The Charlie Kirk Show - ACB's SCOTUS Letdown + Record Deportations

Episode Date: June 29, 2026

Has Justice ACB let us all down on elections? Bill Shipley digests SCOTUS's new 5-4 ruling that lets Calfornia keep counting ballots that arrive after Election Day, and Auron MacIntyre discusses how the right can best respond productively. In better news, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin talks about taking the pace of deportations to the highest rate yet. Cremieux rejoins to explain how RFK Jr. can provide new options for cancer patients and demolishes and old smear against Elon Musk and DOGE. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!    Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

My name is Charlie Kirk. 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 will end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You've 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 you would say 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.

Noble Gold Investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk Show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of, precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at noble gold investments.com. That is noble gold investments.com. All right, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. It is Monday, June 29th, hanging out here in the remote Y-ReFi studios. Blake is in the real Y-ReFi studio. How are we doing, Blake? We're doing splendid. The mic flag is mine once again. Well, I'll be back to reclaim it soon. In the meantime, we have four Supreme Court decisions breaking this morning.

That is where we will start our show here to help us unpack them all. As Bill Shipley, he's a veteran DOJ prosecutor. You can find him on X at Shipwrecked Crew. So please check him out there. I've been following him for a long time. Bill, welcome to the Charlie Kirk Show. Good. I guess it's afternoon for a lot of the audience on the East Coast.

Good morning on the West Coast. Exactly. So, Bill, the big one that's getting all the headlines this morning, and we are going to go through all four of them, but it is this decision about Watson v. Republican National Committee, about ballots that are postmarked, apparently day of the election, but they come in days after. Help us break this down, separate truth from fiction because people are getting really worked up about it. I would be one of those people. Help us understand what this decision actually means. Yeah, well, it's written by Justice Barrett, joined by the chief justice and the three liberal justices of the court. It's written in a relatively narrow fashion, but obviously it doesn't produce the result that conservatives had hoped for. And all the court really says is that there's a variety of election-related statutes, federal statutes. And one thing that happened was Congress amended some of the statutes to cover what it refers to as the period of voting. And by describing something as the period of voting, they opened the door to an interpretation of election day as something broader than just, you know, the 24 hours on the day in question.

And the court specifically says that the question before it is narrow, whether counting ballots postmarked by Election Day but received up to five days later violates federal Election Day statutes. So it's purely a statutory decision. And it says the plaintiffs do not challenge the general practice of absentee voting, the use of the postal service, so mail-in votes, or common carriers to transmit ballots, early voting or the counting on certification of votes after election day. The court also does not consider the scope of Congress's authority to regulate federal elections, meaning if you can muster the political support to further refine down election day and eliminate this period of voting aspect, then there's nothing that prevents Congress from saying election day is one day.

that as federal law currently stands, there is not a requirement in these election statutes that all the votes cast be in by a particular deadline in order to be validly counted. So, Bill, to make sure I'm understanding this right, Congress, maybe they could throw it into the Save Act or make a separate bill entirely. They could just pass a law that says all federal elections, you got to. to have the ballots. You can only count stuff that arrives by election day. Maybe even they could require count them on election day. They could pass that, but the court also didn't really rule if that's allowed. So whenever they do, we'll probably be back before the Supreme Court again, but on the left. It'll be challenged. I mean, but Congress certainly could pass it. The court's saying, look, we are not issuing an opinion that defines the scope of Congress's authority. We're just

recognizing that there are election statutes, and some of those election statutes authorize what is referred to as a period of voting as opposed to simply a single day. So when did those statutes get updated by Congress? You said that this was an update at some point, or was it even legislation? No, there was, you know, it's buried in the text of the case. I don't have it exactly offhand. There are a variety of statutes that have over time been modified to sort of accommodate sort of the modern practices, you know, absentee voting. I think one in particular is the statute involving military ballots cast from overseas and the time

within which those are allowed to arrive after election day. So, you know, there's certain classes of voting. It's not a general rule, but just certain classes of voting Congress has authorized or recognized that the period of voting extends beyond simply Election Day. Got it. All right. So this is yet a renewed call for those of us that care about this sort of thing and this audience, I believe, built it. We have to pass the Save America Act. Okay, Congress has to act. And if they refuse, we want names of who's blocking it. So that's simple as that, for those listening. We got to pass the Save America Act that President Trump has been reiterating the same. I've seen it across from different people in the conservative movement this morning. And I concur. I echo that sentiment. The other one here, Bill, that's getting a lot of news is this Trump v. Slaughter, slaughter. The independent agency removal, the FDC, etc.

Please explain this one. Yeah, this is one that's been around for a long, long time. And I'm not talking about the slaughter case, but this controversy over a 1937 decision, I think, or 35 in Humphreys executor. It's often referred to as Humphre's executor. And in that case, a New Deal era case, the Supreme Court basically said that independent commissioners, and in that case it was the Federal Trade Commission. So independent commissioners are immune from termination by the president, even though they're part of the executive branch, except for cause as defined in the various statutes. And this runs up against the concept, the concept that's gained a lot of traction in the last 50 years of what's called the unitary executive, meaning there's one president under the Constitution. And everybody under the Constitution that exercise executive authority is exactly.

that is exercising the authority given to the president, to the person, to the individual who's elected. And so the concept of an independent agency and independent commissioners runs up against the authority of the president to have his executive authority exercised only in ways that he approves of. Justice Gorsuch has a concurring opinion that really goes deep into the roots of the problem this created. There's this great clip the team just flagged for me. And it goes back to the first case that we're talking about here about Election Day as opposed to postmarked ballots to come in five days after Election Day. This is Justice Alito during, I believe, oral arguments on this case, SOT 36. We have lots of phrases that involve two words, the second of which is day. Labor Day, Memorial Day, George Washington's birthday, Independence Day, birthday,

and election day. And they're all particular days. So if we start with that, if I have nothing more to look at than the phrase election day, I think this is the day in which everything is going to take place and we're almost everything. Exactly right. A lot of common sense wisdom from Justice Alito there. I want to keep going through these cases here with you. But I also, we cut you off mid-sentence on this Trump v. Slaughter case about the FTC. Boil it down. How much authority does the president have when it comes to removing

you know, FTC Commissioner, for example, or I guess it would be the Fed Board members? Well, the Fed Board is different. So let's set that one aside. But my, you know, initial read through the Slaughter case is it pretty much resets the bar back to pre-Humphrey's executor, pre-New deal, essentially expanding the president's authority to terminate executive. agency officials, regardless of what independence, Congress might have tried right into the statutes for these agencies. And that's sort of where this dispute come from, is when Congress creates the agencies and gives them authority and either participates in or allows the president to appoint them, it's tried to insulate them, the commissioners and make them independent

of the president's judgments. And that's created a big problem over time. because once people assume these positions with these protections, Congress affords them, you can't dislodge them. You can't get rid of them until their term ends. So a new administration ends up with commissioners on these various boards that Congress has created that are insulated from the politics of the administration. This basically eliminates all of that. It basically says, the slaughter says, Humphrey's executor was wrongly decided. And to the extent, extent Humphrey's Exist. It's been shipped away at in several decisions over the last several years, but basically it says to the extent Humphrey's executor exists as controlling authority, protecting

agencies in any respect, it's reversed. It's done away with. Now, the second decision today is the evolving federal board member Lisa Cook. And President Trump, fired her from the board because of allegations about an investigation produced allegations of mortgage fraud. Now, in reading this opinion today, all this opinion involves is a request by the government to vacate a stay of her removal. In other words, the president fired her, wanted her removed. She went to the district court in D.C., sought an injunction. The injunction was granted, basically saying she, She gets to remain on the board until the entire firing process and her legal challenges in the trial court and then in the appellate court until they're all done.

She stays in place. If ultimately the firing is uphold, then she gets removed. But between now and then, she remains a Fed board governor. The court today, all that said was we're not going to disturb that decision. It did not decide the case on the merits. it did not decide whether she should be fired or she shouldn't be fired based on the allegations. In fact, as I read through it briefly, it's a relatively narrow decision that does not, in my view, give her a lot of comfort in the sense that the court basically said, look,

she's entitled to a certain level of due process before losing her position. And if you recall, the facts were that, you know, an investigation was done. The investigation was announced. She was not charged. There hasn't been a criminal allegation. No criminal indictment filed against her. She, you know, just the allegations of potential mortgage fraud involving her were made public. And based on that, the president fired her.

The opinion says, well, look, you've got to give her some fundamental basic due process. You've got to give her notice of the allegations against her. and an opportunity to respond. If you do both those things and you still fire her, that might very well stand up. They just didn't do that, you know. So, Bill, I'm trying to distinguish something here. It seems based on what we just said with this case overruling Humphrey's executor, why can't they basically say she gets her due process here,

but also we just ruled that the president can fire all of these people so President Trump could go do that? This is one that's kind of difficult to explain, and I can't even tell you because I don't, I'm not intimately involved with a history of the Federal Reserve. But the court notes here, as it has done earlier, that the Federal Reserve is a little different than just an independent agency. It's structured to be a quasi-public private entity. It's not just a federal government agency. It not only operates independent of the executive branch. It's funded independent of the executive branch. It doesn't get its money from the federal government.

It raises money through fees imposed on banks and other mechanisms, but it's not tax dollars. And it was purposely created sort of in the aftermath of the first and second banks in the United States, which were government agencies, and there was an effort to say, well, you know, banking should not be controlled by the federal government, you know, other than regulations on banks. but the actual banking system should not be controlled by the federal government. It's controlled by the board of governors and the chairman of the board. And its structure historically is just a little different than a typical federal agency. Bill, it feels like a distinction without a difference to Blake's point. I think in a lot of ways it is.

There's going to be a lot of, yeah. So it seems like they're speaking out of both sides of their mouth here. the Supreme Court is. I think it probably, based on what we're just talking about, is worth diving into the dissents here in some detail to see if they're pointing out the same inconsistencies because I would assume that they are. I want to, with the time we have remaining, we've got about 90 seconds left, Bill. So tomorrow is going to be the last decision day of this term for SCOTUS. So we should basically all be bracing for the birthright decision, correct? Yeah, and again, I think there's a lot of hand-rigging over the birthright citizenship case.

And I think everybody is likely to be disappointed, not just in the result, but in what the court doesn't say. I don't think the court's going to reach the constitutional issue of what the 14th Amendment means. I think the court's going to look at and say, look, we're dealing with an executive order. We're not even dealing with something that has the power and force of federal statute. It's an executive order signed by the president that this is his view of the law. Okay, well, fine. That's one branch's view of the law. Congress has a different view of the law or may.

And the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to legislate. And in fact, Congress has legislated. There's a federal statute that essentially tracks the language of 14th Amendment. So you have a statute. Now, that doesn't answer the question of otherwise subject to the jurisdiction, which, you know, the phrase that comes after that is the one that's so controversial. I don't think the court's going to reach it. I think the court's going to say this is a matter of statutory,

interpretation Congress has spoken and Congress can change it if there's a political will to change it to eliminate birth or tourism and and you know the children of illegals born in the United States. Congress can do that. It just never has. Bill Shipley, former DOJ prosecutor, follow him on an exit, shipwrecked crew. Thank you so much for joining Bill. Pleasure to be here, guys. Hillsdale College, great books 101, ancient to medieval course is an absolute game changer. I'm taking it right now and you got to check it out. So before Charlie ever stepped into a debate stage or behind a microphone, he understood something

important. If you want to lead, you have to first learn. Charlie believed that ideas shaped character and conviction and courage. And that's why he spent so many years studying the classics, the American founding in the Bible. And he did a lot of that through Hillsdale College's free online courses. These are real college courses taught by actual Hillsdale professors. They're amazing, the best academics in the country. One of those courses, like I just said, is great books 101, ancient to medieval, where you'll study foundational authors like Homer, Augustine, Dante, Chaucer, writers who shape Western civilization, and they still speak to the deepest questions about our human nature and courage and family and government.

The course includes Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, the epic stories of Achilles and Odysseus that have influenced the West for thousands of years. And this summer, Hillsdale College is releasing a brand new course, dedicated entirely to Homer's Odyssey. Great Books 101 is the perfect way to prepare before the full Odyssey course launches in July. Charlie understood that learning isn't just about gaining knowledge. It's about forming the mind and character needed to face the challenges of life with wisdom and courage. So you can enroll today, completely free. Visit charlieforhillsdale.com to start learning today.

That's Charlie forhillsdale.com. Charlie forhillsdale.com. Learn deeply. think clearly, lead boldly, carry it forward. All right, Secretary Mullen, welcome back to the show, my friend. It's good to see you. You have been a longtime friend of the show, but this will be your first time in your new role as DHS Secretary.

So welcome. Thanks, Andrew. Appreciate you having you on. It looks like you're in a laundry room. Yeah, it's a hostage situation. It's like there's a great follow on. If you need help, I think I understand more, which goes a little bit, just link a few times.

Yeah. All right. So we got to get into it here, sir, because I was getting all these angry texts. You went on Jake Tapper and you're, I think people interpreted what you were saying as you were encouraging these Haitian TPS recipients where the Supreme Court rightly ruled that temporary means temporary, but you were encouraging them to apply and that they could stay. I read through the transcript. And so I texted you immediately. I was like, are people who misinterpret? What are you trying to say here? So let's give you the opportunity. What are the options for these TPS Haitians that now temporary actually does mean temporary? What are the options for them? And what is the goal of this administration? They don't have an option now. The court's rule they have to go back.

They don't have to go back to the country they went to. They can choose another country. And we'll assist you in that. You can self-deport or we're going to pick you up. What I was saying on Jake Tapper is like people have been here 15, 20 years. they had time to change their status if they wanted to. Because you didn't change your status, there's nothing I can do at this point. The court has spoken, full stop, period.

There's no other place to go to change your status now. You're going to have to go back to your country you came from and change your status. And what I mean by change your status, reapply to build a coming to the country legally because as of right now, TPS is ended and you're currently in the country illegally. So I'll give you a $2,600 check and an airline ticket to go back to the country you choose that will accept you or go back to your country that you came from. So if I'm a Haitian in Springfield and I've been there for let's say two years or whatever, right now I'm an illegal. And is there a legal process that I could pursue, say I go to some office somewhere, some immigration lawyer to apply to not get removed? or is that option off the table for them?

If you have current status change pending, say you filed it before the court ruled, you could stay while your court case is being heard or why you're going through the process. And then you have an option to appeal it. That's if you had the paperwork filed prior to the court ruling. Before, yes. The only, or yeah, before the court or ruling. Now, the difference is if you're married to an American citizen and you haven't changed your status, but you've been married for, you know, not for the point of being legal or getting status in the United States,

but you married out of love and you pass all the qualifications of it, you can at that point apply for what we call a family visa. but that's under special circumstances and that special circumstances is because you've married an American citizen. Outside of that, very few options apply. The end of the day, the temporary status, which is temporary, and you've got to emphasize that, it was never meant to be permanent,

even though the Democrats wanted, I don't know how they can finaggle that word temporary when it was in TPS's own language. You have to go back to the country to reapply to come back in the country in a different legal status. All right. So just to be 100% clear,

because I mean, I saw so many people interpreting this clip just so many different ways. You've got to go home. If you did not pursue some other type of visa, and that's getting litigated and that's getting heard, before this ruling, you are officially an illegal immigrant.

You need to get the heck out. How, yeah, how, what percentage of the Haitian population living in the United States is like, I mean, I don't know if you know this, but like the base wants them all out as you can, as you gather. How many can we just immediately get out? And what is the process that DHS is now engaged in to identify, locate, and remove? So there is, there's two groups. There's a group that came in after the earthquake years ago. And there, there's a group that came in underneath the Biden administration. The Biden administration, there is very little legal status that you can even pursue at this point because it's it that's um that was part of the whole

TPS uh lawsuit to begin with the ones that came in prior or after the the earthquake years ago there is a um there there's a challenge that could possibly be made like i said if your status had changed by being married but if you haven't changed your status there is no percentage that can stay if you were just here for TPS you don't meet the special circumstances, you have no path forward. You're here illegally. Your work permit is now void. You have to go back to change that status. When you have status in the United States, say you come over on a vacation visa or you come over on H1A visa and you want to change that status. The way the statute wrote, which is, this is Congress that wrote the statute. The way the

statute wrote is written is you will have to go back to the country that you came from to reapply, to change the status to reenter into the country. So there is no other path for you. We will begin deporting individuals immediately. In fact, to be quite frank, we already started the enforcement this weekend. We have, over the weekend, we set two records. I can't tell you where we did the enforcement at, but we set two records of daily arrest in ICE,

and we averaged 3,500 individuals per day on Saturday and Sunday underneath the presence direction and ICE's leadership. Fantastic. Fantastic. So I saw a clip of you saying that we were on pace right now to break the deportation record set in 2025 in about six weeks. Is that correct? Right. Right.

We are about 100,000 below what we did last year. Actually, we're below 100,000, but we'll just round up to 100,000. And what we did in an entire year of 2025. We will surpass that. Definitely by the end of August, at the rate we're going right now, we're going to probably pass that by the middle of August. Keep in mind, we are, every single day we get better at the system and well organized with it. We work directly with the White House.

We work directly with our partners and are adjudicating this cases. We have a very good system on our flights to deporting individuals. We have a lot of people now that are starting to take advantage of the self-deportation. Total, we're over 1.3 million individuals since President Trump is coming in office. We have either deported or they self-deported. And we expect to, if we can continue to increase the numbers we're doing right now, we could possibly double what we did last year. All right.

And Secretary, that people kind of fixate a lot on the daily amount. how many per day are we talking about at this new escalated pace? And how high do you think it can go? Is there a goal maybe for next year that can even exceed what we've done this year? Well, it's being successful also as a downside because it's like the low-hanging fruit. You get the low-hanging fruit accomplished. And then you've got to go and really dig in and go find the people that are deeply hiding. So at some point, the self-deportation number is going to start decreasing.

and we're going to start rounding all these individuals up. When we start going after the worst or the worst, what we found out is the worst, the worst, these are individuals that have felony charges that the sanctuary cities and sanctuary states have let go, or they have pending charges that, once again, sanctuary cities and sanctuary states have let go. When we go, when we go find the individuals,

we use their arrest an additional 4.3 individuals that are with that one person, a felony. And so since we're doing a heavy focus on the worst to the worst, we're actually increasing our numbers on rounding up all the illegals that are here. And we expect that number to continue to increase, but we're probably going to hit a plateau sometime early next year. But we don't, we're really, every time we think we're already hit a plateau, we continue to find another area that we can increase on finding the individuals. So I don't, we don't have set speculations or estimates on next year's numbers yet because we're refining our

or redefining our systems that we have right now. And I really do think that my goal is to double what we did last year. And I think we can get, I think we can get there. Amen. I know the American people would be very happy about that, Mr. Secretary. I have one quick question about this Haitian matter. So I looked it up. There's about 200,000 of them that came through Joe Biden's CVP1 app. So technically they were, that was a legal process for them. Are they in a separate bucket or does that apply? Does the SCOTUS ruling apply to them too and they got to go?

Well, so some of them applied not through TPS, but they applied through asylum seeking. The ones that are applied to asylum, we have to go through the court system on those. We are spinning that process up in a court in a cooperation right now with DOJ to help them hire 1,500 additional judges. But if they claimed asylum, we have to, they have to have their asylum case heard. The majority, not majority, by far, the majority of the individuals that come to in front of a court after seeking asylum, they don't qualify for it. In fact, a lot of the asylum cases, when we go and send them their new court date, they haven't updated their system, meaning they haven't updated in their system. So we don't have an accurate number on them. We don't have an accurate address on them.

And when that happens, they immediately come at that point as they've broken parole. And so once you have broken parole, now you don't have a claim anymore and we can arrest you. So we're doing a tremendous amount of those cases. In fact, a lot of those cases are what we arrested this weekend. And so that's, you know, that's a violation, obviously. And so once you have that violation, you don't get a second chance. And we call that cleaning our books. So we're going through the process and cleaning the books up right now.

Yeah, Secretary Moore, I just want to give you some do. You are getting the daily deportation numbers up. You're doing it quietly behind the scenes. I know the Haitian thing is charged, and a lot of people had an emotional response to that. But you are also working within a system that has been established before you, and you've got to do it lawfully, and you've got to do it the right way. or it can blow open our face. Thank you for taking the time today, sir. God bless you. Andrew, thank you.

Hi, folks. Andrew Colvitt here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y-ReFi. You've probably been hearing me talk about Y-Refi 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. Why Refi 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. Why Refi can help. Just go to

yrefi.com. That's the letter why then refi.com. And remember, why refi doesn't care what your credit score is. Just go to whyrefy.com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. Blake, we just took in a lot of information. I kind of love that we took in all the info. Here we are at the end of the hour being able to interpret it. You know, I feel for Secretary Mullen, I put a lot of pressure on him. People don't understand this behind the scenes. I'm one of probably, you know, hundreds of people blowing up saying, we need more deportations. We need more deportations. You know, and he's stuck within a system where, you know, and he's stuck within a system where he has statutes to follow.

He has laws and rules and regulations that he's bound by. Some he can sort of trump and get over. Regardless, his messaging this morning was very firm and it was very encouraging, and I felt like it was a step in the right direction that they got to go. If you did not apply before this for some other, I mean, many of these people had years, decades, Blake, to try and stay in the country via a more long-lasting route, and they did not, those people are got to go. these TPS people that are more newly arrived, they got to go. And I love that he kind of, at least

from a messaging standpoint, course corrected there, your interpretation. I mean, people have fussed a lot about Mullen and a lot of other people on the admin because sometimes they will say rhetoric other than maximal everyone's going to go deportation. Not everyone is Stephen Miller. And I understand why people worry about that because they've been around the block of having politicians who run on a really hardball message and then back off. But that's why it's so important to look at what is actually happening. And all of the last year and a half, what we have consistently seen under both Mullen and under Nome and in other departments run by others is they are consistently rolling back the regulations,

rolling back the policies that allowed all of the open border stuff that flourished for decades. And they're getting a deportation number higher and higher and higher. As he said, I loved that Mullen. He was frank and said, we may eventually hit a plateau, but we've blown through plateaus in the past. They're finding new ways to arrest people. They're finding new ways to deport people. They're causing more people to self-deport.

And the number does keep going up, regardless of whether their rhetoric is always exactly what we want. I don't care if they go on TV and say maximum deportations or worst of the worst, as long as the number keeps going up. And so far it has been. Yeah, $3,500 deportations a day is a very significant new high. If you could roll that out for the reminder of Trump 2.0 plus the self-deportations, I guess we're offering $2,600 stipends.

I would increase that. I don't even care. Just get them the heck out. That's where I'm at. So I like the direction, the tone. And here's the thing. The admin is going to make mistakes. What I look for is, are they responsive?

they might make messaging mistakes. But as you said, from a pure execution standpoint, it's going in the right direction. So we need to stay on them. I mean, listen, I believe his heart is in the right place. I believe he wants to get those deportation numbers up. So we're going to stay on him. You guys are going to stay on him. And that's the way the system works. And when they're responsive, you've got to give them their due and say, good, you're hearing us. That's the way this is supposed to work. All right. So tomorrow, Blake, we got the biggie. The Supreme Court drops four rulings at once, none of them are insignificant. They're all big deal. So you got the birthright citizenship, which is the one you and I have been looking at. We're not expecting good things there. But as Bill Shipley

said in segment one and two, he expects them to rule narrowly. Okay. So there could be out clauses that they give us, right, saying, kicking it back to Congress, which is interesting. So then you've got the, there's two cases actually, and we've heard about this from ADF, that trans athletes in women's sports. So dudes in women's sports. So there's two different cases, split into two cases, and they're going to be decided simultaneously. Then there's a campaign finance limits as the fourth. So tomorrow is the day. Set your calendar.

Set your alarm. We're going to be covering extensively tomorrow. Blake, you are not a lawyer, but you do play one on TV. You're the best non-lawyer at this stuff that I've seen. What are you expecting tomorrow? I am frankly not optimistic on the birthright citizenship case for all the reasons we don't want to litigate it. What I do want to push back on is there's a lot of dumerism. We even saw dumerism today with the decision on day of voting.

I've seen people say, our elections are done now. It's a bad one. It's not a good ruling. But all they did is they preserved the rules under which we won the 2024 election, under which we won the 2016 election. It's not a great rule. And we have this path. Congress could change the law.

And I know that's a source of endless frustration. But I don't like dumerism on this sort of. thing. And I feel the same way with birthright. I don't think we're going to get a good ruling, but even any ruling at all is actually better than what we had before, which was just this universal presumption that they have birthright citizenship, that it was actually already decided when, in fact, it never was. Now we'll have a ruling, and that ruling can be a litmus test for every judge that Trump appoints for the next two years, for every judge that a president Vance or a president Ruby or anyone else, any Republican in the future appoints, it would just become a target for us to go after.

And that's going to be a good thing. Yeah, I mean, here's the thing. I mean, it becomes increasingly more frustrating when you think about these Haitians. A lot of the Haitians that are under here on TPS, they've had kids since being in the United States. Those kids are now able to vote in future elections and determine the future of the United States and Western civilization. I think that's wrong. I think that's completely a bastardization and a point. poisoning of U.S. sovereignty, U.S. citizenship. I would love for us to get this right. It is increasingly frustrating, but we also have to remember that the way the founders established this country, it was intended that Congress would act. And so we've got a lot of problems here, and I'm hearing that

there is some rumblings on the Save America Act. So all is not lost to your point, but I mean, listen, this is frustrating. The fact that you can get a ballot five days after election, This is the third worlding of the United States. And, yeah, perhaps it wasn't the Supreme Court's job here. And they're saying this is Congress's job to define these statutes more clearly or narrowly, if that's what they want. We have to have a full out push for this. And to your point, yeah, we have won elections like this, too big to rig, all this. What we saw in Los Angeles, it's incomprehensible to me that what you saw with Spencer Pratt,

what you saw with Steve Hilton in California, that there would be. any other plausible outcome that would make any type of sense. But whatever. I understand. We're not dooming. We never do. And a big lesson we're getting is we're headed towards the future. We need a real Congress again.

And so we'll be discussing that into the future. Good conversation is about respect. It's how we create a space where people are able to share their ideas and be heard. Charlie knew that. Turning point still knows that. And TikTok has always strived to build the kind of place that thrives on respectful connection. where curiosity fuels connection and we can share what's on our minds and learn from each other when ideas meet respect good things happen on tic-tok you can find a mechanic explaining the why

behind a problem most of us wouldn't even know how to name or a father sharing a lifetime of knowledge with his viewers viewers who listen discuss and then they respond tic-tok turns connection into community through small acts of understanding you can feel it in the comments in the thank you from a stranger halfway across the world tic-tok is a place where respect opens the door for discussion and discussion helps us build something real. We have Orrin McIntyre, host of the Orrin McIntyre show at Blaze TV. So check him out there. Orrin, welcome back to the show. It's good to have you. Thanks for having me, guys. So, Orrin, I love having you on because you're based on immigration,

just like me. And you want maximal enforcement at every possible line there is imaginable, right? And that's how I feel, too. So we just had Secretary Mulberry. on to kind of explain some of his jig tapper commentary that got, you know, a lot of uproar. Let's talk about Haitians, though. And to his credit, by the way, he's sounding a much more firm tone. I think he sort of was getting stuck in a ideological cul-de-sac thinking about statutes and what the actual process was. He says they got to go home, right? Just explain to our audience, because you're very good at this, the implications, the consequences,

is why this is so critically important to the future of America and thereby all of Western civilization? Well, it hits us on so many levels. The obvious one is simply elections. With our current setup, and unfortunately what will probably be the ruling from the Supreme Court right now, anyone who stays in America long enough will have children and those children will have birthright citizenship. The fact that also the Democrats are pretty good at laundering ballots and they now also just receive basically a pass to do, you know, count a ballot for a month or two if they need to. This means that election fraud is very easy. And so the more illegal immigrants you have here or even those that are here under some form of legal protected status like Haitians, they will ultimately end up becoming dedicated voters

for the Democratic Party or they will end up producing dedicated voters for the Democratic Party. And this is a fundamental shift in what democracy is supposed to be. Democracy is supposed to be a reflection of the positions of the people, the popular sovereignty. But if you swap out all the people if you introduce new people constantly who will always vote one way, then you are rigging that game. You are changing the fundamental nature of elections. You are undermining the authority and legitimacy of elections. But of course, it goes much deeper than just elections. It also impacts our cultures, our neighborhoods. People who come into the United States had to at some point assimilate through the years. But they tended to people who were closer to the founding stock.

Now, we expanded that over time. We found different populations that were more assimilable, less assimilable, and we work with them as much as possible. But even when it came to assimilating, say, the Germans, which many people think of as very American today, there were a lot of challenges there. There were very serious issues to overcome. And so we have to recognize if it was hard to assimilate, say, Germans, then Haitians and other people from third world countries that are very, very different from our own. They are only going to be more difficult. They are going to break down the characteristics of neighborhoods, the continuity of tradition and heritage and culture.

And when we bring in so many people from so many places that are so hard to adapt, we fundamentally make it impossible to have a high trust society. And that's something that every American really relies on, even if they can't say that out loud, even if they can't articulate that expectation. That is how our society is supposed to run. So let me play devil's advocate here that, Orrin. Okay. You know, you and I agree on everything. So instead of agreeing, I'm just going to throw out, you know, some, some arguments here. But, Orrin, labor, we need labor. Okay. Americans, you know, they just don't want to do certain jobs. Maybe we can phase this out. But obviously, agriculture, hospitality, cooks in the kitchen. What are you suggesting here, Orrin? I'm suggesting that we pay Americans a wage that will allow them to raise families and have homes and earn a good living, even if they're not working in the highest end of the information. economy. We have to have a society that allows for people who are not going to have

some kind of job rearranging information on a screen to still have a good life. And that means we can't import a bunch of foreign labor to undercut the wages to drain or rather to flood the labor pool and make it impossible for average Americans to earn a good wage at that price. It's also going to increase things like housing prices, reduce the quality of things like education or medical care. So that labor, that cheap labor, with an extreme cost. Yes, there are some benefits to different corporations and maybe even some consumers that get a cheaper product, but there is a larger society-wide cost that is hidden inside those lower wages, and we have to remember that.

You know, one of the things that I find interesting, too, is that there does seem to be, and sorry, I'm not playing devil's advocate here because I just agree too much. The point is that when you bring in millions and millions and millions of foreigners from foreign cultures, there does seem to be this depressive impact on the native-born population, less kids, less self-confidence, less of an enterprising spirit, less of a pioneering spirit. I don't know what that is, but there is something that transacts and transpires when you bring in an invading force, millions upon millions, where the native population loses their verb. And it's hard to put a finger on it. It's hard to quantify it. but it is so evident.

It is so visible if you're looking for it. And once you see it, you can't unsee it. And it's hard to, I don't know if you know what I'm trying to say here, Orrin, but it is impossible for me not to see it at this point. Yeah, the sociologist Robert Putnam put out a book called Bowling Alone. And it's one of many times he's had to kind of suppress for a little while, then ultimately succumb to the fact that his data keeps showing something that liberals don't like. Putnam himself is no radical right winger.

He's very much a center-left figure, but he kept discovering that this diversification of cultures creates huge problems in social cohesion. People are less likely to trust each other. People are less likely to spend time outside in public. People are less likely to meet and talk to their neighbor. And they are less likely to have children. They're less likely to see a vision for their future. We, whether we like it or not, have to have a shared identity. I know the left has made the word identity toxic.

but it is actually a critical function of human society to create a shared vision and identity that people feel like they can be a part of. If you're going to have children, if you're going to have a future, if you're going to form a family, you need to know that those children are going to continue something that is valuable to you, that they will grow up in a society that was much like the one you grew up in. The desire to reproduce and grow is something that comes from a recognition of who we are as a people. And if all we are as a people is an economic zone, if we're just a bunch of economic opportunities that people can come and take advantage of and leave whenever they feel like and we don't owe anything to each other, we don't have a shared vision of the future, then even again, if people won't say it out loud, they slowly shrink away from forming families, from having children, from making the sacrifices that allow civilizations to thrive. No one is going to sacrifice for an economic zone. That's what we have to understand. Orrin, I love what you just said there because it got me thinking of a fact that really stood out to me. They just had a presidential election in Peru and the right-wing candidate barely won.

And it seems she barely won because voters from America who are allowed to vote in Peru being elections voted for the right-wing candidate. And we know that this is a pattern we see in country after country that immigrants to the U.S. will vote for left-wing causes here because it seems they don't value the United States as long-term thing. They just want money. and then they're voting total blood and soil nationalism for their home countries. And I just think that illustrates so much of what you're talking about there. Yeah, on Twitter, Kevin Deanna, has a catchphrase. Everyone is a blood and soil nationalist for the people they actually care about.

And that sounds a little scary to people, but you have to look at the third world and recognize how they interact. You might have been raised in this deracinated society where you were told that any idea of collective identity was terrible, that you need to act as an individual. And maybe that even works when everybody, in the country believes that. But when you start importing a bunch of people who still have very tribalist mentality, still have these very hardcore, what is often considered third world, but is really just often traditionally human organizational patterns, they will not behave that way. When they enter into your society, they don't suddenly become these free individuals. They maintain those tribal clannish patterns. And so you cannot maintain a system of some kind

of free and open liberal democracy while importing a lot of people who are specifically going to come in and vote in ethnic blocks to improve their lives while taking things from you. Again, it sounds like something we should be able to lecture people out of. Don't you know? Socialism fails. They don't care. They don't care about the ideology. They care that you have the stuff and they want the stuff. And when they get the stuff from you, their life is better. There's really no logic beyond that. Hard for me not to instantly think of Zoramam Dani in New York City when you're talking about that, Oren. It's just, New York has been such a five alarm fire. Listen, guys like you and I have been very awake to this, Blake as well, for a long time.

But how do you not look at what happened in New York and just think, what the hell is happening? So, Orrin, tomorrow we are expecting to get the birthright decision. And we are expecting them to rule against what guys like you think is patently obvious, common sense. Nevertheless, I do expect it to be a narrow ruling in keeping with the character of this court, trying to say, hey, this statute, this, you know, Congress can, you know, redefine it, whatever, but it's probably not going to go our way. That's every indication that I've heard. I find it obscene. What do we do after? The moment after that ruling hits, and we're all disappointed, what do we do? Well, clearly we have to address things at the minimum with the SAVE Act. It's been embarrassing that

the Republican Congress has not put more emphasis on this. You would think, obviously, that this would be in their favor. We know that election meddling, election integrity, it's key because if you don't stop the Democrats, they are a machine at this. So every Republican in theory would have the self-interest, even if they don't care about the country at all, just to keep themselves getting elected to put something like the Save Act in place. Ultimately, what we really need is some kind of amendment that addresses American citizenship in a permanent way. The 14th Amendment was never meant to grant a permanent idea of birthright citizenship. It was a specific amendment written to address a post-Civil war disparity when it came to black citizens who have been born in the United States, but it wasn't

clear since they were slaves, whether they were actually citizens. The 14th Amendment clarifies, yes, they are. It was never meant to grant citizenship to every child who is born on American soil, even if their parents are illegal. But that is what it has been interpreted as and what it will probably continue to be interpreted as after this ruling. If we do not change this, this will destroy our country. We cannot have secure elections for the very reasons we discuss with Haitian immigration if we do not fix the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment, as it is currently understood, is an absolute sort of Damocles over the existence of our republic. Man, I couldn't agree more. It's such a, it is an absolute affront to, and by the way,

I think to the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment. If you look at their arguments from the Senate floor, they never imagined a world in which illegal immigrants and their children would be granted such wide, broad sweeping benefits of U.S. citizenship. It's just not anywhere in there. So it's a complete statutory thing. Blake, I know you have thoughts on this. Sorry, I want to make sure you get a chance to chime in here.

I'm looking at – a friend of mine is watching and he says, if we're given any leeway at all by the court, where if they say, for example, that there's just a statutory opening here, throw that into the Save Act. At the minimum, force every Republican to vote and say they actually want to define citizenship as children of people who are actual U.S. citizens, not every birth tourist, not every illegal. Force them to get on the record about that. So that's a great idea from a friend of mine. But, yeah, and Blake, I totally agree. You were saying before that this becomes a litmus test for every jurist.

that could come in the future. And by the way, our two oldest are our two best, which is just heartbreaking because replacing Alito and Clarence Thomas, if and when that time comes is going to just be, it's going to be fraught waters because getting somebody as reliable as either of them will be difficult. But this becomes the litmus test for anybody that you want to elect in Congress. We need to get them on the record saying, will you redefine the statutes? Will you be very clear that the children of illegal immigrants should not be made citizens? will you vote this way? And I agree, Oren, I think this is a great idea. Attach it to the Save America Act.

I'm hearing that there are rumblings. There could be a new way emerging. So I don't want to all I'm going to say, but there are people working on this behind the scenes. There could be a new way emerging that could get the Save America Act passed. So attach this new definition of citizenship and for children of illegals to that Save America. If that's what the court rules, there's still an outside, I would say 10, 20 percent chance that the court gets this right on its face. But let's make this the litmus test going forward for anybody that we let get near power. What are you going to say about birthright citizenship or Mackinzor? Oh, no, I agree absolutely 100%. You have to put this at the center of everything you do. If you do not secure elections, the rest of the government is illegitimate. That's all there is to it.

We are literally talking about the future of the country. People will tear themselves and the rest of this country apart if they cannot trust our elections. And really, after 2020, there's already too many questions about the legitimacy of our elections. If people know for sure that illegal immigrants can simply, you know, get citizenship or get the ability to vote in the United States simply by having children over time, this is going to eventually destroy everything we believe in the country. So we should hold Republicans feet to the fire. We should make this. The central issue for judges. We should make this. The only question when it comes to any kind of primaries, any kind of continuation. The only problem is that so many of the Republicans have continued to

push back against this. I mean, we still have Republicans out there openly pushing for amnesty. This is ridiculous. This should be purged from the party. 100%. 100%. Luck, as we say, we are making progress one election at a time. It's just, it's unfortunate that it does. You have these fossils from the 90s from the 2000s. We have a gerontocracy. We have aging lawmakers who aren't good at updating to new realities. But we're gradually getting better. We're getting better litmus tests. And I just like to flag that because I know it's frustrating, but it's also worth remembering how far we've come that the Amnesty Party was the default 20 years ago. And we're getting better on this and a bunch of other issues. We've gotten better on guns, gotten better on life,

gotten better on a lot of things. You see that John Kasich video where he's like, Haitians need to stay in Ohio. That was the party in 2016. That man was a governor, a two-term governor. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, Ohio just has a knack for getting crappy Republican governors. Yeah, we have a situation where we absolutely need to make this the next abortion. One of the reasons that the abortion issue, the pro-life issue, was so successful is they made it the key thing.

Every candidate no, they had to stand against abortion. Every judge knew that if they wanted to get confirmed by conservatives, they needed to have an openness to something like overturning Roe v. Wade. And that's why that program was successful. Immigration has to be exactly the same, just as important. My new litmus test is going to be immigration moratorium for anybody that gets in. That's where I'm at. Hi, folks, Andrew Colvette here. I'd like to tell you about my friends over at Y. Refai.

You've probably been hearing me talk about Y. Refai 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. Why Refai 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. Why Refi can help. Just go to yrefi.com. That's the letter Y, then, refi.com. And remember, YREFI doesn't care what your credit score is.

Just go to yrefi.com and tell them your friend Andrews sent you. All righty. Well, I love having Kramu, J Lasker. You could follow him on substack at Kramu or on X. at Krumu Recool. We love having him on for a few reasons. One, he knows the stats on a million different things. And two, Krumu, you're an never-ending

source of white pills. Every time we talk to you, I feel like you're saying, everything's going awesome. There's so much progress going on. And we want to hit a few things. We're going to be talking about RFK and something you're saying he can do about cancer. But first, because there's been a lot of discussion on this in the last day,

I wanted to flag something you were talking about. We remember when President Trump took office, and the doge cuts were happening. Their biggest source of cuts was USAID. They really dismantled that agency. And this was basically instantly labeled by a lot of people as essentially, I think they threw around the term genocide.

They said millions of people are going to die because of these programs. And you were posting just the other day that data has come in on this. And basically this was a total lie, correct? Essentially, yeah. The most extreme claims especially are basically blood libel. There's nothing true to them. So, for example, the most famous paper on this, the one that is cited the most often because it is, you know, from the most prestigious venue, this Lancet paper, has been used to claim that 14 million people have or will die in like 2030. And it's based on modeling an intentionally kind of ridiculous scenario where practically every country involved in USA or any sort of aid distribution of the sorts dealt with in the paper cuts off everything.

And that didn't happen. In fact, a lot of the programs that they talked about being shut down entirely, they've continued in the, like, being funded by the U.S. So the scenario is wrong. And then it's modeled incorrectly as well. And they knew it was modeled incorrectly because they had the model diagnostics. And it turns out that the choices they made really, really exaggerated the numbers upwards. So we end up with a scenario where you essentially have fake numbers for statistical reasons and fake numbers because the scenario you're modeling didn't even come remotely true. remarkable remarkable and it just seems like this is a common statistical trap we're falling for a left

wing scam here where it seems i even saw it speculated they kind of knew this was bogus but they're colluding on this it's sort of their way of you can have if the real stats are on your side great but if they're not you just sort of make up stats to bring about the reality that you want and this just seems like a top example of it it's also just a fundamentally broken way of doing things Sorry, go ahead. No, no, no. I just want to be very clear for the audience. So you're saying that Elon Musk is not a genocidal murder.

He's, he's, no, he's not. He didn't kill millions of people. Okay, I just want to make sure everybody's clear, because that is the accusation right now. On lefty Twitter and like blue sky and all these Reddit chats, they are without any sense of shame claiming that Elon Musk is a genocidal murderer. I just want to make sure that that's where we're at. It's really extreme and it's really unwarranted.

And fundamentally, the whole thing doesn't make a lot of sense because what they're arguing is that if you don't spend certain amounts of money, you are killing people. And you can always spend more money to save more people. If you cut any program, some number of people will die. Do we ever actually do this whole death attribution game with anything else? The answer is no. We really don't.

I mean, sometimes we do, you know, in a very political kind of happenstance way, like, oh, we really want to attack this guy. We're going to say he killed a lot of people. But it's not really fair. Sometimes you have to, for example, cut your budget. And if you cut your budget, some people will die, like regardless of what you're cutting, too. Just because, like, somebody relies on that money somewhere along the chain. Money circulates.

If you're cutting anything in reducing economic activity, any downturn in the economy will kill some considerable number of people, but it's a very diffuse effect. And we don't play this genocide-mongering game about all this. stuff. And we don't play it about the counterfactual money people aren't giving. Why aren't you donating all of your money to charity? You are killing people. You're a genocidal. It's fundamentally a very broken way of viewing things. And it's not very helpful. It's politically poisonous. I was having this thought because we're also talking about, so yeah, you can say you cut USAID, you killed millions of people. Okay, well, McKenzie Scott Bezos, they're highlighting her.

She's given away $28 billion. But I'm looking at her top causes. racial equity, LGBTQ plus rights. She's donated to early childhood education. It seems like you could go up to her and say, McKenzie, because you were donating to those things instead of this charity, Africa, you basically committed genocide. Yeah, she's like, you guys know about effective altruism? Oh, man.

I don't think our audience has heard too much about it, but yes, this idea. It's basically moral blackmail to say, you are killing people unless you donate to the specific thing I believe is most important. right now. In some sense, I mean, the basic fundamental idea is just we want to give money where it's most effective. And that's fine. I think that's good. But McKenzie Bezos is effectively the opposite of that. The money she gives does like the least amount of good. She gives it to the most ineffective possible charities you can imagine. Just things that make no sense are actually in a lot of cases where you look at it. They're quite harmful. Like she donated to a lot of DEI things. And it's like

it's just what is your reason for doing this? How could you possibly believe this is a good idea. Do you really not have any advisors coming to you and telling you, hey, there's actually this alternative where you can give money effectively. Like, if you want to save a bunch of lives, you could do it,

but then she just doesn't. It's bizarre. She's like the most ineffective altruist ever, and it's really, really sad. Well, thank goodness in some way, because if she was more effective, I'm sure she'd be like George Soros on steroids and we would have infinity crime in our cities.

That's a good point, Blake. Yeah, exactly. But we also wanted to talk about you were very excited. Optimizing it's a fertility function. You were very excited to talk about stuff going on with HHS, with RFK Jr. And every time we have you on, you're laying out all these ways that they're making big health leaps and gains in the Trump administration. So why don't you lay that out for us?

So the big thing I want to focus on today, and there are a lot of things going on at HHS all the time. There's all sorts of really cool stuff. They're doing clinical trial reform. They're doing IV reform. They're doing a million really cool things that they just need to be able to get some lawyers and engineers in there to finally finish it up, wrap it up, make it actually happen. I'm really excited about pricing transparency, but the big thing I want to talk about is called QSTAR. QSTAR is this really awesome way to make it so broadened right-to-try laws. And right-to-tri-laws are these laws that make it so patients, like a potential patient, has the ability to access a drug that might not be through its phase three trials, might not be approved by the FDA yet.

They allow people to access therapies early before they're actually on the market so that they can, if they have like a different, debilitating condition or they have or they might die from cancer or something they can actually get drugs that might save their lives and these are really cool laws i think everybody i talked to supports them in some way or another but some states also have like expanded versions where you can get stem cell therapies you can get those in florida mississippi north carolina tennessee texas utah wyoming uh some states have uh extremely broad right to try laws where you can access stuff that's gone through a phase one trial that's like new hampshire and montana um and some states have like a right to personalize treatment.

And altogether, if you threw together all the states that's expanded right to dry laws, you'd find the majority of states have their laws that allow people to access this stuff, which is awesome, because you want patients to be able to access drugs that might save their lives. But unfortunately, these laws don't really work because the FDA has not made clear if they're going to prosecute drug manufacturers if they provide people with these drugs, which is kind of crazy to think about. What I'm saying here is that if a patient says, I'm dying of cancer, please let me access

the cancer drug that might save my life, the FDA has not made it clear if they're going to sue that company if the drug doesn't actually work. So you might be on your last leg. You might be on like putting it out, putting everything on the line to try some drug. And then the FDA still hasn't made it clear if you're allowed to access it. That's the situation we're in. And so QSTAR would be basically, I don't know what the, it's short for, but it basically would be RFCK Jr. would come out and say, this is the new policy and states can run wild. That's right. What he would essentially say is that manufacturers are allowed to put all the liability

for the drug working, not working, having bad side effects, not having got anything, on the patient. The patient can consent, can like willingly go, I know it's an experimental therapy, and I'm willing to take it anyway. That's what he's saying. The FDA will allow them to do exactly that. Currently, they don't allow them to do that. Well, is there any downside to this? It sounds great on its face. So I want to say I'm broadly supportive. I'm just wondering, you know, these are big corporations. Sometimes their motives are obscure. Sometimes they're malign. Is there any downside that could, you know, you just let these companies run wild with this stuff on these. Treating human beings is, you know, experiment labs? I mean, ultimately, no. I don't think there is. It's a consent issue. At the end of the day, like, if somebody says, you know, I want to take the drug and the drug company says, I would love to supply the drug, then what's the problem here? It's a consenting market transaction. It's like going to the grocery store.

Yes. Every state with one of these laws has a lot of information on consent stuff. They make it so if you are going to provide these to a patient, you have to tell them everything. You have to inform them about the risks. They need to be fully aware that what they're doing is like, experience. It might not work. All of this is in there. And it's a major part of doing this in the first place is making sure patients know exactly what's on the table for them. So they're not exploited. So they're not, you know, fooled into thinking that they found some miracle cure and that it's going to work.

It's either, like, if it's a kid, it's their parents that have to do the law and get sense about that. But it's taken very seriously. Alliance defending freedom knows that freedom belongs to those who fight for it. Americans have carried that legacy for 250 years, and now we must do so again. Censorship is rising, threatening your free speech in every sphere, from classrooms to counselors' offices, and even online. Unborn babies are dying as abortion drugs continue flooding states nationwide.

Parents are being cut out of kids' critical decisions for their lives. Your best gift by June 30th will help defend courageous Americans like Frank Kineppa, a counselor facing nearly $90,000 in fines just for sharing his Catholic faith. Rosalie Markizich, a young woman whose former boyfriend coerced her to take male order abortion drugs, killing her unborn baby, and Dan and Jennifer Mead, parents whose 13-year-old daughter was socially transitioned in secret at school, every dollar you give today will be doubled by a $1 million matching grant, only while funds last. So go to join ADF.com slash Charlie. that's join ADF for Alliance Defending Freedom,

join ADF.com slash Charlie or text Charlie to 83848. That's Charlie to 838484. Please give your best gift now to defend the next 250 years of freedom. That's join ADF.com slash Charlie or text Charlie to 83848. If you do not follow him on X, you guys need to give him a follow, I'm just telling you right now. Like I am... Completely agree.

So Blake, I was like, how do I prep for this? segment with Gray Moon. Blake goes, just go to his ex-man. And I'm like, I'm like having mind explosion after mind explosion. Okay. So I'm going to do rapid fire with you, Jay. We've only got seven minutes here. So let's go quick. So apparently on TikTok, people who are getting migraines swear by eating a large McDonald fry and a Coca-Cola to cure a migraine. Yeah. So some of these people are. And you say, we're all on low-sodium diet, low-sodium diets. Yeah, a lot of people are really low sodium. You know, it's really funny. People have been lowering their sodium a little too much,

a little too aggressively, and they feel kind of bad from it. Some of these people also probably have blood sugar issues, and some of them were probably caffeine addicts. But I'm going to guess a lot of people have too little sodium in their diet. When I went on with Charlie, the one product I endorsed from you guys was LMNT. Really good, like just lots of salt, basically.

You'll feel a lot better a lot of the time. Fascinating. Who would have ever imagined that anything good came out of McDonald's when it came, at least the health side. Okay. So true. President Trump because you mentioned that just going in. President Trump love a filet of fish. Because you're

saying he hits everything. You mentioned maybe your coffee is not okay, but I went and I read it during the break. He has a post on his substack. Do hot drinks cause cancer? And the answer is, yeah, probably not. It was bad for you. And then it was a superfood that was really good for you. And the answer is it's probably just a nice thing to drink.

Although I guess we can get addicted to the caffeine and then we need to go to McDonald's to stop our migraines. So true. Topic two. Topic two, Kramu, it looks like parents, both in Western countries and Eastern countries, are giving their kids HGH to make them taller. They're tall maxing as a status symbol. This is a new one for me. What's going on and how common and prevalent is this? So it's not very prevalent in the West yet. It's increasingly prevalent among rich families. They go to a pediatric endocrinologist, a baby hormone doctor, a kid homeowner.

and they go and get them HGH and they end up up to about like three possibly sometimes even four inches taller if they take it for long enough and they take eye enough doses and they don't really seem to be any downsides besides any of the general downsides associated with height so like nothing in like they don't grow weird they don't become weaker they just end up like taller it's pretty neat and it's really expensive in the west so I don't think it'll prolethe too much yet If we can lower HGH prices a lot, I think it'll go actually become like a big thing. But in Korea, it is a big thing. It's becoming increasingly common.

Like meaningful percentages of the parents are looking into this option. And I think it might end up being kind of like the equivalent of sending your kids to Haguam. The like after school schools they send kids to do additional studying. And it might be like a almost a universal thing in Korea like a generation. Are there downsides to HGH? I mean, higher rates of kids or something like this? You can get acromegaly, and to the extent that larger people get more cancer, you should expect that as well. But it's not going to be meaningfully elevated, and I think probably totally worth it in most cases.

So, like, would you rather live your life six foot two versus like five foot nine? Or would you, like, even if it came with a little bit of cancer risk when you're 70? I mean, like, the answer is probably you'd go for the six foot two with a slight bit of cancer risk. I could see it becoming a Red Queen's race in Korea where it's just, and now suddenly everyone is six two and you have to be. six five to stand out and it's just it's just all over if you're a normal height. Yeah. All right. Next, next one. What do you want next? Wait, hold on. I have

one follow up on that, Blake. Is that really the height difference that you can achieve from like 510 to 62 if you give your kids HDH at the right age? No, no, 5-9 to 6-1 is like more realistic. Okay, it's the same number of inches. That's wild. Okay. Blake, take us to the next one. All righty. Oh, which one? No, Andrew, you had another one you wanted to hit. Oh, oh. So this is coming out of the UK.

Unmarried couples in Britain may soon gain stronger rights to share assets after a breakup. This feels diabolical to me, Kramer. This is like Western democracies saying, we don't want you to actually get married, which seems like a really poor decision to be making for the sake of civilization. Yeah, it seems quite bad. Like, if you were theoretically trying to reduce the rate of coupling in the UK without looking like you were trying to reduce the rate of coupling, what alternative policies would you do?

This seems about like what you would do. It's effectively instituting like common law marriages at a more meaningful scale and giving more protections to people in the sense that like you can claim more of your partner's assets. So it disincentivizes people living together, cohabiting, etc. And reduced rates of cohabitation lead to reduced rates of marriage. Finland has done something similar to this apparently.

I haven't looked at this actual paper yet. There's an economist who commented to this effect saying that when they did something like this, it did reduce rates of cohabitation or reduced rates of marriage as a result. So it's probably a policy that works exactly as we think it does, and it's going to be quite harmful. Unfortunately. All right. I just love to because, like I said, when we have you on, you're always telling us all these other good things that are going on with health.

So you mentioned that Q Star thing, but what's some other stuff that's been going on in the world of HHS and the world of health that we should be aware of good developments? Well, I mean, a lot of the focus right now is on trying to get ahead of China. So a lot of the reforms you'll be seeing, such as like, for example, this really cool Bayesian clinical trial thing they did late last year. What it does is it allows you to, like, run a clinical trial with a non-standard configuration of, like, the control and treatment arms and, like, various different ways of treating the groups. But it allows you to basically accelerate the trial and run it for less money. And a lot of reforms are basically how can we out-deregulate China and get ahead of them, which is really neat. QSTAR is actually part of that. What QSTAR does that's really important for the, like, beating China race in biopharma in drug production

is it allows us to demo drugs that have had their phase ones where they've shown that the drug is safe so that they can start gathering data to show that the drug works, which is the phase two thing you have to start showing. And they can also raise money to fund a phase two trial so that they can actually start funding more drugs without having to like, you know, immediately go full mass market. It'll allow more drug companies to survive and like get their research done and get their research funded. And basically everybody wins in this. I mean, like patients get more access to drugs and we get more research data.

And that's what a lot of what the HHS is doing is. They're trying to figure out ways to make everybody in the ecosystem win so that we can do more innovations, save more lives. Maybe make it so there's no cancer to even worry about when you're 70 and you, We've grown three inches from HGH. Amen. We have a few seconds left here. I just want to again, shout out your ex, shout out your substack.

Even if you don't agree with everything Kremu says, I don't, I don't think Andrew does, but he has so many interesting thoughts. You're going to get a never-ending supply of stuff you hadn't heard about otherwise. It's a very fun stuff to read. And I know Charlie was very excited when he talked to you. We went like three hours or something like that. It was quite remarkable. So. That was great.

That was great. Kramu, that was fascinating stuff. It's always a fascinating trip with you and really great stuff. And we all hate cancer. Everybody, tomorrow is the birthright citizenship decision. We're going to be covering that. Be sure to tune in. We're going to be hitting it hard.

For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.