The Charlie Kirk Show - Elon vs. The BBB

Episode Date: June 4, 2025

Elon Musk abruptly launched a big broadside against the Big Beautiful Bill Tuesday night, and X is in chaos. Charlie reacts to Musk's reasoning and analyzes the bill's pluses and minuses, then talks to Sen. Ron Johnson about what's needed to keep the bill's fortunes from disintegrating. 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.

Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here live from the Bitcoin.com studio. Today on the Charlie Kirk Show, big beautiful bill. Elon comes out against it, Senator Ron Johnson is against it. Why is that? We analyze it and I want to hear from you, freedom at charliekirk.com. Your threats as we explain what's in the bill, why people are for it, why people are against it. It is the most comprehensive episode on the big beautiful bill that you are going to find and how it impacts your life. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com

and subscribe to our podcast. That is the Charlie Kirk Show podcast page. Email me as always, freedom at charliekirk.com and become a member today, members.charliekirk.com. Get involved with the most important organization in America, that is Turning Point USA. Go to tpusa.com, that is tpusa.com. So start a high school or college chapter today at tpusa.com.

That is tpusa.com. Buckle up, everybody. Here we go. Charlie, what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk. Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks. I want to thank Charlie.

He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country. That's why we are here. at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold. around to my friends, I live a Forrest Gump life. I really do. I just happen to be in the right place at the right time, so many different situations.

And it just so happens I was eating dinner in New York last night, and I ran into Mr. Doug, Kamala Harris' husband. I'll tell you about that. That's not breaking news. But I also saw the grand priestess statue, the statue of the high priestess of the Democrat Party, which is Skinny Lizzo in Times Square. All hail the black woman. People were giving tribute and were saying prayers to the black woman statue in Times Square. Do we have a picture of that, by the way? Do we have a picture of the grand priestess? You know, in prior civilizations, you go to Florence and you see the statue of David.

You go to Rome and you see the Palletta. I think it's in Rome. And when you come to New York, you go see a statue of some slob who is, by the way, like 15 feet tall. It's a very big statue of just literally some random black woman, just to be record. In Times Square, the most prominent statue is just literally a statue of a black woman. I don't know. I prefer the Statue of Liberty, not the statue of... Yeah. So we're going to dive more into that later. And there it is. Yeah. There's the statue of the slob. I mean, what is, what is, I want to know what, can you steel man the argument for me? What is the purpose of this? What, why, why is that there? I had to go by and see it,

by the way. Interestingly, it was very easy to go up and take a picture. Not, no one really wanted to go take a picture next to it. Either it'd be called racist. They felt intimidated or they thought that she was going to start screaming at them. It was literally right in the center of Times Square. What is their steel man argument for this? Oh, to challenge cultural norms and spark conversation about previously marginalized, unappreciated groups. Is that what art is about? I could do a whole show about art and how we have lost the plot when it comes to art. Roger Scruton, may he rest in peace, had one of the best documentaries and books and analyses on how we in the West have decided to embrace the ugly. They think art is to expose systemic injustice. We believe art is to uplift

the divine, make human beings be better versions of themselves, to appreciate the beautiful and the good and the traditional, and to make society one that is worth defending, not one of deconstruction. I could do a whole speech on this, but I thought it was quite something that we go from the statue of David in Florence as a beautiful symbol of Western civilization, the statue of Shaniqua. Okay, so let's dive into the breaking news. So yesterday, Elon Musk, the world's richest man, someone who I have gotten to know and I still get along with, tweeted the tweet heard around the world. Now, it was seen over 100 million times on X. Now, to be fair, we sent out a tweet the other day that was seen about 40 million times. So it's not bad, but we also don't own the platform. Our tweet was Islam

is not compatible with Western civilization, but 45 million. I think that's going to be a topic that I'm going to have to defend for the next couple of years. So Blake, get ready and you read the Hadith for me. All right. However, Elon Musk sends out this tweet and I want to analyze this and I want to make sure that we are understanding Elon's perspective correctly. The media is completely unhelpful here. And I think I can offer some unique insight, having being a proponent of the big, beautiful bill, having be someone who is friendly with Elon and thinks that Elon has really delivered a civilizational blessing to us by liberating X and helping President Trump

get elected. I think I'm in a unique spot to actually explain this. Let me go through his tweet. Quote, I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. Can we get the tape of Network, by the way? I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore. Do you guys know what clip I'm talking about where the guy goes out the window and just starts screaming from the movie Network? Anyway, get that. That's Elon yesterday, if we get that tape. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it. You know you did wrong. You know it. Okay. So I wouldn't use

that language at all, but let me try to interpret what Elon is saying here in less provocative and hyperbolic language. I wouldn't use words like shame or outrageous or pork-filled, because understand what this bill is, first and foremost. It is a reconciliation bill. It is not a budget bill. It is a reconciliation bill, which means you have to reconcile two different budgetary years together, combine them, and you can add some spending and cut some spending, but it must pass what is called the By rule in the Senate and it must be budgetary related. Now, what is Elon getting at here is something that I think that is important though. And we have Senator Ron Johnson that'll be joining us in the segment after this, who I think is articulating a lot of these views.

I don't necessarily share them to the same extent because I am still a big proponent of this bill, largely because of the bill, largely because of the immigration wins and because of the no tax on tips and the tax cut stuff. But we are fiscal hawks on this show. We believe that if you do not balance our budget, we are careening towards a fiscal apocalypse. Overnight, Elon also tweeted this. He said, quote, interest payments already consume 25% of all government revenue. Now, as a pause and as a side note, I literally got my start as an advocate and as an activist back in 2011 and 2012 when I was in high school in the suburbs of Chicago talking about the ballooning

national debt. If we as conservatives are serious, we must be fiscal hawks. It is generational theft. It is the slavery of the free. It is by far one of the greatest, if not the greatest, national security threats. We should go back to baseline budgeting. We should go back to zero-based budgeting. We have been saying this for the last 13 years. When I started Turning Point USA, the national debt was hovering around $8 to $9 trillion. When I first started debt advocacy in sophomore or junior high school, and then when I graduated high school, I think it was around $13 trillion. I'm approximating these numbers. And now it's upwards of $35 trillion, a nearly triple increase of our national debt. Now, our response to COVID didn't help,

and it was completely unnecessary. One of the reasons why is because we started to engage in a decades-long cheap money cycle. No one wanted to cut spending. The stock market keep coming up. We keep on inflating our currency and deteriorating our purchasing power. Nobody wanted to have the tough conversation about cutting spending. So from Elon's perspective, again, his language is what his language is. He'll have to defend this, is that Elon got into this political game for a couple reasons. One of which is he is intensely focused on balancing the budget. He is, you cannot get him off of this topic. When I've talked to him privately, when I've had dinner with him, when I've had lunch with him, when

we text, the number one concern that Elon Musk has is we are going to be a nation in bankruptcy if we do not have severe and dramatic cuts. Now, one thing Elon Musk also simultaneously understand, and I would tell him if he was sitting right here, is unfortunately we have a bunch of moderate Republicans, the House of Representatives, and a three-seat majority that have no stomach, no concern, they have no interest whatsoever in cutting spending. None.

They do not want to cut spending at all. They'll do a little bit on the edges, but even getting them to do the appropriate Medicaid cuts or the SNAP stuff. So for example, the big, beautiful bill does cut about $1.5 trillion in spending over the next decade. So that's $150 billion a year. It proposes $600 billion in Medicaid cuts, about $290 billion in SNAP, which is food stamps. This is all over 10 years, though. $330 billion in student loans. But I'm going to explain this even more and talk about the fiscal apocalypse that we are careening towards.

And then I'm going to talk about Stephen Miller's retort. I don't agree with the language that Elon put forward in his tweet, but I'm going to explain because still a lot of people in our audience feel this way. A lot of people in the base are saying, why are we not cutting more spending? Hey everybody, Charlie Kirk here. Brand new year, brand new opportunities to change the world for the better. It's easier than you might think. You can save babies by providing ultrasounds with pre-born. Together with the sanctity of human life month, we're going to save 35,000 babies We'll be right back. year than to join us to save babies. And $28 a month will save a baby a month all year long. A $15,000 gift will provide a complete ultrasound machine that will save thousands of babies for years and years to come. And will also save moms from a lifetime of pain and regret. I am a donor

to this organization and you should be too. Start this new year by being a hero for life. Call 833-850-2229 or click on the pre-born banner at charliekirk.com. That is charliekirk.com and click on the pre-born banner. I'm a donor. You should be too. charliekirk.com pre-born banner. Live shot of Elon Musk last night on X Playcut 353. I want you to get up right now and go to the window,

open it and stick your head out and yell, I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore! Live shot of Elon Musk on X. Stephen Miller responds, and this is why I'm in support of the Big Beautiful Bill. And while I understand Elon's critique and I even sympathize with his analysis, you must understand there's other things at play here. Stephen Miller responds, quote, The Big Beautiful Bill contains three major sections. One, the most significant border security and deportation effort in history, including the entire wall up front.

Now, with no possibility of Democrat obstruction, that's huge. Full extension, expansion of the Trump tax cuts. This is what CBO scoring, not spending, tax cuts, the one we campaigned on and pledged, the largest welfare reform in history, cutting almost $2 trillion in spending. Item one alone, border security plus deportation, makes us the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation. Let me pause here too. What I don't think the CBO or people are recognizing is we save billions, if not tens of billions of dollars in social services as we continue mass deportations. Understand, mass deportations

saves money in hospitals, saves money in schools, saves money on infrastructure. So make no mistake, deportations are a net benefit financially and fiscally for the American homeland. Stephen Miller continues, for saying those do separate bills, to do separate bills, each will require 60 votes needing Schumer instead of 50. Reconciliation is a special process each fiscal year where you can make fiscal changes with 50 votes. That's why BBB is the vehicle for tax cuts, deportations, and welfare reform. Stephen Miller continues by saying the one wrinkle of reconciliation is you can't make discretionary cuts. This is key, just mandatory. Discretionary cuts happen through a separate process known as rescissions, which we are going to do. This is the one part that I would push back

on Elon a little bit, is that the reconciliation process can only go after food stamp reform or Medicaid. The bureaucracy, like the Department of Education and the Department of Energy, that stuff comes up in a budgetary process or rescissions. The big, beautiful bill was designed by President Trump and his allies in Congress to deliver on his core campaign pledges to voters. And that's exactly what it does. This is the most MAGA bill ever passed by the House, and it's not even close. Certain libertarians in Congress who are not MAGA have their own agenda, and it's not yours. We're going to hear from Senator Ron Johnson in just a moment, his concerns, and we're going to talk about the budgetary process and ask these questions out in the open.

And look, I see this from both perspectives. The bottom line is we love what Elon is saying about fiscal sanity, but we're also pragmatists and the bill should pass. It's a major tax cut that will revitalize the American economy. It still has a lot of welfare reform. I think go even further. I think we should basically scrap a lot of these programs completely. I think they're totally unnecessary in its current form, but I'm not a member of Congress and very few people agree with me and we need to win more seats. And that is the final point, is that when you only have a two or three seat House majority, when you have the same Senate majority as you do a House majority, that should be very sobering for you. That should hopefully take you a step back and say, oh, okay. That

doesn't put you in a maximally driver's seat. Rand Paul says, quote, Kentuckians sent me here to fight the reckless debt. I will not support a $5 trillion increase to our deficit. Stephen Miller responded by saying, quote, the score Rand Paul is citing is the size of the tax cut. The bill slashing spending is almost $2 trillion. Also, why doesn't Rand ever fight this hard to deport illegals? There's a lot of back and forth here. We're not getting involved in the name-calling here because I think there's some good-natured concern where people want to see a balanced budget. I get that. And the bond market gets a vote. Remember, the bond market gets a vote.

All that to be said, this bill should still be passed. This bill will be a tremendous net good for the country. Deportations, border, massive tax cuts, tax on remittances, drill, baby, drill. Huge. Middle class tax cut, no tax on tips. And then we need to keep the fight on on the budgetary process and on rescissions. And we just hope it's a first step. Gentlemen, let's get real for a second. Are you frustrated with today's woke dating apps, the apps, the games, the endless swiping? It's a waste of time. Finding a woman who shares your values, faith, family and patriotism feels nearly impossible,

but it doesn't have to be. Selective Search, America's leading matchmaking firm, is changing the game. They connect strong, successful men like you, men who love God, love America, and want a family with incredible women who share your values. These are intelligent, faith-driven women who put family first and still believe in traditional values. Imagine that. If you're a single conservative man in the late 30s to early 50s in Southern California. Listen up. Selective Search has an exclusive network of women ready for the real thing. Here's the best part. Their candidate program is 100% free and confidential. Some of my closest friends have used Selective Search,

and let me tell you, they're meeting incredible women. This is your chance. This is not an app. It's your answer. The perfect conservative woman is out there waiting for you. Visit SelectiveSearch.com slash California today. Let the professionals introduce you to women already looking for someone like you in Southern California. Don't wait for the perfect moment. Take action now. Go to SelectiveSearch.com slash California and start building the future you deserve. And now we're going to hear from the man himself, Senator Ron Johnson. Senator, thank you so much for taking the time.

Senator, please give us your latest update on the big, beautiful bill. Are you still currently a no in its current form? And if so, why? Well, Charlie, well, first of all, like you, I'm a big supporter of President Trump. He is a unique political figure. He is doing things that have to be done that nobody else would do. So I'm a big supporter. I is a unique political figure. He is doing things that have to be done that nobody else would do. So I'm a big supporter. I want to see him succeed. But the fact of the matter is the debate in the House, it was pretty absent of looking at the

relevant figures. It pretty well pulled $1.5 trillion out of the air. Sounds like a big number, but over 10 years, it's really not even a rounding error when you're spending more than $7 trillion a year. So, again, I'm focusing on the facts and figures. That's kind of what I'm doing is forcing the debate in the Senate. I've always agreed with Senator Thune that we really needed to do this. What we had to do had to be done in a couple different steps. It wasn't all going to get done satisfactorily in one step. I think that's proven true.

So, again, it's not too late to acknowledge that fact. It wasn't all going to get done satisfactorily in one step. I think that's proven true. So again, it's not too late to acknowledge that fact, do the things that have to be done, border. Yes, we have to add defense to that, but we need to sharper our pencils on both of those. Use the good work in the House to reduce spending to the extent we can, extend current tax law, take a massive automatic tax increase off the table, provide that certainty to the economy, increase the debt ceiling for about a year to keep the pressure on, leave all those other items for a second round using fiscal year 2026 budget reconciliation. That'll give us time to go through the budget line by line. 2,600 programs in the federal government, forensically audit those.

Trump and Elon Musk showed us how to do it with Doge. We need to take that Doge effort and expand it and, again, just delve into the federal budget, into these programs, forensically audit them, expose that in the American public. believe when you've gone from $4.4 trillion in 2019 to $7 trillion, there's literally hundreds of billions of dollars lurking in all that spending that if you eliminate it, nobody would even notice it other than the grifters who are sucking down that waste, fraud, and abuse. But you have to do the work, and that's going to take time. That's going to take a lot of effort. And this big, beautiful bill has gone through the standard process. Exempt most programs, look at a couple, tweak them, get a CBO score, pick a number out of the air that doesn't meet the moment and say you've done a great job. I'm sorry. Appreciate the challenge that Speaker Johnson has, but you need to expose this. You need to sell to the

American public to get them on your side. And again, you got to do it in multiple steps. You can't do it all in one fell swoop. So, Senator, I want to put the chart you sent our team up on screen. But before I do that, the critique from the White House, they'll say that during a reconciliation process, we are not they're not able to touch spending like in the departments. It's a mandatory versus discretionary spending. Is there any truth to that? So discretionary cuts happen through a separate process known as rescissions. And how does that factor into your calculus for the support or opposition to this bill? Yeah, we have all kinds of crazy rules there, right? You can't touch Social Security.

You can't touch discretionary spending through the recon. It's only about mandatory. But again, remember, mandatory is way more than Social Security, Medicare, and even Medicaid. There's a trillion dollars of other mandatory spending, which probably should be discretionary, but they've, you know, the meeting party has deviously transferred that into other mandatory. So it's never looked at. So no, so you need rescission packages. I've been baffled that every week, based on what Doge has found, that we didn't just send up their weekly findings and rescind them. I don't understand why they haven't done that. They should start doing that. But again, you need the American public on your side. But what I'm talking about, a budget review panel,

forensic audits of every line of the budget, every program, that's going to take a lot of time, but that unlocks all of this. So you have to do the work, but you have rescission as long as we've got majorities in this White House. And by the way, you can't count on winning and having the same setup in the next Congress. This is our moment. We are mortgaging our children's future. This is our chance. We can't blow it right now. I'm sorry. The big, beautiful bill blows it. So, Senator, here up on screen, the graph, tell our audience the significance of this graph and the Trump team and the White House, of which I'm very much supportive of them and friends with

them. And I still want the beautiful bill to pass. I'm supportive of that. They will say that the CBO doesn't know what they're talking about with scoring and accuracy. Please walk through our audience what exactly we're seeing on screen right now. So the red bars are actual. OK, and that just shows the average deficits in different terms of presidency. So you can see in Bush one, he averaged over eight years, about $250 billion of deficits. Wish we were there. President Obama came in and averaged almost 1.3 trillion in his first term. That sparked the Tea Party. I'm part of that. And you see the Tea Party's impact in terms of fiscal deficit. We literally held spending flat for about five years at about 3.5 trillion. He'd taken it from 2.98 up to 3.5. So Obama in his last term averaged deficits of 550. Trump comes in, had to deal with Democrats. And so that average deficit went up to 810 billion

for his first three years. Then COVID hit, $3.1 trillion of bipartisan spending blowout. Responsible leadership should have reduced that deficit back at least below a trillion dollars. But that's not what Biden and the Democrats did. They continued the spending spree. So we averaged deficits of $1.9 trillion. And all of my analysis of this is based on CBO's 10-year projection. I'm not a big fan of CBO. I'm not a big fan of their static scoring, that kind of stuff. But the general direction of spending and revenue is pretty accurate. And so what the last three bars show is on a four-year average rolling basis,

our deficit, we're not reducing the deficit curve down. We're going from about $1.9 trillion, I guess accepting $1.9 trillion deficits is the new normal, and ramping that up to over $2.5 trillion, averaging $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Completely unacceptable. Now, you can argue about how CBL is going to score this thing. Again, whether you tweak those bars a little bit higher, a little bit lower, the trajectory is undeniable. And I would argue that this is probably a rosy scenario because there's interest rate risk. You know, 1% increase in interest rates, and we're seeing that happen in the bond market. That adds $4 trillion, you know, $400 billion to each one of those lines.

They're assuming, again, if you eliminate, if you extend current tax law don't have that automatic tax increase well from those estimates it takes about four trillion dollars away now you can argue and i would that you're not going to get that four trillion because you're going to harm economic growth are you going to be able to replace it i just i used grok this morning and i said okay what happens if we grow at five percent nominal growth? That's 3% real economic growth, real GDP growth, and 2% inflation. By the way, for the last 20 years, we've only experienced 2% average growth. So let's say we grow 3%, and we maintain the 17.1% revenues per cent of GDP. Over 10 years, that only gains us a half a trillion dollars. So we're not making it

up. Okay. So there's all kinds of risks. I think, unfortunately, that's probably a rosy scenario. And 1.5 trillion spread out over 10 years, $150 billion, add to that, you know, more than $300 billion of new spending on defense and border. That's not even a 1.3% cut over the 10-year period. It's a rounding error. It's just not meeting the moment. They've done some good work, but it's not serious effort. So, Senator, what concretely is your ask and who in the Senate is with you in this coalition as to what would be an acceptable outcome here. As you know, we can't let perfect be the enemy of good. And so I know you mentioned about going through certain programs and auditing and vetting them. But what are three or four specific ideas or examples that you have, ideas

to try to broker? Because we do need a pass. There's so much good in this bill. And I know that you will agree with that, Senator, from border security, deportations to remittances to no tax on tips. What is your proposal of three or four specific cuts structurally so that you can be satisfied and those of us that are fiscal hawks can also be satisfied while also getting this bill passed? Well, first of all, I know we're not going to meet the moment with one bill. We won't. The House didn't do it. We won't if we quick rush this thing through.

So we've got to split this up, focus on the areas of agreement, border defense, take the spending reductions the House has given us that they've agreed to, extend current tax law, take the automatic tax increase off the table. That was a blunder in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act. We should have scored that in current policy. We weren't smart enough to do that. Increase the debt ceiling for about a year. Keep the pressure on. I've got to convince President Trump that is to his advantage. He wants to balance the budget. That's what he said. Well, we're not even coming close to putting

ourselves on a path to balance the budget. He needs that leverage as well. We'll never default on the debt, ever. We've got more than enough revenue to service our debt. We will increase the debt ceiling, but we ought to do it in increments to keep the pressure on. So this has got to be at least a two-part process, fiscal year 2025 reconciliation process. Do that now. Again, we skinny this thing down, focus on the areas of agreement that we can do by July 4th, then start doing the work. And Charlie, rather than, the problem we're having is the same old way. Give me three things that'll solve the problem. Three things won't. You've got to literally go through thousands of lines of budgets. You've got to go

through thousands of programs, do the forensic audit like Doge did, and expose it. Get the American people on your side. Take the time to do the work, but also to win public support for what you're doing, rather than jam something through, not have a good response when the Democrats falsely attack it. Again, we're just, we're blowing this. We're blowing it. We didn't take the time. We're not making the arguments. It's, I'm sorry, it's a slogan. It's a slogan. We need substance. We're only going to solve this with substance, with facts and with figures. And so far, the discussion has been largely void of facts and figures. I'm forcing facts and figures to the forefront here. So and I apologize, Senator, if you mentioned this, I just I might be confusing something else. Stephen Miller would say a separate bill would then each would require 60

votes. Is that correct? One minute remaining, Senator. No, we've got budget reconciliation for fiscal year 2026. We should already have a fiscal 2026 budget on the table. We could already be in that reconciliation process. We're still working off of fiscal year 2025. So now we've each one of each budget reconciliation can literally have three bills, one for spending, one for revenue, one for the. This is and I said, I know you got a dash. This is what drives me the most crazy about D.C.

is two guys I love. Ron Johnson and Stephen Miller. We're just talking past each other, right? And it's just because now the audience is all confused. So Stephen Miller is saying you need 60 votes. You're saying not. I love Stephen Miller. He's simply wrong on this one.

He's simply wrong. And I don't know nearly enough. And I don't know nearly enough. No, and I don't know nearly enough. It's just, this is the, this is the type of thing that drives me and my audience mad because we're like, we can't even agree on the structural, you know, technicality of it, let alone all the cuts. Senator, thank you so much for your time. We'll be watching very closely. Senator, thank you. I want your thoughts, everybody in the audience, freedom at charliekirk.com. Should we pass the big, beautiful bill in its current form? Do you think that Senator Johnson's approach is correct?

We do have a risk of maybe not passing anything at all. Please email me, FreedomAtCharlieKirk.com. I want to hear from you directly. And right now, drop what you're doing, FreedomAtCharlieKirk.com. I read every single email, and I'm in touch with the White House. I'm in touch with a lot of folks there, with J.D. and all that. And I will be relaying what you guys email me here, freedom at charliekirk.com. I want to hear from you.

I want to know the why. I want to tell you guys about WhyRefi. WhyRefi is one of our best supporters at Turning Point USA. They're supporting our Young Women's Leadership Summit, our Student Action Summit. Private student loan debt in America totals about $300 billion. About $45 billion of that is labeled as distressed. YReFi does not care what your credit score is. They can reduce your monthly payment, and they guarantee interest rates under 6%, ensuring affordability and financial relief.

YReFi can save you thousands of dollars by refinancing and even lowering your total cost. You can finally take control of your student loan situation with a plan that works for your monthly budget. YReFi refinances distressed and defaulted private student loans, which are different from federal loans. Go to YREFI.com. You can read testimonials from other people who have been where you are, how they've escaped, and now you can see what their monthly payments were versus what they are now.

Go to YREFI.com. Bad credit is accepted. That is YREFI.com. Do you have a co-borrower? YREFI can get them released from the loan. You can give mom or dad a break. Call 888-YREFI34 or log on to YREFY.com. May not be available in all 50 states. Go to YREFI.com. That is YREFI.com. Okay, a lot of things I want to hit here. The first of which I just want to continue on one of my big frustrations. And I'm putting them, I'm putting them on a group text together.

I'm putting Ron Johnson and Stephen Miller in a group chat together. Because of all the stuff that I deal with in politics, I don't mind disagreement. Disagreement is fun. My life, I live in disagreement. I don't care if you disagree with me. That's not that important. In fact, I think it's healthy and it makes me stronger and hopefully it makes you stronger. What drives me nuts is when we are debating something that should be agreed upon presuppositions.

When the presupposition itself, the foundational truth is like, well, no, we can't do this or we can't do that. Well, then everything from that point is completely irrelevant. The second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, then iteration of facts are incomplete. We must get back to first principles and define our terms. So is it clear? If we go to two bills, do we though then need 60 votes? Very simple question. If we go to two bills, do we need 60 votes in vote question if we go to two bills do we need 60 votes in vote but steven miller says yes who i think is the greatest by the way steven miller's like total rock star ron john says no getting an answer that would be very helpful and important to getting closer towards an inevitable conclusion of how to proceed. And I'm still in support of passing this big, beautiful

bill. Why? Well, one of the main reasons why I'm so in support of it is because of the slim majority. We have to factor in the slim house majority. And it's very much on President Trump's mind. It's very much on his team's mind. His team's been doing a great job trying to usher this through. It's not an easy job because you know why? You have basically, you have 55 members of Congress in the House that if they get five friends together, they can kill a bill. You got Don Bacon, you got Lawler. I like Lawler. He's a good guy. You've got all these guys that get in a room together and one of them has a disagreement and the bill gets collapsed. And I think we need to understand that. I think we need to have the contextualization there. And we need to try to

win more seats, not less seats. And I think there's a lot of promises in this bill that we need to deliver on. If we want more deportations, we got to pass this bill. If we want permanent border security, we have to pass this bill. If we want tax on remittances, we have to pass this bill. If we want those Trump baby bonus accounts. One of my favorite things that's happening, it's in the one big, beautiful bill. And one of the other things that I wish would be happening, again, I'm happy to air Ron Johnson's complaints and his criticisms. And I think Ron Johnson's great. And I've worked well with him for well over a decade. He was one of the first people ever to support and speak at Turning Point USA. So Ron Johnson is someone that I will defend

to my last breath. I wish a lot more of this was happening in a closed room. What needs to happen is a private gladiatorial match of Ron John, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, all of them in a room, White House staff, no devices, put it in a skiff and let the screaming happen. I will cater lunch. I will bring you In-N-Out burger from Arizona. People would show up if I brought In-N-Out burger, for the record. I will cater and broker this lunch. We got to get this thing sorted out because there is so much good stuff in this bill. And I don't think I don't think that the conservative movement is internalizing all the wins here in this bill

enough. I don't. This is the greatest welfare reform in history. We got no tax on tips. No tax on tips is a major promises made promises kept. And you must also hold two things equally in the hand on the other side. If we do not balance the budget, we're going to have some problems, big problems. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always, freedom at charliekirk.com. Thanks so much for listening, and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charliekirk.com.