gave very newsworthy answer on that. So, you know, there were plenty of moments there that I think were very newsworthy and serious journalism. And so I just think picking the moments where he was maybe getting warmed up with, you know, small talk and things like that. It was a little misleading. That was all. Okay. I mean, when you're done being in office, what honors do you want the country to pay you?

Would you like to be added to Mount Rushmore? I mean, that's a little bit more than lighthearted. You know, we ask questions that we think will produce answers that will get attention sometimes. And I think Trump's saying he wants to be on Mount Rushmore would get the attention of folks like yourself and others who would find that outrageous. So, you know, that's a little part of the attention economy again. One of the things, and obviously all the shootings and stuff were in the news this week, and one of the things I went back and reread it this morning, I don't remember if we

talked about this during the video, one of the things that jumped out of me when we were re-discussing it, she asked him about the mass shooting in Minnesota and the connection to, I think the word she is, was gender ideology. And obviously that is now resurfaced, given Charlie Kirk's assassin's roommate being trans and that being a potential motive there. One of the things, though, that

she said when asking that question, is she goes, there's four mass shooting since 23, and two of those perpetrators have been transgender. That's 50%. Like you said, you're a fact-based outlet. I'm not really sure that number comes from. There's been more than four mass shootings this summer. There's a guy in Montana at a bar, that guy in New York City famously at the NFL building. There's a drive-by outside a rap album launch party. There's a guy in Lexington, the trooper, they went to a church. That's all been in the summer. There's not doing mass shooting, but there's a guy outside the CDC that was kind of an anti-vax crank,

killed the cop. To me, like that, what do you think? Well, who gets to decide what a mass shooting is? You know, there's various databases that track these things and, you know, is a gang shooting where, you know, one gang shoots another and there's, you know, three fatalities or two people get hit. Is that a mass shooting? There's no set definition. I think when people use the term mass shooting and especially people in the mainstream media often use the term mass shooting, they're invoking a certain imagery that we all think of as Americans of someone going to a school or going to a big event. shooting, you know, trying to kill dozens of people. And so, you know, when you have these people that cite these statistics that say, oh, there's a mass shooting every single day in America,

maybe by certain metrics, that might be true, but by the imagery that we think of when we think mass shootings, I don't think that's accurate. And so when you look at those types of shootings, you know, I think there is a trend that there have been several recently or political assassinations in the case of the Kirk shooting that can be connected to the trans ideology in some way. I don't, I wouldn't necessarily paint a massive trend out of it or say it's definitive, but it's certainly worth asking about at this point in time, I think. Yeah, you can see how that would stokes animus towards trans people, though, to kind of juice the numbers to make it seem like half the mass shooting are trans folks.

Like, obviously half the mass shootings this country aren't from trans folks. And if you're going to look at a more common trend about mass shooters, like they're mostly 20-year-old white dudes. Like, I mean, that's most of the mass shooters. So, you know, to single out the trans folks and not mention that. I mean, across ideology, it's, I'm not saying they're all 20-year-old conservative white dudes, but pretty most of them are 20-year-old white dudes, a much higher percentage than transgender. I think this gets at a difference of how maybe the left and the right view,

what transgenderism is. If you think that being trans is just an immutable characteristic like being a white guy, then your framing might make sense. If you view it as this ideological, you know, social contagion of sort, that is taking, you know, gender confused young people or isolated young people and pushing them down a path of trying to change their gender and do all these sorts of things, then it doesn't really make sense to lump it in. There's like a demographic category, like someone's skin color, my opinion. So, you know, I think that's just seeing that issue differently, really.

I guess my point is I obviously reject the construct that you just laid out about social contagion, but even in that construct, it's still like, it's still concerning. And I think that you guys would be mad at me if I had an interview with a prominent Democratic official and said, you know, half the shooters have been Christian. Maybe Christian ideology is running them down to Trevor. Half the shooters have been, you know, I don't know, some other, like, some other trait that codes more right wing. You know, it's like, it's, I think there have been several high profile shootings in, in the run up to that interview that were committed by people who were Christian and there was evidence that their Christian beliefs were part of their motivation

for the shooting. I don't know. I don't know if I would have that much of a pushback to it because it would seem like a legitimate question to ask, frankly. Well, we don't know what is in your heart. The interview with the president started with a complaint about media bias in the New York Times. And I, and so that's a very, you know, and it's a very common thing that's happening over there. There's a lot of media, media criticism going on of the mainstream media. Yeah, the mainstream media does a lot of things that are criticisable. I probably agree, maybe just from a different direction. I know. I think they do plenty of things that are criticized.

And I think that it was true of this interview. We could do more, and we can go back to it if there's something in particular to talk about. But I'm more interested in your take on the Trump administration broadly and just looking at the metrics, economy, foreign policy, you know, commitment to conservative principles. How do you feel Trump's doing? There's a lot of things to like. It's not perfect, I would say. We got a pretty good GDP report today. Speaking of the economy, so I know people have been kind of honing in on that as a potential weak spot and inflation and the tariffs and stuff, but we got a good GDP report today. Foreign policy, I think it depends on what your worldview is. I think Trump actually has a foreign policy. The previous administration felt like we were just kind of floating along. There was no plan to solve anything in Ukraine. There was no plan to solve anything in Gaza. Obviously, they're still killing happening. about those places now. They haven't been solved, but at least feels like there's an attempt to be solving them, I would say. You feel like he has a plan? You feel like he has a plan in Ukraine? I mean,

he just totally changed his position on it yesterday. He said he was going to solve it one. He said he had a big summit with Putin. He talked about how he browbeat Zelensky. He talked about how Zelensky has no cards. Zensky, that Ukraine, J.D. Vance has been going around saying Ukraine has no chance to get their land back. Now Trump says yesterday they could get it back. He wants to give weapons to NATO to give to Ukraine. I mean, he's had a total 180 on it. I don't understand how you can feel like he has a plan. I think he has an in-state in mind.

He wants the war to end. I don't think the Biden administration had an in-state. I don't actually don't think the Biden administration really had that end-goal in mind. They seem to be content to just being kind of a stasis where we're going to continue to give weapons and see what happens and try to bleed Russia out forever, I guess. Trump, you know, he tried to solve it through negotiation at first. He tried to butter up Putin and now he's switching because it didn't work, you know. So I don't think that's a demerit to say that, you know, the strategy changed or the tactics changed. And his entire stated policy was a complete failure is not a demerit.

I mean, like he had a plan in Russia that was different from basically every other person. And him and J.D. Vance had a very separate view of what should happen without war that was different from the consensus. they tried to execute, which was basically coddling Putin and sucking up to him in the hopes that he quits the war. That I thought was very obviously not going to work to anybody who has paid attention to Vladimir Putin, but that was what they wanted to do. Nobody else wanted to do that. That was their stated plan.

They tried that for nine months. It's been an utter failure. Putin's war on Ukraine has become more intense. More civilians have died. And now they just switched sides to go to essentially the Biden position yesterday. How is that not a demer? I don't think it's a demerit to switch your tact when things aren't worked. I just said it didn't work.

So I acknowledged that the initial plan did not work. And so now they're trying something different. I don't think that's, I don't, that's what you're supposed to do when you're in charge of something, when you're a leader of some sort. If you try plan A, it doesn't work, you're going to plan B. I don't see, you know, you can acknowledge you. But also if your plan A was really stupid, everybody told you it was stupid and then it didn't work, you know, we can also just acknowledge.

Plan A was different than what the plan, you know, the previous administration's plan was, which also didn't work. So, you know, I don't see the, they tried something. I don't know. I think the previous administration did pretty good of protecting Ukraine. I mean, Russia invaded them. There was some category of people, probably if J.D. Vance was president, they probably would have just said we're not going to get involved at all in Russia.

And Putin might be in Kiev right now. I mean, a lot of people thought that Russia was going to easily dominate Ukraine. I mean, so I'm not saying that the situation was perfect when Biden had it over to Trump. It's not. But that was a pretty notable accomplishment that's worth mentioning. that Ukraine protected itself from an aggressive. Yeah, but when did the Biden administration ever indicate that they were trying to pursue some sort of, some sort of in-state? It was just, it was perpetual sending of weapons with no even openness to any kind of negotiation, no anything.

And that, you know, I saw why they weren't open to negotiation because you can't negotiate with Putin. There's not a reliable counterparty. Do you know that for sure until you at least attempt it, though? I mean, at some point, this, I was pretty sure, and it bear it out. Just to be clear, I don't think Putin is someone that you can negotiate with at the moment. And I don't think that we should stop sending arms to Ukraine. So that that's my position. But I don't think the idea that we're just never going to even broach the idea of negotiation, when that is how it will have to end at some point.

I don't think that makes much sense either. Like what is the plan in that scenario? What do you think the end game is for Gaza? You said, do you think he also has a plan for that? What's the plan that they're working on there, do you think? I think Trump is frustrated by having to have a war on his watch and what's it to just end. I don't know that there is some grand scheme of how it's going to look afterwards. And I don't think it's really, it's not really in America's interest directly to be that concerned with what it looks like afterwards so long as there's peace and people, people are not dying anymore.

And I think that's what Trump's position seems to be. I know there are other people in the administration that you can point to that, you know, maybe want to turn Gaza into. you know, a beachfront, you know, hotel resort. Are there other people that want to displace Gazans, I guess? And there are these various opinions. But I don't think the president's not ideological on foreign policy. I don't think. I think he just wants the war to end because he views it as a political liability and a headache.

And that's what America's interest should be. It should be to just have peace. It's not our problem. What's going on between them if there's peace? Sure. But we all, I mean, most people want the ward end, maybe not BB, but most people want the word to end. It's like wish it wishes.

In that Yahoo defense, you're not going to find it for me. Yeah, which is, I guess, is it good enough. I guess all I'm saying is that you said that you felt like they had a plan or an end game, and I don't see it in either situation. What do you think about the boat bombing in the Caribbean? Do you think that's good? Do you think we should just be gadding random boats outside of Venezuela from the sky? Do we know it's a random, I mean, the premise of that, that are random boats.

I mean, you don't think. Well, I mean, it's not a war. We're not in a war. I guess that's what I meant. Maybe they're criminals. Maybe they're not. I don't, I guess, are you confident in the administration that's telling the truth that they're, that they're drug dealers coming for the country, with drugs for the country? I think that.

Do you believe they're telling the truth about that? I think I'm sure they had intelligence that indicated that these people were affiliated with drug cartel or drug trafficking. Did you think the people that we sent to El Salvador to that, to that death camp in El Salvador to the gulag? Do you think that, are you confident that they were gang members, Trendoragua? Did you think that, do you trust the administration on that? maybe not 100% every single one, but most of them. Oh, okay. So you do think that the administration lied,

and we likely sent people that were not gang members to a foreign prison. You agree with that? I think that the people they're arresting are people that were suspected or charged with crimes for the most part, as far as I know. You think the gay hairdresser? You think the gay hairdresser, Andre, you think he was a gang member? What would he think he think his job was in Trento, was he doing hair and makeup, or what do you think was his role?

I don't think the gay hairdresser was doing hair and makeup for Trindy, I think that if he was here, if people are here illegally, then we need to deport them. To foreign prisons was no new process. We should send her to a prison in a third country with no due process and the government should lie about who they were. You're okay with that? I'm not okay with the government lying to them, about who people are. But they lie. I mean, I'm not, what's a simple question do you think they lie? The idea, the idea that it's the idea that before the Trump administration that every single.

criminal case or deportation case or anything that's ever happened in the United States was all on the up and up and every I was dotted and T. Of course not. But we never sent people to a foreign prison camp before this time. I have no problem with people that have links to gangs being sent to a foreign prison. But you just said you assume some of them didn't. You assume some of them didn't. I assume and look, well, look what happened with Kilmar. He was sent there and then he was brought back and got his due process. So I don't, I'm sure mistakes happen. and then you can rectify mistakes if they happen. That's a pretty bad mistake sending somebody that's not a gang member to a foreign prison for four months.

People on death row get executed by mistake throughout American history. It's not unique to the time. This is my issue, man. Okay, I'm here. Fine. Yeah, other bad things happen. But I don't understand what you're so hesitant to just admit that this is a bad thing. Like, you don't have to talk about other bad things that happened in history.

Like, sure. Like, if you, do you believe the administration sent people that were not gang members to a foreign prison and lied about it? I have not reviewed every single person that got sent to Seacott. But do you think that what do you think? I would think that there might have been some mistakes because in law enforcement, there are always mistakes that happen and you hope that you can correct them. I don't, I reject is, what I reject is the premise that it's somehow unique to what's happening now that people get. get wrongly arrested or people get wrongly in prison or the people that these things happen, of course it happens. And you need to try to fix it. And it's bad if it happens. And it's bad to

lie about it. They're, they obviously lied about it. I mean, that's, I mean, that's, I mean, that's, I mean, you don't think so. You don't, I mean, you don't think so. You think that they were telling the truth when they said that these were the worst of the worst. They're all trend to Aragua that they had that they vetted them, that they knew that they had intelligence. You don't you, you, you, you, they lied about that. I think that. I think that they were attempting to arrest the worst of the worst and trended iraqo members and yeah and i don't think the vice president i don't know man the vice president lied about this in the vatican he ross doth had interviewed him in the vatican and he asked and he asked if he thinks they wrongly sent people

and he said no and he smeared the media and he smeared all the people that were complaining about it like that's a really bad lie i mean these are human beings lives i don't if if cabala harris told a lie about that bad i would have called i would have said that was bad No, that is bad to, it is bad to lie about. And you should, we, but the government is always, obviously the government is going to defend their own actions and what they're doing. Okay. So I agree that some of those guys were probably not gang members, like the heritage. I'm sure there are some people that have been deported or sent that are not, that are not gang members.

I'm sure it has happened. Okay. I don't think that is some crazy, unique indictment of this administration. Well, it is because we never sent people to a foreign prison camp before. That was, that was the new unique thing. is wrongly imprisoning someone in an American prison why is that significantly better than if it's in a foreign prison if they're not even American did you have due process in America because eventually you get to see a lawyer

in America because you're not and you're not sent to El Salvador and put in a hole where you're raped they brought him back they brought him back to the United States not the other 300 okay the where I was trying to get to with this but you're being a little belligerent about just acknowledging what happened. I'm not trying to be belligerent. I'm not trying to be blizzard. Yeah, just acknowledging what happened. This happened.

Now, if we grant, at least in your framing that it's possible, they wrongly sent some Venezuelans to a foreign prison, why would not we assume that maybe some of the boats that they're bombing aren't gang affiliated or aren't drug trafficking? I mean, one of the ones, the first one had, like it was a tiny boat that had, I forget if it was nine or 11 people on it, I'm going from memory. that I, when I, I've interviewed, I interviewed people that do drug, you know, that, that are in law enforcement and have worked, you know, in the military, that this was part of their remit. And they're like, that doesn't feel like a drug boat to me.

Like, usually it's three people, like, so I don't know. Maybe it was. Maybe there was 11 people on a small drug boat out of Venezuela. And it was coming to, those drugs were coming to America. But it doesn't seem, seems, I don't really trust that it is, that it is. Do you? So my thought on this, actually, is that I'm not really. I've started in politics and when I was in college as an anti-war activist in person.

So I'm actually not super comfortable with just bombing places that we're not at war with. I think that's bad and we should have more process than that. I don't think I would assume that it was just some random fishing boat. I don't think that necessarily makes sense. And I would assume that, you know, it's not like the war on terror where we're just dropping bombs left and right every single day. And, of course, at that volume, at that pace of action, you're going to bond. innocent people and you're going to make mistakes of that sort. I would assume in this case where it was in the first bombing was just one strike on one boat that they didn't just pick

some random boat. That doesn't make any sense. I would assume that there was intelligence like there are with any military operation to lead them to the conclusion that that that's who was on that boat. And do I think that that's the right tact to take necessarily? Not necessarily. Again, I'm not, I'm not in favor of just bombing random countries without congressional authorization and without having a process. But I think taking the extra step beyond that to assume that it was just random fishers in that boat, I don't really see the evidence. I'm not assuming that. I'm just saying we don't know and I don't really have any reason to trust them. They haven't provided very much information. What about the corruption part of the administration? They're obviously covering up

Trump's appearance in the Epstein files. I don't know what his appearance is, but they're in there. They've admitted that Trump is in there and that they're covering up the Holman reporting. came out this week he took 50 grand. I think they should release the Epstein files. I think that what about what about shutting down the investigation of tom homan who took 50 grand in a kava bag? Why why why was the Biden administration trying to entrap Tom home and months before they thought he was getting into the government? Because they got a tip that he was doing this. That's what the reporting says. He got a tip that he was taking bribes. And so when you get a tip that somebody is accepting bribes, then what you do is you go see if they accept bribes and turned out

their tip was good. Yeah, because he took 50 grand in a kava bag. Look, I don't think that we should shut down investigations if there's evidence, but I haven't seen all the evidence or what's in the investigation. One of your reporters took 50 grand in a kava bag to write a story. Would you keep them at the daily caller, do you think? If one of my reporters took 50 grand to write a story in a cover bag, no, I would not keep them at the daily collar. Yeah, no, we need that.

What about all the crypto? I will tell you, I will say about Tom Homan. I will say about Tom Homan. Tom Homan, due to threats against his family, doesn't even, he lives separately from his family because of the threats that he gets working and doing his job. So when it comes to people that I'm worried about being corrupt or that aren't trying to do what they think is in the best interest of the country, Tom Homan is not high on the list of people that I'm concerned about that with. I just have to say. I mean, he's menacing a lot of other people.

But out with the crypto stuff, do you think the president should have a stable coin that he sells to the UAE? Do you think that should be legal? I think having a stable coin, I think it's fine. have a stable coin. I'm not a crypto guy. I don't really know. You think the president's family selling crypto to foreign interest, they have Chinese investors? What would the daily caller have done if the Biden family was selling cryptocurrency to Chinese nationals? You don't have to hypothetically. I mean, the Biden family was involved in foreign business dealings and we covered it. And there's been plenty of coverage of what Trump's doing with crypto. I don't think it's good.

I don't think it's a good look to be selling crypto to foreign investors and have foreign countries involved in that. No, it's not a good look. Yeah. And the scale of it is like, I mean, crazy. It's unprecedented. I mean, we don't even know who's, like, because we don't even know all the people that are investing in this crypto. Yeah, not great. Do not, not a fan. Yeah, not a fan of that either. So what are, what have you been a fan of, I guess? What do you think he's really knocking out of the park? See, here's the tenor of this conversation, you know, we've been, we've been picking on specific instances that where things have, have been executed poorly or,

I mean, unprecedented corruption and lying about that deportations, failed foreign policy. Yeah, again, failed foreign policy, we disagree on, I guess. But the Trump administration, the reason I think Trump won is because he actually was focused on kitchen table issues people cared about. People wanted the border to be secured. People wanted inflation to come down and the economy to improve. People wanted to get, this is not a kitchen table issue, admittedly, but people were culturally, I think, fed up with a lot of DEI and left-wing, you know, cultural ideology that was going on. And he's coming to office and he's addressed many of those things.

And so I think if you look at the border being secure, I mean, we had an entire discourse for weeks about how we needed to pass new laws and we need to do all these various things to secure the border and stop the flow of illegal immigration. And Trump came into office and it basically instantly stopped just based on executive actions of what he was doing in his rhetoric alone, actually. So I think if you look at the issues that animated people in the previous election, many of them have been addressed.

The border's been secure. We just got a great GDP report. We've got DEI being purged out of the federal government. So some of the things that we're run on are being executed on successfully. I want to pick on two of those things. We're kind of running out of time. Like you agree to disagree with me on foreign policy. I agree to disagree with you on the border.

We can maybe have a separate conversation on the border. Hold on that. What would you disagree with on the board? I don't think it's good. I don't think you want to live in a country that has net negative migration. I think it's against the American tradition. We just got new polling. We just got new polling today that Americans still overwhelmingly trust Republicans more of the Democrats on the immigration issues.

So I think that suggests that. Okay, that's fair. I just think the evidence suggests that the American people are warm. I don't think you want to live in a country that has net negative migration. I think Americans will probably change their mind about that if that happens for like eight years because like the countries that have net negative migration are like Syria, Cameroon, Venezuela. Like if you want to be a growing country. Did all these countries have an influx of millions and millions of people just flowing into their country? I mean, I feel like context is important. Yeah. On the DEI and on the economy, really quick forward to leisure, what do you think about the vice president telling people that they should rat on their neighbors and call their

employers if they did wrong talk about Charlie Kirk? What do you think about that? Define wrong talk, because this is an interesting. I guess I don't think it matters. I think if you, I think if you publicly celebrate the execution of someone for their political statements, I'm very comfortable with you losing your job. I don't think that should be controversial. But are you comfortable with the vice president telling people that they should

call and tattle people? It doesn't really bother me. I think, I think, you know, here's what I'll say. I'm not comfortable with a lot of the rhetoric about we're at war and people turning the heat up and all these things. You know, I'm a Christian. I believe that we need to live in peace together and we need to find a way to bring people together and not just continue to stoke the flames. that being said, there does need to be consequences in some sort of action taken to rein in

the people that are off the deep end. And I think people that are celebrating political executions and, you know, mocking widows and things of that sort, they should face consequences. So it just doesn't bother me really for the vice president to make one comment saying that he also supports that and thinks that should happen. Because I think that's fair. I mean, there is a concerted effort to crack down on people in the country right now that say the wrong things about either Israel or Charlie Kirk. And I'm not for that either. I've done several monologues about how grossed out I am by some liberal's comments about

Charlie Kirk. But like gathering lists of people who did bad social media posts, throwing mobs at them, I mean, wasn't this what you guys were upset about for years? And those are the only two topics that people Can't give, Marko Rubio's going to check people's social media to see if they said bad things about Israel or Charlie Kirk. Really? There have certainly, there have certainly been excesses. I feel like you're conflating to situations also.

The Israel stuff is, I think, different. I do not think we should be deporting people just because they write an op-ed about Israel being bad. I think that's silly. And that goes against supporting free speech on campuses. So I don't support that at all. The Charlie Kirk stuff, there's certainly been excesses, you know, saw some state lawmaker quote tweeting some call it there's some kid that took down a poster in an apartment lobby like that's that's absurd we don't need to be going to that level but again

part of the problem with our discourse in this country in my opinion is that people think they can just go and anonymously spout whatever insane things they want on the internet and get away with it and inflame people and incite hatred and you know cause problems and tear away at the discourse and the foundation of our country. And so if someone is doing that and thinks that there's no consequences for it, I think having some consequences for it in some cases is fine. If it's coming from their employer, you know, we're not throwing them in jail. I would not support anybody being thrown in jail or facing legal repercussions for simply saying words that, unless it's, you know, a threat to violence. I mean, the president. The president's for that, though. I mean,

he's told him for what exactly? The president's throwing people in jail for tweets. He told him to pay money. I don't think Trump has thrown anybody in jail for... He hasn't done it yet, but he's for it, though. Okay, so I don't think he hasn't done it yet. It hasn't happened. Well, I guess, Markmoot Khalil was in detention for a really long time. So is a foreigner that came to our country and began inciting unrest and subverting America.

What about, I mean, you said you didn't like the Ostruck deportation, but she was jailed for a while. Yeah, no, I don't. I didn't, I don't support what happened within the... that case now. But I think that's different than the Khalil case. All right. Well, whipping people up into a frenzy into a protest on a campus is different than writing an op-ed, especially when some of those protests turned into harassing people and harassing Jewish students in particular. We can't have that. All right. I wanted to do economy stuff, but I got it to go. I guess one more thing on the,

because I think this is a natural area of disagreement where, from a policy standpoint, people don't like foreign aid never have but I'm just wondering you know you mentioned your Christianity and we're we're totally aligned on people's rhetoric and I and I think that we've got to show more love and respect for each other I do wonder on the policy side though like eliminating USAID while what I which is such a small number like cutting the budget like the most vulnerable people in the world doesn't that give you a little bit of pause like given where, given the other kind of cost that the administration is the things that we are prioritizing our spending money on? I'll tell you what I think about USAID. The idea that there are

things that USAID that were good. I think we should be funding things like PEPFAR and programs that help vulnerable people and protect them. And some of these programs have been retained or being considered being retained. I think there's a whole bunch of stuff that USAID did that had nothing to do with that that had to do with spreading ideology that had to do with stabilizing foreign governments because if you shudder it and then keep the good things you know the good things aren't coming back you know they're not this is you think the administration's going to start doing plumping given plumpy nut to poor babies in africa i don't think i think marco rubio is is obviously a christian and i think he's a smart guy and i don't think

i don't i don't agree with you that i would assume that none of the good things are going to come back if marco rubio is in charge of it so you would support that you would support bringing back food aid for African children? You would support that? Yeah, I think having American soft power around the world is important. What I think is bad is using USAID to try to destabilize foreign

governments or spread wacky left-wing ideology around the world, which doesn't really serve anybody's interest. And that is something to USAID. Maybe we can end that on a positive note, and Marco will know that he'll have cover from the Daily Caller if we decided to start to informant to poor people in Africa. Again, I don't really see that happening,

but, you know, I'm against starving children. I don't think that's a crazy take. I think Markerubio is as well. Okay, great. Dylan Houseman, man. Thanks for coming on and dealing with my bullshit. I appreciate it.

Thanks for that. Let's stay in touch.