The Charlie Kirk Show - How MAHA is Unshackling American Science ft. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

Episode Date: July 9, 2025

It won't grab many headlines, but the Trump Administration just made a big move to restore trust in American science while unleashing greater transparency and innovation. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya joins the program to make the announcement exclusively on The Charlie Kirk Show. Plus, Alex Marlow talks about the push for amnesty by another name and how the base helped stop it cold, and looks head to the upcoming Student Action Summit in Tampa. 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. Alex Marlowe joins the show. What are the politics around amnesty and mass migration? What was happening in LA with Karen Bass? And then we have an exclusive breaking news update from the director of NIH, that's Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. I think you'll really enjoy it. Make sure you guys get involved with Turning Point USA at tpusa.com. Start a high school or college chapter today at tpusa.com. Email us as always, freedom at TPUSA.com, sorry, high school or college chapter today at TPUSA.com. Email us as always, freedom at CharlieKirk.com and get involved with Turning Point USA at TPUSA.com, TPUSA.com. Okay, everybody, it is the event of the summer. Coming up in

Tampa, Florida, it's an event unlike any other. It is our Student Action Summit. All ages are welcome. It's SAS2025.com. We have Pete Hegseth coming, Kristi Noem, Tucker Carlson, Megan Kelly, Donald Trump Jr., Steve Bannon, Greg Gutfeld, Laura Ingraham, Ross Ulbricht, Byron Donalds, Tom Homan, Ben Carson, Brett Cooper, Michael Knowles, Brandon Tatum, Benny Johnson, Jack Posobic, Riley Gaines, James O'Keefe, and more. That is SAS2025.com. You can find your future wife, your future husband, your future soulmate, a future job, and a career. Go to SAS2025.com.

That is SAS2025.com for this game-changing, life-changing event. So take a look at it right now at SAS 2025.com SAS 2025.com. Email us as always freedom at Charlie Kirk dot com. Buckle up everybody here we go. Charlie what you've done is incredible here. Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campuses. I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.

Charlie Kirk's running the White House folks. I want to thank Charlie. He's an incredible guy. His spirit, his love of this country. He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA. We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.

That's why we are here. Noble gold investments is the official gold sponsor of the Charlie Kirk show, a company that specializes in gold IRAs and physical delivery of precious metals. Learn how you could protect your wealth with noble gold investments at noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. That is noblegoldinvestments.com. It's where I buy all of my gold. Go to noblegoldinvestments.com. We've got some exclusive breaking news today,

and it is from a great man, director of NIH, Jay Bhattacharya. Director, great to see you. Thank you for taking the time. I know you have an announcement to share with the audience here. Please, the floor is yours. It's very important. It's not going to make the front page of the New York Times, but it shows how the administration is focused on real results that benefit the taxpayer and science.

Please, Director Bhattacharya. Charlie, thank you for having me on the show and for giving me the floor to make this announcement. So one of the things that's sort of a little known secret about scientific publishing is that when taxpayers pay for research and they do, through the National Institute of Health, lots of great discoveries are made. You publish it in a scientific journal.

And everyone has these ideas about scientific journals as if they're, as ways like, you know, clean places where people can convey scientific ideas to other scientists, they're peer-reviewed, they vet truth. And, you know, some of that is true, but a lot of times, the economics of the publishing of the scientific, you know, sort of publishing work for the publishing industry is actually not so clean. And in particular, what happens, we just made an announcement a few weeks ago, a couple weeks ago, essentially saying that when the NIH-funded scientist publishes a paper in a scientific journal, that paper needs to be available to the entire public for free

without any paywall. That happened, you know, a couple of weeks ago. We put that in place. Actually, I think it was July 1st was we put that in place a lot of the industry some of the industry responded by essentially by telling the Scientists that they were going to charge the scientists for the privilege of publishing science in their journals. Think about that I'm an author. I'm a scientist author and I publish them

I do some some great advance funded by taxpayers. I go to a scientific journal. The scientific journal then charges me up to sometimes $13,000. Springer Nature is a good, is a particular bad actor on this. $13,000. Well, what happens then is the taxpayers are then charged for that $13,000 fee for the privilege of publishing the scientific journals. It costs them nothing, Charlie, to put it on the web. I mean, this is, it privilege of publishing in the scientific journals. It cost them nothing, Charlie, to put it on the web. I mean, it's a very, very cheap thing. They don't even pay peer reviewers.

So what we're doing is we announced a policy that in fiscal year 26 that we're going to limit the amount of money that the NIH was willing to pay to scientific journals for having the scientific publications paid for by taxpayers available for free to taxpayers. Taxpayers have already paid for it. There's no good reason for scientific journals to charge twice. And this is a big deal. A lot of the sort of predatory practices in scientific journals that take advantage of

researchers, we're finally addressing that. And we're sort of making the sort of like publication process more in line with the interest of the taxpayers and with the scientific community. It's going to be weirdly controversial in the scientific community, in sort of the narrow world of science, but I think for American taxpayers it is a big deal. It's a big step because it says we are taking seriously the dollars that you entrust us with, making sure we spend it on science, not on exorbitant publication fees that don't produce any good for anybody. Well yeah, and so for example, I know that you guys have had your eyes on many of these publisher companies, one of which is a company, Springer Nature, which

is a foreign company, and correct me if I'm wrong, but they charge as much as $13,000 per article for immediate open access while also collecting substantial subscription fees from the government agency. But then they also receive more than $2 million annually in subscription fees from the NIH, in addition to the tens of millions, more through exclusive article processing charges or APCs. So correct me if I'm wrong, but that's double dipping by companies like Springer Nature?

It entirely. It certainly feels like it probably, and you've described it exactly right. So what happens is, NIH employs a lot of excellent scientists. Scientists need to have access to the journals so they can read the journals and see what fellow scientists are doing and have discovered. The NIH pays Spring or Nature, Elsevier, another big player in this industry. The industry is a duopoly. The reason why it's such a mess is because it is a duopoly.

It's not a competitive industry. And then a few other smaller publishers, including like university presses, a contract that says, okay, we would like to have access for our scientists to the stuff that's in your journals. That makes sense. Library fees have been around for a long time. And that makes sense to do that. You want to have access to these journals for the scientists that are doing their work because that's how are doing their work, because that's how they do their work, is by sharing information. Absolutely.

What doesn't make sense, Charlie, is charging scientists for publishing in the journal exorbitant amounts of money just for the right for the public to see the papers without a paywall. That's double-dipping, in my view. And I agree with your characterization. You absolutely nailed it. And the amount of money on that is way, way more

than the library fees. Really the big way that these journals take advantage of their duopoly power, duopoly because there's really two big players in this industry. There's Springer Nature, just as you said, and then another company called Elsevier. Those two companies basically set the terms for a lot of the scientific journals, and they monopolize.

One of the reasons why it was so difficult to get the word out about what scientists were actually saying during COVID, because they had such monopoly power over scientific publishing. It's really not a healthy situation for science to be in, where you rely on a duopoly publishing industry. I don't know much I can do about that but I can tell you there's no reason for taxpayers to pay twice and taxpayers ought to have a right to see the product of the science that they fund without having to do a paywall. And the paywall, so I want you

not to talk about how this helps public health because because yes, it's great on the taxpayer side. This will what saves tens of millions of dollars, maybe hundreds. I don't know how much money this will spend. So that's a win and the president should be happy. But let's say that we have another emerging public health concern. And by the way, you were phenomenal on COVID, by the way, Dr. Bhattacharya. A team, I think you were Barrington Declaration, you challenged lockdowns, you were phenomenal, and I remember it and I notice it, so I just want to make sure you

know that. But let's say another public health concern is emerging. How would this way of doing open source, transparent publishing help public health more than the paywall model? Yeah, I mean, I think a lot of the problem during the pandemic was this sense that there is something called the science, like so and there's a relatively small number of like clergy in science. I mean, effective clergy and science get to decide what's true and false, right?

So you have to wear a mask or else you can spread COVID. The vaccine stops you from getting spreading COVID. So vaccine mandates are a good idea. We should close schools for years because that's the only way to stop COVID. The vaccine stops you from getting spreading COVID, so vaccine mandates are a good idea. We should close schools for years because that's the only way to stop COVID. All that stuff was false, Charlie. And there was a lot of literature, scientific literature, published, eventually published, that showed that that was false. If you open up the access to the journals so that the public in large can see what the scientific debates are actually happening. It makes it much more difficult for a small number of high-profile scientists to dominate the conversation. You can point and say, well, look, that's the kicker. Everyone,

I just want to interrupt, just repeat that. We know what we've saw this during COVID when people like Burks or Fauci. So please finish that point so profound. Yeah, I mean, I think the key thing is that science is actually fundamentally democratic, right? Even though I'm the NIH director now, I'm going to, I mean, Charlie, honestly, I'm going to have ideas that are wrong. I absolutely will. And what I want is for scientists to be able to correct me. And scientists, the way we do that, we publish papers that say, you know, this, this idea, we don't generally go after people, we go after ideas. This idea is papers that say, you know, this idea, we don't generally go after people, we go after ideas.

This idea is not right, here's what the evidence says, right? And that fundamentally is a act of freedom. If you allow people to have access to those information, those data immediately upon publication, you make it much harder for a small number of scientific elite to determine what's true and false. Instead, you have the data telling you what's true and false, you have the scientific debate telling determine what's true and false. Instead, you have the data telling you what's true and false. You have the scientific debate telling you what's true and false. That's why, as you started, your opening was exactly right, Charlie. It

seems like this is a secondary issue. But to me, it's absolutely fundamental to how our democracy functions. We have to essentially democratize access to science. We have to make science not the domain of a small number of people, but something that's accessible to everybody. Now, of course, you know, people have different scientific ideas and some people are better at science than other people,

and it's fine, but that's not the question. The question is, can you have this debate? Can you have a discussion? Can you see what the data actually show? Can you, or are you gonna have a situation where a few people can dominate the scientific discussion, dominate what's available to the public? And I think we're moving toward policies where the science becomes more of what it's always

meant to be. A science is supposed to be to promote freedom, not suppress it, as we saw during the pandemic, was the opposite. Well, and that's right. It was, unfortunately and tragically, science became a tool of totalitarianism when science properly understood which is understanding the natural world and how we interface with it should be a tool of liberation and of flourishing and of the betterment of humanity where science was used to actually suppress liberty and to suppress agency and to suppress freedom i put science in air quotes because it wasn't about trusting the science.

It was about trusting the scientists that they like. So now, if there is a heterodox journal that wants to be introduced, for example, saying lockdowns are no good, this this you call the duopoly. Basically, you know, we what would this I suppose I asked this question previously. Let me rephrase it in this way. We know science as liberating knowledge. It should not be a closed off racket. What would this possibly do now to have to change these incumbent major corporate publishing actors? Because I believe you say that you're going to have a cap on allowable publication costs. What do you expect in response

to this? Well, I expect that these journals, the duopolis, essentially will lose some of their market power. A lot of the market power has to do with the fact that they essentially bully scientists into paying large fees and essentially end up bullying us. Actually, you know, Charlie, it's interesting because the private foundations, the gay foundations are not allowing these kinds of charges to be paid at all or limiting the charges also. For the longest time, essentially, these journals, like Springer Nature, have said, OK, and given a better deal to private foundations than they have to American taxpayers.

So I expect that there's going to have to be some more actions to take in. But ultimately, endpoint will be essentially a more democratic science, democratic in the small D sense, right? More science that's like open and free where people can have real honest scientific discussions about the data rather than having a few big actors get to dominate the field the way it has. That's the ultimate end game. Ingredients.

When I flip a container around and cannot pronounce nor recognize the ingredients, I put it back. That's why you'll find balance of nature fruits and veggies supplements on a shelf in my home. Every single ingredient is a fruit or veggie plucked from the soil. No binders, no additives or artificial colors, no fillers. Just whole fruits and veggies, gluten-free and vegan-friendly. These harvested ingredients are freeze-dried into a fine powder using an advanced vacuum cold process to better preserve nutritional value. I can say with absolute confidence that I'm getting 31 ingredients from fruits and veggies

every single day with Balance of Nature. Imagine a platter with 31 different fruits and veggies on it every day. Join me in taking Balance of Nature, use my discount code CHARLIE to get 35% off plus free shipping and their money back guarantee. You must use my discount code CHARLIE. Call them at 800-246-8751 and use discount code CHARLIE or or online at balance of nature.com use discount code CHARLIE to get 35% off plus free shipping. With us is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of NIH and we all 35% off plus free shipping.

With us is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Director of NIH, and we all remember during COVID. Who was, doctor, who was your equivalent head of NIH during all the COVID nonsense? It was Dr. Francis Collins. Oh, yeah. Yeah, no good on a lot of things, unfortunately, because he was really good on creation and God many years prior.

So, Doctor, let me ask you, since taking the job, what has been some of the most surprising things that you have learned, and what are the major tasks that you are endeavoring to solve as director of NIH? Well, probably the most challenging thing has been to try to focus the NIH on the priorities of making America healthy again. What that means to me is, you know, if you look back, Charlie, over the last, since 2012,

there's been no increase in life expectancy in this country. Yeah, that's not true of Europe. It's a major scandal sitting in front of us, and no one ever talked about it. We basically have had flat life expectancy, high rates of chronic disease, including diabetes, including cancer, including obesity, a whole host of like conditions that really have gone unaddressed, especially working class people and others who have felt the brunt of it. And the NIH's mission is to advance the health and well-being of the American people, to advance the health and longevity of the American people.

And so the most shocking thing to me was that it was essentially like there are parts of – I mean, I love that mission. That's why I love the NIH. That's why I agreed to be a director of the NIH, because I think that mission is really important. And I think science can do a lot to help achieve that mission. But I think there have been parts of the mission of the NIH – of the actual mission of the NIH which have been sort of adulterated.

Like, a lot of it turned out, at least some parts of the NIH were focused on DEI objectives, essentially, to try to achieve sort of social justice for something that the science isn't really well-equipped to achieve. Instead of saying, okay, what problems, health problems do minority populations have, and how can we address them? Like, it turns out to be problems that everyone has, you know, high rates of obesity, untreated hypertension, diabetes, heart disease, all of these problems need to get addressed in ways that really address the problem. Instead, it was like, you know, a lot of the portfolio were focused

on sort of DEI kinds of objectives that were remote from advancing the health of people. And so I've worked, and this happened even before I got in after President Trump took office, we've worked to try to focus the NIH on real health priorities that matter to people. We want advances that improve the health of everybody, no matter what your race, color, it doesn't matter. If you have a health problem, the NIH ought to be studying ways to help you, not trying to achieve social justice.

That's something we're not capable of. That's something that's beyond me. I just want to simply do science that advances the health of every single American, and I think that's enough. And also, aren't there only like 20 universities that get all the funding? If we're serious, shouldn't there be more of a decentralization and a meritocracy around who gets NIH funding? Yeah, something like the top 20 universities get something like 60 or 70 percent of all

the NIH funding. And so what you end up is essentially a scientific group thing. I mean, I taught at Stanford University for many, many years. It's a great university. Don't get me wrong, I love the place. But there are great scientists all across the country. And the NIH kind of contributes to this group, think, by concentrating where the money that we give goes. Now, of course, the way the NIH gives grants out, we solicit grant ideas, research ideas from researchers around the country. They

give us their ideas, and there's a big competition to say which ideas are best. The problem is that the fixed cost support, the money we give to universities so they can have the lab space and all that, we tie it to having excellent scientists already at the place that can win grants. But it's kind of a it sets up this circular system in order to have excellent scientists, you have to have excellent facilities. In order to have excellent support for those excellent facilities, you have to have excellent scientists. It's sort of a vicious circle, which guarantees that excellent scientists outside of the top 20 universities

will have a much more difficult time of getting their excellent ideas funded. So that's something I'm looking into how to fix. We really do need to address that because it's bad for science to have a few concentrated places get all the funding or so much of the funding and you get scientific group think as a result. You saw that again during COVID. Without a doubt. Well, doctor, I just want to say on behalf

of our audience, thank you for your great work. And anytime there's breaking news, you can come here and I can rest easy that if there's another pathogen on the horizon, that you will approach it with real science, that with real prudence, and use the scientific method to restore trust and to also uplift humanity. Doctor, thank you so much. We have your back. Thank you. Thank you, Charlie.

Thank you. Everybody, I wanna encourage you guys to get tickets to the Student Action Summit, but let me just say one other thing on Dr. J. Bhattacharya and that whole team. Bobby Kennedy and the Maha Movement, love them or hate them, they have done what they said they're going to do. There's a lot of coalition angst on foreign policy, sometimes on immigration, but I'll

be honest, the coalition that has been battle tested and held together the most of all the coalitions is MAHA. It's really something to study and to behold. Maha is holding strong and doing what they said they would do. Look, I know there are a lot of choices when it comes to who you choose for your cell phone service. There are new ones popping up all the time. But the truth is there's only one that boldly stands in the gap for every American that believes that freedom is worth fighting for. And that is Patriot Mobile. For more than 12 years, Patriot Mobile has been on the front lines

fighting for our God-given rights and freedoms, while also providing exceptional nationwide cell phone service with access to all three of the main networks. Don't just take my word for it, as the hundreds of thousands of Americans who've made the switch and are now supporting causes they believe in simply by joining Patriot Mobile. Switching is easier than ever. Activate in minutes from the comfort of your own home. Keep your number, keep your phone, or upgrade. Patriot Mobile's all US-based support team is standing by to take care of you.

Call 972-PATRIOT today or go to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie, use promo code Charlie, for a free month of service. That to patriotmobile.com slash Charlie use promo code Charlie for a free month of service That's patriot mobile.com slash Charlie or call 972-PATRIOT and make the switch today Joining us now is Alex Marlowe. Alex is a great friend. I think we should have him on every week He's phenomenal. I think Alex you're coming to SAS. Is that correct? I was just talking to producer Andrew Charlie I'm on the main stage and I'm going to be working on my speech today.

So anyone you can email me, aloha to alexmarlowe.com. If you want to, if you have any specific requests, great as hit, something new. But anyway, it is the event of the year. I can't wait to be there. And the list is probably the best guest list I've ever seen. So congrats to you on that. Well, it's an amazing lineup.

And the numbers that we're getting of people, considering that President Trump and JD Vance are not going to be at this one, which is fine. I mean, they're busy. You can't get them at all. But the fact that we're going to have 6,000, 7,000 people, I mean, we don't know the final number until the end, because people have to start pouring in.

We got Hegseth. We got Kristi Noem. We have Greg Gutfeld. We have Laura Ingraham. We have Megyn Kelly. It's really something. Alex, yesterday, we were kind of in the center of some news where we were reporting on Verified rumors that were circling around but amnesty Byron Donalds confirmed those here on this program

And secondly at a very high-ranking senator call yesterday afternoon say Charlie your sources are very good How did you know this and so so Alex, you have actually, you're uniquely positioned to talk about this. And I wanna just do a little history lesson. You guys at Breitbart have kind of been the vanguard of stopping prior amnesty pushes. Most notably, you guys at Breitbart were the most responsible for stopping

the amnesty push of the Gang of Eight, and also the one that Nancy Pelosi was pushing while President Trump was in office. Kind of walk our audience through how you've been through these amnesty fights before and why this is really nothing new out of Washington, D.C. Yeah, thank you. This is something that Washington, D.C. has always wanted to do, is to give amnesty for illegal aliens. I think it would make a problem for them go away. And so

all Democrats and many establishment Republicans have wanted this thing, including some people who are some of my favorites. I mean, Marco Rubio has been absolutely on fire, but he was one of the sponsors of the Gang of Eight bill. And this is definitely one that if you've not boned up on this one, I definitely spend a few, few minutes doing this. Breitbart's the best resource around If you use our search engine, you can catch up. But overall, this is a major compromise by both political parties to try to get through amnesty for as many illegal aliens as they possibly could, basically say for violent criminals that they would get to stay here and have a pathway to citizenship. Not just that they get to stay kind of, we have a de facto amnesty now and that we have we don't do enough deportations

Trump is ramping that up but literally put them on a pathway to citizenship which in turn Creates a through chain migration, which is one of Stephen Miller's the issues that he's been on for over a decade That this is one of the big threats that we have is that each legally alien tends to bring in more both political parties Shockingly were for this as of just about a decade ago, and it has been a pretty rapid, I would say, pivot for the Republicans to be the anti-amnesty party. But there are underlying sources within the party that would like to see more amnesty because, first of all, it would legitimize their decades of past desires for amnesty, which will make them feel good. Second of all, it drives the wages down of working class Americans, which would boost their stocks a little bit.

Third of all, it's not ugly. This is one thing that Republicans don't get is that we've been uncomfortable winning ugly. We would rather lose gracefully. This is part of our character and it does not work and Donald Trump is aware of this and he's fought against it but there is still this pull to what we can't win ugly if this doesn't look good then we can't do it and Overall, this would just be the lifeline for the Democrat Party if this ever happened And this is a hill to die on if there ever was one there can be no way amnesties. Everyone must go Yes, and again, this is the red line. And to be clear, President Trump has not called for amnesty. He has not pushed for amnesty.

But there have been some concerns of some people, things that have been said by, you know, at rallies. And I think part of it, again, I'll defend the president here. He does this trial balloon rhetorical poll testing. He's done this before. So you have to understand kind of the spirit of Trump. But here is today, President Donald Trump. Actually, let's first do Brooke Rollins. Brooke Rollins came out and I've known Brooke for a while and I'm glad she came out and clarified this. Let's play cut 296. I think we'll probably hear a little bit more about this today and the conversations will

continue. But I can't underscore enough. There will be no amnesty. The mass deportations continue, but in a strategic way. And we move the workforce towards automation and 100 percent American participation, which again with 34 million people, able-bodied adults on Medicaid, we should be able to do that fairly quickly. And then additionally, President Donald Trump, breaking news. I think we have the tape. We could play it in a second.

He just said, quote, we are not talking amnesty. So it's been thrown down. However, we need to make sure the spirit of amnesty does not live Alex, right? Not just the word of amnesty. Yeah, I think that's right. And it's, Rollins is very important here because she's in charge of the farmland in this country. And a lot of the case that is made for amnesties is that who's going to work the farms if we

do not allow for everyone to say who's an illegal alien. So for her to come out and say, we are no longer supporting this, we're not interested in this, no way, full stop is big. She's one of the most important people in this conversation. And of course, the most important person is Trump. And Trump, I think, is sympathetic to the fact that some working class jobs, particularly in places like the hospitality industry

in many corners of the country, particularly blue states, have relied on illegal alien labor for the past several decades. It was one of these things that we've normalized it, but we shouldn't have, Charlie. And this is where people like me and you come in because we're the ones to say

that there is a path forward for America where we don't normalize lawlessness and we don't incentivize people from all over the world to come here thinking they can get a free pass if they just slip in through the back door. That's not any way to run a country. Donald Trump knows this in his core.

And I think ultimately he's not gonna wanna do any amnesties on his watch because they haven't gone well. Reagan did one and he gets completely crushed online for it and deservedly so. Just remind our audience you live in California. How catastrophic was the 1986 Simpson-Mizzoli Act? Yeah, it's changed the state for the worse and it's never come back from it. Charlie, I talked about this quite a bit that this was what informed me to become a conservative was largely seeing how the attitude towards illegal aliens in this country was so passe.

We just allowed for everyone to be here, and we just accepted the lawlessness, the filth that can come with it, the underbellies of the cities that would develop because of it. And in the meantime, it created permanent political class of Democrats so that Republicans had an impossibility. It was an impossibility for us to get any foothold at all, much less control the state. But we couldn't even get a foothold in the state. And all of it was because the Democrats were the party of illegal aliens, which would jack up their numbers at an amazing rate in terms of who could vote and their children would vote. They'd vote for Democrats. It would create a bloated welfare state, and all of the bad things that happened to the state really started with that principle. First error, the original sin

in this state was allowing amnesty and the open border, and I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look, and here is the kicker. Here is what no one else wants to talk about. This is a short-term problem. The Democrats and the open border zealots are lying to you. In 10 years, largely, this will not be a problem because of automation and robotics. And because of that, the only other argument is to try to change the political makeup of the country. And remember, we have consensus to mass deport. In 10 years, this will not be a workforce problem. And that is why they are so worried. This is like Amnesty's last gasp.

This is the open border last gasp to get the economic argument done because that window is closing. It's basically a decade, and that clock is crunching down. The world is waking up to the power of gold. National banks are scrambling to secure it. The world is waking up to the power of gold. National banks are scrambling to secure it. According to the World Gold Council, central banks added 1,000 tons of gold in 2024,

the third straight year of net gold buying. They understand what many investors don't. Gold is real money. Unlike paper currency, gold's value doesn't disappear with inflation, reckless government spending, or market crashes. Now, noble gold investments makes it easy for you to claim your share. As our new administration works to reverse the economic chaos of the past, market swings are inevitable.

When uncertainty rises, you need something solid, something to keep you on the path to financial freedom. Gold can be that foundation. And right now, when you make a qualified investment, Noble Gold will send you a free tenth ounce of a cold coin. Visit noblegoldinvestments.com. That's noblegoldinvestments.com. The world is turning to gold.

Shouldn't you be looking into doing that too? Alex, I believe we've talked about this before. The future of America goes through its cities, including the reclamation of Los Angeles. Walk our audience through what happened yesterday in MacArthur Park, which of course is known to be filled with MS-13 activity and what Mayor Karen Bass did. Yeah, I think the first thing to talk about is the history, what's going on, what the Trump administration is doing and the reaction out here, which is all grandstanding. MacArthur Park, it is an immigration raid took place against

criminals and trafficking. That's what's going on there. That's what they want to do. And remember, the Democrats in this state, both the city and at the state level, do not want immigrations and customs enforced. They are against ICE. They want to defund ICE. That's the whole attitude in the state. And Karen Bass was supposed to attend the six-month anniversary of the Palisades fire. There's a big event, a lot of speeches, people talking about how to clean up this city. And instead she was basically rallying for illegal alien criminals in this park. But the thing about this park, this is not a particularly nice place. The parks in LA are ruined anyway. They're mostly for homeless people as they are, as Charlie, you point out, in these major cities, which are really kind of a window into our dystopian future.

If we let the left run the country, all these parks just become homeless dens. There is a lot of fentanyl abuse there. They talk about being a zombie park. There's all these people kind of moving around like in a zombie like state from drugs. There's tents that pop up. And this is a city that spends more money on homelessness than firefighting. And you see they're terrible at both. So basically the illegal migrants are the top priority of the city, then the homeless barely. And then the residents take our last in line. Gavin Newsom, the governor of the state is currently in South Carolina. What do you think he's doing there, Charlie?

He's running for president. He doesn't care about any of this stuff. And so he's spending $40 billion to take on Trump, constantly fighting Trump. And yet we can't clean up this basic stuff. Trump has done an amazing job in LA in the aftermath of the fires, the EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the debris removal was rapid. It took place very quickly. It was all federal. The state did nothing. The local governments did nothing.

There's been no insurance reform to help families. Local governments have done nothing to improve the permitting process to make rebuilding easy. And in the meantime, all these officials are out there writing for illegal alien criminals. It is a true disgrace, and it's on us as broadcasters to get this out there so the public understands this is what Democrats have rocked. And just like a very simple breakdown of the social compact, if we can't enjoy our parks, are we really a country? It's just like a very basic question.

It's another one, Charlie, where me growing up in blue areas, it helped me a lot because I went to UC Berkeley, which is known for People's Park and People's Park was where all the free speech protests, a lot of them would take place. And there was discussion of putting up a parking lot on People's Park in Berkeley and they didn't. They left it as a park and the park was unusable for normal people, unusable for families, unusable for college students. And it became a homeless drug den and everyone was comfortable with it. No one talked about it. We just all sleepwalk in a trance past people's park from the dorms on our way to campus as if that was preferable to a parking lot.

A parking lot would have been better, which is sad to say. I love parks. I'm an outdoor guy. I love to touch grass. It is one of the best piece of advice you can give people. But one of these things that happens in these major cities is that we let the parks just become homeless dens. And we've some, for some reason, we've accepted it. We all hate it, but we've accepted it and we shouldn't. And again, another part of that, which is one of the things I speak about often, which

is if you can't walk your major cities at night, unattended and alone, your country is in a bad shape and things need to dramatically change. For example, I feel perfectly fine. I mean, again, I'm going to be visiting. I'll see it myself walking the streets of Tokyo at night. I mean, I'm going there in September. Everyone tells me that it's fine. Walk the streets of Seoul, South Korea. Walk the streets of Chicago or LA or San Francisco. I think that the defining characteristic of President Trump's agenda will be, can we exert dominion over the cities? We are a fake movement if we just control the rules.

If we just control the rules and we don't get to the heartbeat of the cities, your thoughts, Alex Marlowe, one minute remaining. Yeah, this is something I will put a marker on this. I'm looking way down the field, but LA's supposed to be hosting the Olympics, allegedly, in a few years. Our freeway system doesn't work. Yeah, and the World Cup. Our freeway system doesn't work.

We have the worst airport in America. We have increasing crime. We have key parts of the city burned down. Our downtown is entirely unusable. It is without charm, without character, not safe at all. People can't wait to get out of here fast enough. And we're supposed to bring the whole world, not just to represent L.A., but to represent the United States of America.

This should be truly unacceptable. And this should be an obsession of the Karen Bass's and the Gavin Newsom's of the world. As far as I can tell, they're not interested at all. Alex Marlow, excellent work as always. Deeply appreciate it. Plug your book really quick and remind people you'll be at SAS. Thank for joining us. We'll see you next time. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me.

Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me.

Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me.

Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having me. Thanks for having meowe, thanks so much. Thanks so much for listening, everybody. Email us as always, freedomatcharlykirk.com. Thanks so much for listening and God bless. For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to charlykirk.com.