The Megyn Kelly Show - Fox's Post-Tucker Crisis, Harry's Media Vendetta, and Harms of Gender "Transition," with Chadwick Moore, Dr. Miriam Grossman, and Nile Gardiner | Ep. 568

Episode Date: June 8, 2023

Megyn Kelly is joined by Chadwick Moore, author of the forthcoming book "Tucker," to talk about Tucker Carlson's first Twitter "episode" dropping this week, what we're learning about the leaks targeting him, the latest battle in his war with Fox News, Fox's terrible ratings continuing, Moore's ban from Fox, what may have been behind Fox's decision to take Tucker Carlson off the air, and more. Then Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation joins to discuss their lawsuit looking into whether Prince Harry got preferential treatment from the U.S. government when he moved to America, if he disclosed his past drug use, Prince Harry's vendetta against the media, never taking responsibility and the arrogance of Harry and Meghan, blaming the tabloids and the Royal family for everything, Finally Dr. Miriam Grossman, author of the forthcoming book "Lost in Trans Nation," joins to talk about the massive increase in kids identifying as trans, how parents can be prepared, Dr. Grossman mission to provide parents the tools to stop the insanity, the devastating emotional impact on kids and parents, the long-term ramifications of these medical interventions, the capture of medical institutions, a lack of "medical consensus" on puberty blockers, horrifying stories of gender mutilation, whether it's polite to use pronouns, and more.Moore: https://www.tuckerthebook.comGardiner: https://twitter.com/NileGardinerGrossman: https://www.miriamgrossmanmd.com Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We have a great program lined up for you today. Later, we will be joined by Niall Gardner for the latest on Prince Harry's immigration troubles here in the United States. Wait until you hear this. And then we will hear from Dr. Miriam Grossman to discuss her new book centered on transgender ideology. You may remember her. She was one of the stars of Matt Walsh's and the Daily Wire's What is a Woman? She was the sane one in there spewing a bunch of sense in the midst of a lot of nonsense. And she was a great find and has

been an important commentator and expert on all of this. She's been warning parents about gender ideology since the early 2000s and will share some of that knowledge with us. But we begin today with Chadwick Moore. Chadwick is an author, journalist, and contributing editor at The Spectator. In May, he announced he has been writing a biography of Tucker Carlson. And this came out just a month after Tucker was taken off the air by Fox. Chadwick was once a regular on the network and one of Tucker's final guests. He was on that very last show of Tucker's, but now claims he is banned from the network because he's writing a book on Tucker that comes out next month. Chadwick joins me now as there is breaking news in the Tucker versus Fox News war.

Chadwick, welcome to the show. Hey, Megan, thanks for having me on. Yeah, it's great to see you. All right, I'll get to the breaking news on this war in one second. But we had had a guest on when you first revealed that you'd been working on this book. And I think I suggested it was an authorized biography. And you said, not exactly. You've been working with Tucker. You've been talking to Tucker and his friends and so on, but it's not, how is it not authorized? Right. Well, in the sense that Tucker,

I have complete editorial control. So Tucker has been along the whole way. He agreed. You know, I said we said we want to do this book. And Tucker was like, yeah, sure. Why not? And he's been totally open. But, you know, some authorized biographies are the subject will appoint a writer. They get to see what's in the book. Tucker's not seen a word, nor has he asked to see a word. And so we've had complete editorial independence in this book. I see. And when we've had complete editorial independence in this book. I see. And when did this project start? It started last spring is when my publisher came to me with the idea that they want to do a book on Tucker Carlson. And it was supposed to actually be released May 31st of

this year. And we were basically done. I submitted my manuscript in late March. And we were just sort of going through it. In fact, the week that his show was taken off the air, I had my manuscript in late March, and we were just sort of going through it. In fact, the week that his show was taken off the air, I had my last call with him scheduled to just answer some last minute questions, tidy up some loose ends. And then his show was taken off the air. And so since then, I've gotten to interview him twice regarding the aftermath and then update the book with new chapters relating to that. This is like not in any way to compare Tucker to Sam Bankman Freed, but this reminds me of there was an author, I'm trying to remember which one it was, a famous author who'd been trailing Sam Bankman Freed for some time. And then it came out that he was accused of running this massive fraud and his whole crypto thing collapsed. So you're covering somebody who's not a criminal, quite the contrary, but just doing a profile on an interesting guy, a book on an

interesting guy, and then boom, he becomes the center of the media universe, even more so the news universe. I mean, sometimes as a journalist, you just get lucky. I mean, that's not to celebrate Tucker's problems, but I think he too would admit this point. Yeah, Well, there's another incident that comes to mind is someone was working on a biography of Steve Jobs, right? When he died. And then that book, you know, kind of took off, you know, I'm not celebrating Tucker's show being taken off the air by any means, but yeah, the timing is sort of incredible. Yeah. It was Michael Lewis who had been following around Sam Bankman Frieden. I remember, I think it was CAA, the agency, sent out all these memos to people saying, Michael Lewis is already writing the book.

He's already writing the book. Don't get any ideas. He's got it. He's got exclusive access. So I think there will be a huge audience for your book and people can pre-order it now. It's just called Tucker. And you should order it because we want to support Chadwick and we want to support Tucker. And the audience is already doing that at Fox News. I'm going to get into the ratings, but they're absolutely abysmal in his time slot and throughout the prime time. I don't know if we're calling this a boycott or just people are done. It's not like a temporary thing. They're just done with Fox after this behavior and the latest numbers show it. So let me begin here. Last night, two nights ago, I think it was Tucker released episode one, what he was calling episode one of his new show. It's an independent offering that he's producing

himself. He popped up on air, I think out of his main studio and offered, it was about 11 minutes, his thoughts on the media and other things today. It was just a brief bit. Here's a sound bit from it. Diversity is our strength. Trans women are women. Zelensky is Churchill. It's all self-evidently true. Doesn't need an explanation and don't ask questions. By this point, it's possible that American citizens are the least informed people in the world. As of today, we've come to Twitter, which we're told there are no gatekeepers here. If that turns out to be false, we'll leave. Okay, so that's, he pops up his thoughts. And then Chadwick, I mean, like that, he reportedly got a letter from

Fox News saying you breached your contract. You are required to stay exclusive to us. Because remember, as I first reported, he was not fired. He was just booted off of his show. They continue to pay him because they want to keep him muzzled through at least 2025. Well, he's having a legal battle with them. They're slow rolling it because they the longer he's on the sidelines, the better for them. And this is Tucker's first real middle finger, I think, to them saying, I'm doing it. I will not stay muzzled. How do you see it? Right. And Fox's lawyer said something about him rendering services. Well, I don't know if he's actually rendering services if he's not getting paid. From what I was told initially is that Twitter is not mentioned in his non-compete. And that is why I suppose that Fox News employees are

allowed to use Twitter to express their opinions on issues of the day. And that would be apparently what Tucker did in this. You know, he's not making money. He's not an employee of Elon Musk or partnering with Elon Musk in any way. And Fox is he people have said that they're committed to keeping him off the air until after the election. His contract runs out in early 2025. And they're certainly luring up. But I've heard from a lot of Fox people, you know, you would know better than anyone, this is pretty standard behavior for Fox sending these threatening letters to people that were once employees or still under contract with them.

They're reportedly and I haven't seen Tucker's deal, but reportedly there is a clause in it that prohibits him from, as you point out, rendering services of any type whatsoever, whether over the internet via streaming or similar distribution or other digital distribution, whether known or hereafter devised. But Fox, of course, has allowed all of its personalities to post on Twitter since I was there. I mean, since Twitter was born. And so there will be a dispute about whether this qualifies as a quote breach. I've been talking all along about whether Fox committed a prior material breach in connection with this whole thing. They cut the guy out of a show and then they promptly engaged in what looked like a coordinated leak campaign against him.

And in that vein, I want to get into this, Chad, because there is a bizarre new twist in this whole leak saga. All right. The federal authorities are now suggesting that an outside party, an outside party, some guy I'd never heard of named Timothy Burke. He's apparently a journalist or a former journalist. He used to work for the sports website Deadspin, and then later for a short time at the Daily Beast, that this guy may have been behind the Media Matters video leaks on Tucker, the Media Matters ones, those little weird videos of him while he was on set and on cam, but not on the air.

So this was first broken by the Tampa Bay Times. They reported that a federal prosecutor in Tampa wrote a letter to Fox News last month revealing that a criminal probe is happening. But the letter did not name the target of this criminal probe, but they said it relates to Fox News. And, you know, you should be aware as a potential victim. The Times managed to tie it to Mr. Burke, the Tampa Bay Times, adding to this letter saying, we know who the target is. It's this guy, Timothy Burke. And they reported that the FBI actually raided this guy's home. Tampa Bay Times reporting that the investigation, quote, concerns allegations of unauthorized

computer access, unauthorized computer access, interception of wire, oral or electronic communication, conspiracy and other federal crimes. Now, that, or electronic communication, conspiracy, and other federal crimes. Now that, to me, suggests hacking, interception of crime. My God, what? So this guy, Burke, who is he? He's married to a Democrat city councilwoman down in Tampa. And we're all looking at this saying, what connection, if any, does he have to any of this? How would this guy get his hands on internal Fox News outtakes from Tucker's show? Well, his attorney has weighed in. His name is Mark Rash. He spoke to the Washington Post. He denied that anything illegal was done. But he seemed to admit

that his client accessed information regarding Tucker. He said to the Washington Post, quote, we are confident that when all the facts come out, it will be demonstrated that Timothy never hacked anyone and that all the information he provided was accessible to the public. What? What do you mean it was accessible? How? What's what information? Now, that is apparently being investigated by the feds and the feds are also apparently investigating not only these media matters leaks we think but the publication last fall of another unauthorized Tucker Carlson video and that was an outtake from his interview with yay Kanye West right so remember that came out it had some clip about yay saying some really weird things about I don't know fake kids being plant implanted at his home I can't remember. But that was another unauthorized release.

And now Burke's attorney is admitting to WAPO that Burke, he doesn't work for a news organization right now, but they say he's got a communications company that he's, quote, still engaged in journalism. This was the quote. Tim is a master at finding links to stuff publicly posted on the internet. If a video is posted public, unencrypted and unprotected, then there's simply no crime committed when a journalist like Tim finds it and accurately reports on it. I mean, all of this raises more questions, right? He found it. He found it on the internet.

It was unencrypted. It was unprotected. How did someone give it to him? Did someone point him on where to look for it? How would he even know that? And did he then leak all of those videos to Media Matters? And did he leak at least two of those videos to The New York Times? Remember that April article that I've called people's attention to before the April 26th, The New York Times article that first've called people's attention to before. The April 26th New York Times article that first said there are problematic texts in connection with the Dominion litigation that got Tucker fired. Oh, and by the way, we've also seen two videos of him referring to women

as yummy and talking about postmenopausal women. So is it possible this guy down in Florida leaked two videos of the many he would later allegedly give to Media Matters to the New York Times at the same time that someone was leaking confidential documents to the Times from the Dominion litigation that only Dominion and Fox News would have? I mean, this is like getting so twisted. All this is going to be investigated. Right now, it looks like multiple people were out to hurt Tucker Carlson. Chadwick, what do you make of it all? So my first impression was actually when those videos were leaked was, so Tucker had been through this before that there's a lot of third-party contractors that'll work on his nightly show. And I would know that like, I'm in New York, he's in Florida. So a

lot of my appearances would be through a mobile studio or if I'm traveling some local studio. My first thought when I saw those videos was that some third-party contractor through a mobile studio or if I'm traveling some local studio. My first thought when I saw those videos was that some third party contractor at a mobile studio or remote studio was just recording him because they could see him, you know, during breaks or whatever. And they wanted to make some money to get on the, you know, while this was in the news and they sold it to Media Matters or whoever. That's what I initially thought. It happened to Tucker before. There was a few years ago that he was talking about how he had surgery and he took some painkillers and actually the unedited audio was his sort of sympathizing with basically opioid addicts, how horrible it is to

be on these drugs. It was edited to make it sound like he was a drug addict, which he's been sober for over 20 years. So this has happened to him. And it was a third party contractor who did that. So that was my initial thought. But then I wondered, of course, with with with access to things that why would Fox News go on while this is happening and disparage him to the New York Times and say, well, he was fired over these, this racist text message he sent, one text message, it wasn't racist at all. And that all happened in conjunction with this. So then, you know, I wondered if maybe Fox was behind these leaks and trying to create an atmosphere to turn against Tucker, which obviously backfired. Anyone who saw those videos that sort of more endeared them to Tucker, it was just a guy being a guy and joking around with his staff. Right. Now, I said in the year at the time that if this was Fox behind these videos, they lost their fastball because

what about these videos would alienate Tucker's audience from Tucker? And I do know that Fox is in a deep panic about Tucker coming out and competing against them. They do not want that April 26 New York Times article hit and said they believed she was the source of the leaks of at least those Tucker Carlson texts. All right. And they warned her. She was going to be fired if they caught her leaking. And then we also know that it wasn't just that New York Times piece, by the way, that led the general counsel to suspect Irina of leaking.

Like there's multiple issues, which will come out eventually. She denies it. She says it's all categorically false. But I mean, this is how panicked they are about Tucker 2.0 Chadwick. They cannot have him coming out and competing against them. That's what this is all about. So he's turfed off to the side, but he's got to remain muzzled. Yeah, exactly. And it seems like now we're realizing that Tucker was sort of artificially not only extending the life, but relevance of cable news. And I think, I mean, a lot of Fox's core viewers had had it up to their ears with Fox just over the years, feeling betrayed by things that they'd done. And also realizing that Fox was this corporation that represented things in which they stood against as sort of more nationalist, populist, civil libertarians.

But it seems like that they would give Fox a pass for the sake that they still had Tucker on the air. You know, Fox might be doing all sorts of things. They might have called Arizona too early, et cetera, et cetera. But they still let Tucker talk. They still let him on the air. So they must not be that bad. Now that they gave him the boot, we're seeing it now in the results. I mean, MSNBC is beating them in Tucker's old slot. I mean, I don't think those viewers are coming back. He was bringing people to cable news that wouldn't normally be there. And now those people are gone. They were only there for him. Yeah, that's exactly right. Well, I mean, I want to get to the ratings one second, but I do want to say all of this matters because, OK, if it was an outside party doing the

leaking of the media matters stuff, that's that can't be held against Fox News unless Fox News somehow cooperated with it or somebody inside made it available. They're saying it was it was not unauthorized. So what the hell does that mean? Right. But that does not resolve the question of who's leaking the Tucker texts in connection with the Dominion litigation, which he provided to the Fox general counsel only. Right. That's who he had them. Fox had them and Dominion had them.

And Dominion is denying that it provided any leaks of any kind. Why would it jeopardize its 800 million dollars? Fox had every incentive in the world to try to hurt Tucker at the time these were surprisingly revealed. And the Daily Caller reported in late May that this same general counsel of Fox, Viet Dinh, reached out to a Tucker associate with a message for Tucker saying, one, Irene had been warned she was going to be fired if she were caught leaking, and two, saying a Fox board member was suspected of speaking to the press as well. Fox denies all of this, right? They told the Daily Caller it's not true. But all of this matters

because if Fox was behind any of these leaks, it could very well be, as I've said, I believe it would be a breach of contract, a prior material breach of the very deal. They're now saying Tucker breached by dropping the first episode of that show on Twitter. All this is going to be played out in an arbitration. And Fox is in a very difficult position trying to say to an arbitrator, he said, we don't have to pay him. Like we fired him sort of from, from his show, uh, without cause, not even Fox is alleging they had caused the termination. And he said, okay, here's your money back. You've gotten back the benefit of the bargain, your money. Um, I've given you my benefit of the bargain, your money. I've given you my benefit of the bargain, your money.

Now just let me go. And the only thing they're going to be arbitrating over is whether they have the right to muzzle him. And the problem, Chadwick, is the numbers you just said. You just hit the nail right on the head. In the month of May, MSNBC came within 15,000 viewers of taking the month off of Fox in the key advertising demo of twenty five fifty

or I don't remember when that's ever happened before within fifteen thousand. Now, both of the numbers are down in the basement. One hundred and thirty five thousand was Fox's demo average in May in the primetime. My God, MSNBC had one hundred and twenty thousand. That's nothing. That's embarrassing. Ben Shapiro, we would be embarrassed to be logging those kinds of numbers. But even just this week on Monday, we pulled the numbers. 7 p.m., Jesse Waters almost lost to Joy Reid. He did lose to her on Tuesday. Jesse Waters lost to Joy Reid on Tuesday. The 8 p.m. hour on Monday, Harris Faulkner's in. She lost both to CNN and to MSNBC. Tucker Carlson has never done that in his life. That's never happened. I mean, he was getting four times these ratings. And indeed, it's been, I think I wrote down, it's what, a 62% drop in the Fox News demo average

for primetime year over year. Year over year, Fox has lost 62%. Hannity, too, lost. He lost to Cooper and Maddow on Monday night. My God, the entire primetime is blown up, Chad. It's three times Bud Light. You know, we're all looking at what's happening to Bud Light, but if you look at the percentages and the numbers, it's a massive bear boycott than what's happening to Bud Light. But if you look at the percentages and the numbers, it's a massive bear boycott than what's happening to Bud Light.

And, you know, it's just when I ask everyone that, you know, and I was speaking about this, why would Fox do this? For whatever reason, they pull this show up here. Everyone says to me, it's management. They are completely stupid. You can completely chalk it up to management being completely out of touch with their audience and with what's happening in media and still believing that they're the Fox News of 20 years ago, which was this indestructible juggernaut. Everyone that I'd spoken to has said that the management still believes that it's the brand that matters, not the personality, and that the faces are interchangeable and the brand will survive no matter what. When it seems like the direction that media has moved, not just social

media, et cetera, but it's moved into a place where people want personalities. They want people they can trust and they want people, they want a relationship with the person who's delivering them the news and the commentary. And Tucker certainly had that. People felt like they had a personal relationship with him and he was appointment doing. How many millions of people are still saying, I don't know what to do at eight o'clock tonight because for a million, for, for years, this is my left and right on the left. And I mean, I know, I know a lot of committed liberals who would at least tune in for Tucker's talking points just to hear what he had to say. He was number one in 25 to 54 year old Democrats as well. And all of cable. Wow. So now I'm interested in the Fox news boycott of you.

Viewers are boycotting Fox. you're getting boycotted, too. So what happened? So, you know, I was a regular on several shows, not just Tucker's. Well, two other shows, a regular and that appear on some other shows. And I was scheduled to be on Gutfeld at the end of this month, May 31st, which is normal. Every month I would be on at the end of the month. I knew to expect it. I was booked.

And the day that we announced this book, about an hour or two later, I got an email with some super lame excuse. Oh, we're overbooked. Sorry. When that's happened before, it's, hey, sorry, we bumped you to Friday instead of Tuesday. That's how it works. But there was none of that. So I knew it was going on. And I also knew from sources that people who still work at Fox that they were forbidden from saying the name Tucker on air. And it's not like I knew it was going on. And I also knew from sources that people still work at Fox that they were forbidden from saying the name Tucker on air. And it's not like I knew they wouldn't plug my book, you know, but I figured I would still go on Fox. I was asked before I announced the book the week that they took Tucker's show off the air. I was asked to come on that replacement show three times. And I politely declined, even though I really I really like all the people who work there.

Like, you know, I really like the bookers and the producers, but I declined because it felt dirty. And I just didn't feel good going on that show, especially when I announced this book, you know. Yeah. But I figured I'd still go on Gutfeld because I had a relationship with them and I wouldn't I'd be polite and respectful. I wouldn't mention the Tucker book and because I knew they wouldn't like that. But I was pulled off. And and, you know, and when then when I when I just tweeted about it, I thought people just know that this is how silly this is. Gutfeld blocked me on Twitter. I couldn't believe it. I'm surprised. Well, there you have it. Wow. You know, it's a lot of news personalities are very thin skinned. I didn't definitely do not.

I don't think Greg Gutfeld is one of them, but who knows what's behind all of that? Let me ask you this. You did come out with reporting that on the reason for Tucker's termination. And you said that you had sources who told you that this really was about Dominion, that there was a deal with Dominion to pull him off the air. And we've talked about this before on the show and how Dominion's two denials that we have found that that was true are very carefully worded. They speak about Dominion never insisted that Tucker be fired. They never demanded that Tucker be fired, but they don't answer the question, well, was it a deal term? Was it volunteered? Did you ask as a question? And then the answer was yes. It's very,

it leaves open a whole other host of possibilities that this did wind up as a deal term, if not in writing, then by oral agreement. So what do you know on it? Well, I also agree with you. The word insistence is interesting, but also the word fired. He's not fired. He's still an employee of Fox News. And so this is what sources told me. And Dominion's obviously, we just said that denied it and Fox has denied it and said, under no certain terms is this the case. The people who told me this have never misled me before. I don't think they have any reason to lie. And I feel like- And would they be in a position to know, Chadwick?

I feel like they would absolutely be in a position to know. But that's not to say, this is just, I was reporting what I was told. And if that's not, I think it's certain that the Dominion situation was the reason for this. Now, whether it was a condition, which is what I was told, I've never seen any paperwork. I don't know. But I feel like those people would be in a position to know. Or the other theory that I all that, you know, if my sources had not told me this, the theory I would have gone with would have been simply Fox was trying to make an example and they're trying to get everyone in line. And they were saying, we're going to pull this guy

off the air to show you everyone else. He's getting lined because he obviously did not push any of these, these theories that the voting machines were rigged. I mean, he actually pushed back against it. Yeah. When Sidney Powell came on his show, he kind of humiliated her and it was very clear that he wasn't buying. I don't think she went on. He just did a talking points memo eviscerating her saying she was a liar. Yeah, there are other people on Fox

who definitely pushed this theory and they are still there. So what I would have thought had happened would be that simply Fox wanted to make an example out of him. And then being as arrogant as they are, thinking they'll recover. It's no different than when anyone else has left. We'll be fine.

We're Fox. The interesting thing now is that so much has changed. So I think that Fox felt comfortable because I left. They didn't have a ratings dip. Bill O'Reilly left first year of the Trump administration. They didn't have a ratings dip. And I would suggest those situations are very different than this one. I left voluntarily. No one's going to hold that against Fox. And then they quickly replaced my time slot with at first the five, which didn't work. But ultimately, Tucker went there

and then he moved to the APM once Bill left. And and so they they chose well. Right. But it was during the Trump administration. The O'Reilly thing is different because they fired him. But it was right during Trump. It was in the during the height of Trump. And they had that cushion. They had the ratings gift of Donald Trump. I mean, for the love of God, CNN's ratings were high. Like that was the power of Trump. Now they're in a very different place. And the one interesting guy they really had, with all due respect to the other personalities, I mean, Tucker's just the unicorn. The one interesting guy they had, they turfed and the viewership has disappeared.

They've lost a million viewers and some have gone to Newsmax, but not all. Most, I think, have come over into the digital lane and now are ungettable. They're not going back to Fox. Fox is Bud Light. It's embarrassing to watch them. They feel betrayed and like they don't like their audience. And on top of that, a lot of people hadn't even discovered podcasting or digital media as a source of, especially older people. And now they have, they were forced over into this lane. And once you forced over here, you're really enjoying it. It's a totally different way and fun and better way of consuming your news. Yeah, completely. I agree. And a very good point

too. And yeah, the circumstances of, yeah, your departure, you couldn't really be mad at Fox for that. And Bill O'Reilly, there was, you know, the, the scandals that were, that had surfaced. So, but with Tucker, it was so, I mean, everyone always thought, I think everyone always knew he would be taken off eventually because people would watch his show and say, there's no way they're going to keep letting him say every night when he appeared, people would be like, I can't believe they still let him talk. I think that people, most, mostly everyone felt that, that it would be content related. There'd be one show where he said like that one thing you can't say and then he'd be gone. I think that's what everyone thought would happen.

And so because the circumstances are so mysterious and so shady and they still not giving him a reason. You know, Tucker told me that the morning that his show was taken off the air, April 24th, Suzanne Scott just called him up. It was the six year anniversary of his show moving into the 8 p.m. time slot. His phone rang. He thought he was calling to she was calling to congratulate him on this anniversary. And she just said, we're taking your show off the air. Thank you very much. Goodbye. And at the same time, two other executives were calling Justin Wells, his executive producer, with the same thing in this kind of coordinated hit. And that was it. That was he got no explanation or anything of the sort directly from Fox. I mean, to say that it's rude is a gross understatement. It was just all thanks

for your loyal years of service. Get the F out. Last question. What's, what's happening now is like, I don't believe that the 11 minute submission is the new Tucker Carlson show. I mean, I think he's got more in store for us. That was just an initial sort of offering that had a little bit more substance than his earlier post that was just sort of like, hey, I'm still here. So what do you think, what is happening?

What should we make of the fact that this video dropped? And what's Tucker likely to do next? Well, I know a lot of his team, he had about 25 people at Fox working on his three shows, two on Fox Nation and the one on Fox News. And a lot of those people left with him. And some who 25 people at Fox working on his three shows, two on Fox Nation and the one on Fox News. And a lot of those people left with him.

And some who are still at Fox are trying to get out of their contracts to join him. A lot of them went up to Maine to start rebuilding his studio after Fox dismantled it. We saw that in the news. And Tucker hasn't told me this, but some of the people who work for him have told me they have ambitions to launch his own network, similar to, I guess, what Glenn Beck did with The Blaze or Daily Wire. That was something that was in sort of common knowledge in Fox a few years ago that they were talking about launching a network through Fox. And then Fox said, no, no, no, we want to put you give you two shows on Fox Nation. That's the future. So they kind of missed out on that one. So I imagine that that might be something that they're working towards. But I don't know for sure. Directly from Tucker. Fox believes it cannot have Tucker competing against them. That is one of those facts they should have thought about a couple months ago.

Yeah. All right. So the book's available right now for preorder, right? It's just called Tucker. That's right. Yeah. You go to Tucker the book dot com to find out more anywhere you get books. You can preorder it. It comes out July 18. Look, even before this, he's a fascinating figure, a longtime friend.

And I'm really glad you did this piece. There have been so many hit pieces on Tucker. He genuinely is despised by many on the left based on a bunch of misinformation. Not all some of his positions are controversial and you may choose not to like him, but you can't deny the guy is absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for writing the book

and for coming on. Oh, thank you so much. It was such a pleasure. Likewise. All right, and we're going to be right back with whether Prince Harry might get the boot from America for having not crossed the right T's

and dotted the right I's in trying to get into this country in the first place. Fascinating look at his immigration history with Niall Gardner. Did someone in the U.S. government give Prince Harry preferential treatment when he decided to move to America? You know, this guy does not think the rules apply to him. The question is whether we agreed, our immigration officials. That is the question at the heart of a new legal challenge trying to see those documents. Joining me now, Niall Gardner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation, the organization that is rightfully demanding answers

from U.S. immigration authorities. Niall, welcome to the show. Great to see you. Great to see you, Megan. Many thanks for having me on the show today. Of course. All right. So explain to the audience what it is you guys are trying to get from our immigration officials. So the Heritage Foundation is calling for the release of Prince Harry's immigration records. And we have sued the Department of Homeland Security for the release of those records. We believe there is a very clear public interest in the release of Prince Harry's application to reside in the United States. After all, he admitted to widespread and extensive drug use in his memoir, Sp, a best-selling book on both sides of the

Atlantic selling a huge number of copies. And he talks in detail in Spare about very extensive illegal drug use. And we want to establish whether or not Prince Harry was honest in his immigration application. After all, the penalties are extremely severe if he was lying at all in his application. After all, the penalties are extremely severe if he was lying at all in his application. After all, that would be perjury, a criminal offense. So we want to know whether or not Harry was completely honest in his application, but also whether or not he received any kind of preferential treatment in terms of his application to the United States and whether senior US officials were involved in fast tracking his application and whether or not they turned a blind eye to his extensive drug use. Because, well, Niall, explain to the audience, because there's an issue about drug use. People

may be wondering why you're referencing his admissions about drug use. There is an issue for visa applicants when it comes to prior drug use. Absolutely. So when a foreign national applies for a US visa, they are asked whether or not they have used drugs in the past. If they say yes, they then have to fill out a more detailed questionnaire, answer further questions. In some cases, individuals are interviewed by US officials. And so the United States is very strict in terms of applicants for US visas, stipulating clearly whether or not they've used drugs. And if so, they then have to outline in detail their drug use. And so the rules are

very, very strict. In many cases, individuals are refused entry to the United States based upon their drug use. And that's happened in a number of high profile cases involving British celebrities in the past. And so Harry has admitted to extremely extensive drug use involving a large number of illegal substances. And therefore, his application should have received a great deal of scrutiny by US immigration officials. And I would say in many cases, like Harry's, those individuals have been denied entry to the United States. Right.

There is a record of that, of other people being told, no, you're a drug abuser or you've had that in your past. You're not coming in the US. Some may think it's an antiquated rule, but it is a rule that has been enforced repeatedly, even against some public figures. Now, the New York Post reports that sources close to Harry say he answered the questions on his application seeking a US visa truthfully. Now, if that is true, then he would have admitted to the prior drug use.

And if the documents show that, where does that leave us? Yeah, so that's a very good point there. And I think one newspaper article in the UK referenced a source close to Harry who claimed that Harry had been honest and truthful in terms of his application. If that is the case, then of course, Harry should fully support the release of his immigration records. We've heard nothing at all, of course, from Harris Camp with regard to the immigration issue. And if Harry has nothing to hide, he should fully support the release of those documents. But even if he was honest and truthful, there's also the issue of whether he

received some kind of preferential treatment by US officials. That's another matter as well that we want to really look into. We believe the US public has the right to see those immigration records. Harry, after all, is one of the most famous individuals in the world. He is a household name now in the United States, is a huge public figure. There's a public interest, I think, in establishing exactly what was on the immigration application, but also who intervened on his behalf in terms of U.S. government officials. It appears as though his visa was fast-tracked. Now, many people applying to the United States have to wait an extremely long time to have their application approved, in

some cases many years. But Harry seemed to sail through the process. So there's also the issue of whether or not US officials directly intervened to give him preferential treatment, which would be absolutely wrong. Everyone should be treated equally and fairly. How is any of this influenced by the fact that he's married to an American? Yeah, so of course, Harry's married to American citizen Meghan Markle. That should not make any difference, actually, in terms of the scrutiny for his application.

There is a strong possibility, of course, that Harry may seek at some stage to Harry for a green card and for citizenship. What if he doesn't get it? Let's go the other way. The stakes are certainly very high here. What if he did lie? If he did lie, does the visa get revoked? Is there a scenario in which he gets kicked out and sent back to England, which is where most of us would like both of them to go?

That's a very good question, Megan. And if he did lie on his application, that would be perjury, a criminal offense. Now, normally in these circumstances, individuals involved are asked to leave the United States. And so I think that would happen in the case of Prince Harry. There would also be immense, I think, public scrutiny of his immigration application if it was released. And I think there would be intense media interest. I think that US officials certainly would have to take action here. And undoubtedly, I do think that Harry's position in the United States would be absolutely untenable if it was revealed that he had lied on an immigration application. And most likely, I think that he would actually seek to go to a country like Canada, for example. He is hugely

unpopular in the United Kingdom. Harry and Meghan are two of the most deeply unpopular figures in the UK right now. I think it's highly unlikely that he would seek to return to the United Kingdom. A more likely destination I think would be Canada or somewhere in Europe actually. He is suing by my count at least six different entities or has at least six different lawsuits going in many claiming he's the victim of somebody else's dishonest reporting. You know, he goes after the media every other day. Yes. Or it's alleged dishonest reporting. So if he lied on his application to come into this country, it's a deal.

It is important to know. And I wouldn't put it past him for one second. I mean, maybe he'll try to wiggle out of it by saying the wording of the visa allowed him some wiggle room on what he said. But I would be shocked if he actually admitted his prior drug use on his visa application. And I feel like, Niall, you tell me, this is why DHS is so reluctant to give you the document. You've petitioned for it. They've stonewalled you. That's why you're filing this lawsuit saying it's a matter of public interest. Now, normally, they might drag their heels on that if it were just a regular old private Joe. But this is a guy who's out there bragging about all of this. He's made it public. So the confidentiality argument

should go out the window. So why do you think DHS is stonewalling you? Yeah, great, great points there, Megan. And yes, absolutely. DHS, the Biden administration is stonewalling this request, which is why we have gone to a federal court. In fact, there was a hearing earlier this week presided over by a federal judge to discuss the freedom of information request and our call for expedited processing of it. And the federal judge demanded of DHS that they actually within seven days get back to him outlining whether or not they're going to release Harris immigration records. So this is a matter that is being taken very seriously at a very high level. And you have a federal judge now weighing in on this. And it's no surprise, of course, the Biden administration is stonewalling.

They don't want to release the records. Potentially, there is embarrassing information contained in those records. And this stonewalling from the Biden administration is absolutely unacceptable. It's outrageous. The American people have a right to know clearly what's in Harris' immigration records. He is a huge public figure. In fact, he has become one of the most well-known individuals in the United States today. So there's a very clear public interest. And the refusal so far of the Biden administration to release Harris' documents, I think is an absolute travesty. It is an insult actually, I think, to the American people.

Let's see it. If Harry has nothing to hide, he should be calling for it to be released. He should say, go ahead and take a look at it. Absolutely, 100%. I have no problem with that. We pointed out how other people have been denied. Kate Moss, the famous model, had difficulty getting a US work visa after she appeared in the tabloids chopping and snorting a white powder.

Harry has admitted, this isn't just occasional weed smoking, although that's also been admitted to by him. He's admitted to using hard drugs in the United Kingdom, but also he's admitted to drug use in the United States. And in fact, he has endorsed the use of some kinds of drugs actually for therapeutic reasons. And so it's all there in his book and also in his interviews as well. It's all on public record here. And Prince Harry should be held to account. The United States government should be held to account for not releasing the records. And this is a matter of major public interest. And also, it should be pointed out, I think, Megan, that Prince Harry has become a major public figure

in the United States and actively involved on a number of causes. He's given some big speeches. He's given a large number of very high profile media interviews. You don't understand him. He wants his privacy. He was made to do those things. What he really wants is a private life away from the glare and glitter of the cameras. All right, wait, I've got to ask you about this other lawsuit he's involved in. So he's filed several. You filed this one, but he's filed several. And this one over in the UK, he was on the witness stand all week testifying about, except for Monday, he was on the witness stand all week testifying about except for Monday because he missed the opening arguments because he wanted to be at

Lilibet's birthday party, even though the judge had said be here. And the judge was none too happy because the rules don't apply to him. You see, in any event, he's claiming that this this group, the Mirror, that the publication in the UK did things like phone hacking to him. But he has, as far as I can tell, very little proof. They've admitted that they did one untoward thing one time with respect to him and they've apologized. But he has not been able to prove that his phones were hacked. He just keeps saying, I had weird missed voicemails or missed calls, like lots of missed calls on my phone and voicemails that it looked like somebody had already listened to. They didn't have the like new dot on them. I mean, that's not proof, unfortunately for Harry. So we'll see how that goes. But here's what I wanted to ask you about

in that litigation. He comes out, Niall, and he blames all of his problems. I mean, all of them on the media. He actually said in his quote, they could say he submitted his testimony, but he did it in writing the direct exam. The cross exam is live. And he said in his witness statement during his adolescence and young adulthood, the tabloids, the evil tabloids cast him in a role, the fick and the stereotypes that they wanted to pin on me, mainly because I thought that if they are printing this rubbish about me and people were believing it, I may as well do the crime, so to speak. He takes responsibility for absolutely nothing. Yeah, precisely. And I closely follow the court proceedings in London this week. And Harry comes across as someone who has no sense of personal responsibility at all. He comes across as basically a hugely entitled figure, extremely narcissistic, I think, in many

respects, but also delusional and paranoid. And I think that his evidence this week and his overall approach to the hearings has been a disaster for Harry actually. And I think the British public have been monumentally unimpressed with his performance this week, and are turning even further against him. This is an individual who I think has real delusions of grandeur. And the same is the case, of course, with Meghan Markle as well. And the level of paranoid delusion and narcissism we saw on display in the High Court this week was absolutely staggering, even by the standards of Prince Harry here. And he has very little chance, I think, of winning this case against the Mirror Group newspapers. He has no firm evidence whatsoever. And I think that this was, you know, his appearance in court this week was an absolute disaster, I think, in many respects.

He didn't even show up on the first day, as you pointed out. And he came across as incredibly arrogant, actually. And that's something I think the British public really don't like at all. And Harry has become, I think, one of the most unpopular public figures in the UK of the modern era. And that's saying a lot. Well, here's the thing. I mean, he spent the past six months in his Netflix show, in his memoir spare, in his interviews, telling us the royal family was responsible for all the terrible leaks about him. The royal family was out to get him and the palace aides. And now he's in court saying, oh, you know what? I might've been wrong about some of the things I put in my book. It's actually the evil tabloids.

So which is it? Was it the royal family was out to get you or the tabloids were out to get you? Because he seems to have blame for everyone other than himself. And I'll give you just one example. He's now claiming Piers Morgan, who's a great, correct critic of Harry and Meghan, that the reason Piers doesn't like them is because Piers worked for one of these publications back in the day. He was editor of the Daily Mirror between 1995 and 2004. And he accuses Piers of doing bad things and that all of Piers's criticism of them is in retaliation for the fact that Harry's brought this lawsuit. I'm looking at this thinking, or Harry, he, like the rest of us, just doesn't like you, or your wife. It's something you're going to have to learn to get your arms around. I'll give you the final word, Niall. Yes, I think that Harry just blames everyone else for his own problems and issues.

And clearly, he has a big vendetta against the British media, in particular against figures like Piers Morgan. Everything Piers Morgan, I think, has said about Prince Harry is absolutely 100% correct. I think also, Harry has an intense hatred for the royal family as well. And he has used his presence in America as a launchpad from which to attack the royal family, the British people, the British media. And I think it's absolutely outrageous, actually. And I think that he is somebody with no sense of responsibility for

his own actions, he will blame everybody else. And Harry is only himself to blame for everything in his life, actually. And he's somebody who always presents himself as a permanent victim. Yeah, that's the problem. He can sue everybody. But the problem is his biggest enemy is inside. And until he manages that one, his problems aren't going away. Niall Gardner, what a pleasure. We'll continue to follow it. Let us know how it works out. I will do. Many thanks, Megan. All the best. We will be right back with Dr. Miriam Grossman. You're not going to want to miss her. Now we're joined by someone I have been wanting to speak with since I saw her

in Matt Walsh's of The Daily Wire, what is a woman film last year? It was all this crazy nonsense being spewed in there, which Matt was exposing. Then came this voice of reason. You were like, thank God, who is this woman? Well, her name is Dr. Miriam Grossman. She's a practicing psychiatrist, author, and public speaker. And she has provided and continues to provide

a much needed voice of reason in this country. The documentary in which she appeared now has over 180 million views on Twitter. I should say that the view thing is a little odd. You basically get a view counted if you just see it for two seconds, you know, if it scrolls by in your timeline. But there's no question that the documentary has been huge at the Daily Wire and got even more attention on its one-year anniversary late last week. Here's a clip of Dr. Grossman in the documentary. Is there anyone willing to give me a straight answer? Ideally, somebody with a bunch of medical degrees on the wall. Dr. Grossman, thanks for talking to us. So first, let's define the terms sex and gender.

Yes, please. Sex is biology. Sex is unchanging. It's based on chromosomes. 99.999% of the cells in the body are marked either male or female. Gender, on the other hand, is a perception. It's a feeling. It's a way of identifying. It's an experience. Okay, that's subjective. It sounds like what you're saying is that if a man is male but thinks of himself as a woman, he's not actually a woman? That's correct.

Believe it or not, that's a controversial statement in 2023 America. Dr. Grossman has a new book. It's called Lost in Transnation. That is such a good title. Lost in Transnation. A Child Psychiatrist's Guide Out of the Madness. I'm just going to say it one more time. Lost in Transnation, A Child Psychiatrist's Guide Out of the Madness. It's out next month and she joins me now. Welcome, Dr. Grossman. So

great to have you on. Well, thank you so much, Megan, for having me. I when was it that you first sort of went from, this is a minor problem, you know, a few people have this, be kind to there, I have to write this book, we've got to stop this role. Yeah. Well, first, let me acknowledge that you've really done a great job recently on this issue. And, you know, I've seen some of your material, especially recently, I think within the past week or so, and you're really doing a great job staying on top of this issue. Thank you. So I want to say that I appreciate that and I want to acknowledge that. I also want to acknowledge just at the get-go that there are individuals should be the opposite sex. Now, again, those are extremely rare kids. We've always known about them.

I learned about them when I was in medical school and doing my training in child psychiatry, but they were so unbelievably rare that I never expected to see even one child like that in my practice. And now here I am a few decades later, and that's all I do. My practice is composed of kids who have distress over their sex bodies, let's put it that way, and their parents. However, the kids that I'm seeing are not those kids that I described to you a moment ago, those one in 10,000 kids who recognized and started to express their discomfort at an early age. No, these are kids without any history whatsoever of having been uncomfortable with being boys and girls. These are kids who never would have heard about that idea of being born in the wrong body had they not heard about it from friends or on the internet or from their teachers or their guidance counselor. So this is an altogether different group of people.

And that's why I'm here today to talk to you about those kids. And that's why I wrote the book, because parents are being blindsided. They're being ambushed. And suddenly, out of the blue, their child announces or texts to them that they are now not their son, they're their daughter, they have a new name, they have new pronouns, and they're informing their parents that this is now the reality, and they would like an appointment at a clinic to get hormones. Now, most parents are not expecting this at all. And like I said, they're blindsided. They don't know how to respond.

They don't know how to understand what this is all about. And so they're stuck in a massive crisis. And it often turns into a catastrophe. I'm not using that word lightly. I use that word after a lot of deliberation. And I have seen at this point, I've talked to hundreds of parents in whose homes this has become catastrophic. And so I wrote this book in order to provide parents ahead of time. I don't want them to suddenly at the, you know, that evening when they get the text or the announcement at the dinner table, I don't want them to suddenly, you know, feel lost. Like, what? What do I do with this?

Am I going to use this new name? Do I use these pronouns? Could my kid really be one of those rare cases of transgenderism? I mean, Megan, you have three teenagers, right? Just about. Yeah. So what would you do? What would you do? One of your kids is out of the blue. I know what I'd do. I would do what Abigail Schreier said to do in her book, which is we'd be out of here. They would be disconnected from their iPhone or their iPad immediately. And we'd go take a six month trip to see America, to go see the Grand Canyon, or maybe to see parts of Europe,

whatever we could do. And I would be doing the homeschool program. And I would disconnect them from all of these forces, because it would suggest to me that I may have been a little absentee in keeping a good eye on them to begin with and what they were taking in. Okay, so you're better prepared and better educated than the average person, than the average parent. But I would say even more, Megan, than what you said, is that I would have wanted you years ago, if possible, but it's never too late to begin educating your child with the medically accurate, biologically accurate information that they need. Yeah, we're doing that.

Oh, great. But it's not about me. Like, I'm not worried about my kids. I'm worried about kids in America, because it is happening. And I have to tell you, I have a dear friend, a conservative person. It's not all because I know there's a belief now it's only happening with liberals. This person is a conservative and their daughter has gotten older and got sucked into the college situation and was a little socially awkward and overweight and wound up going down this road. And I think this couple, the parents are desperate for some sort of solution to it. So it doesn't, it does happen to even loving parents who are paying attention, who would love to find some inoculation along the lines of what you're

saying. So keep going. Well, of course, I mean, this is no family is immune. And the families that I've had contact with, again,, every, you know, love and their time and their hard-earned money. And these are parents that have been looking out for their kid. They just weren't looking out for this. And they never expected this to happen. So, you know, I'm a woman on a mission. And my mission is to provide parents with the information that they need and the tools that they need in order to prevent this catastrophe. And if it still does come to their family, to know how to manage it. Can we talk about it? So let's just to harken back to when I had Abigail Schreier on the show for the first time, right after we launched in 2020, we talked about the problem of capture of the

American Psychiatric Association and others, the American Pediatric Association too, or Academy of Pediatrics, really just pushing gender affirming care. Now it's gender confirming care. And how Abigail was saying, beware if you're a parent that this happens to, don't just bring your kid into the child psychiatrist and expect, oh, they're going to work it out because those are pushers too. And we talked about how difficult it was to find somebody

like you who has expertise in child psychiatry, who would be willing to actually figure out what the root cause is of this child's dysphoric moment, as opposed to just affirming you really are the opposite sex. So I'm so happy to hear that this is your whole business. And I know you have a waiting list. Like parents need someone like you to you to not only counsel their children, but to write a book like this, if they can't get in to see you. Well, and I and I go into all of that in the book. And I explained to parents, how did this happen? How did our mainstream medical establishment get captured and taken over by these dangerous ideas. The idea that a child can be born in the wrong body and the idea of exposing a child to that notion as if it's normal and as if it's something to celebrate. How did this happen? How were these organizations taken

over? And it's not just the psychiatric and psychological organizations. It's also the endocrine society. OK, these are the endocrinologists through the medical establishment, a successful crusade, I'm sorry to say. But parents need to know how that happened and how to find practitioners that have not been captured. And I give that guidance as well. When you say, okay, so for parents out there who want to start educating their children before they start getting abused with these notions, sure. I mean, we just did a story yesterday on how there was a school district in Connecticut showing the kids a video. They say it's appropriate as of age two. They were showing it to elementary school students where there's a child saying, I wasn't sure if I was a girl or a boy, so I'm just both. I'm both. So you have to start talking about this from the cradle, basically, but start so early, Megan? Any ideology that wants to take over a generation and take over a society by the name of Chaim Genot. And he said that children are like wet cement and whatever falls on them is going to make an impression.

And that's why I'm telling parents, you have to make the first impression. Not the Internet and not Disney and not Target and not Legos. You know, all these places are sources of indoctrination to our kids. And so yes, they're starting very, very early. preschool teacher reads the book I Am Jazz to your three or four-year-old and your child hears about the idea of being born in the wrong body, that makes an impression and that plants a seed. And so what I want, and yes, you do have to begin very early and you have to begin with the correct biology that male and female, boy and girl, is established at conception. It is not some random assignment that's made in the delivery room by a doctor or a nurse that could be wrong. That's incorrect in every case except extremely rare, 0.02% of births in which the baby may have some chromosomal or other abnormality. Very, very rare conditions. And even in those conditions, that baby is, their reproductive system is formed either around producing sperm or producing X, which is the definition of male

with female. So yeah, we have to start very early. We have to- Let me ask you a question on this. In the Matt Walsh clip, you're saying, you know, biological sex is real and it's along the lines of what you just said, determined at conception, but gender is something a little different. So what if, what if the child says, okay, I accept that I am biologically male, but my gender is female and I'm going to, and I identify as female and I'm going to live my life as female. Those are the feelings I'm having. You will accept me or I will kill myself. Well, hopefully before you get to that point, you know, you're, you're, you're prepared, you understand what this is about, but you know, if it, let's say that you haven't,

and let's say that that's the first indication you have your kid comes over you and says what what you just said me well i would say the most important thing is to not freak out which is difficult yeah but the most important thing is to wait and freak out later, to try and stay calm. And just like with any other issue that your child may come to you with, you want to be curious and to understand what it's all about. You want to affirm the child's feelings without affirming any particular belief or idea that they're coming to you with so if the child says i my biology is female but my gender is male what i want parents to say is oh wow wow this is big

tell me more about this I want to understand this I don't completely understand it and I want to understand it because I see that this is very important to you and whatever is important to you is important to me and furthermore

if you're thinking of harming yourself, well, hold on a minute. We really need to talk about that. Are you actually having thoughts? What are these thoughts that you're having? Do we need to make an appointment with a mental health person? And that's a whole other issue.

Who do you go to? That's a huge, huge issue because a mental health person. And that's a whole other issue, who you go to. That's a huge, huge issue. Because most mental health practitioners are either not going to touch this hot potato, and they're going to refer your family to a gender clinic. And in the gender clinic, they're going to affirm your child in their new identity. They're not going to delve into it, ask questions, see about other comorbid conditions, which are most of these kids do have either anxiety or depression or some sort of neurodiverse condition, autism, the gender clinic is going to go ahead and affirm them at once. And perhaps even with your child in the room, the gender clinician, the gender expert is going to tell you that you must accept your son as your daughter, your daughter as your son. And if you do not, then, you know, you are increasing the chance

of this having a very dangerous outcome. Meanwhile, you point this out in your book as well, that the vast majority of these children will grow out of these feelings if only we allow them to. Instead, we intervene with these medical drugs and procedures and so on. But one of my questions for you in reading that was, I can certainly see how that would be true of somebody who has the sudden onset gender dysphoria caused by too much time on YouTube, caused by too many girls in the sophomore year of high school saying they're trans. So it's like, oh, that's the cool thing. But is it also true for the very, very rare kids you talked about before, the five-year-olds who are insisting, the boys saying, I'm a girl, mommy, I'm a girl. I want long hair and I want Barbies.

Is it also true that those kids will grow out of it if left alone? So for those very rare children, and again, those are the one in many tens of thousands of people, and the kids like Jazz, Jazz Jennings. Okay, from a very early age, from the age of two, Jazz was insisting about being a girl. So the studies that I quoted to you earlier, that go up to a 90% desistance rate, desistance being the word that we use to describe kids who, with time, eventually, their gender dysphoria, their discomfort with their bodies resolves. And they come to accept their bodies. And many of these kids are gay or lesbian. So, yeah, those were the numbers.

Those are the studies on those kids, those very rare kids. We have a lot of studies. And that's really telling. That's really telling, because it's like, of course, if it's sudden onset and it's a social contagion, of course, they just need to be therapied.

They need to talk to your kid about what's really going on. This is the same as we used to have with anorexia or cutting or things, the mental health issues need to be addressed,orexia or cutting or the mental health issues need to be addressed and then the symptoms get addressed after that. But if it's true of even the littles, the two-year-olds, the five-year-olds who are confused about the gender, then the hands-off protocol, it needs to be the protocol. And instead it's not. It's puberty blockers, which almost always lead right into cross-sex hormones, which

cause massive damage. Can you talk about that progression? The puberty blockers, which we're told is no problem. That's a nothing. It's a pause. And then where that leads. Well, of course. I mean, kids are put on an assembly line.

And the assembly line is very difficult to get off of. And the assembly line actually, Megan Megan begins way before the blockers it begins with this social transitioning okay so once you agree to use different pronouns and a different name those things are not just a kindness or a sign of respect which is what what we're being, you know, the kids are being told that anyone that doesn't respect your pronouns and your names are bad and hateful people. And that really is the biggest challenge here. The challenge is not in treating the anxiety and the depression and autism. The challenge is in dealing with the indoctrination in these kids that's that's the hard part um uh so i just and oh i wanted to explain whether one other thing very very important

you see gender dysphoria this sense of discomfort with your sex body. It's a symptom. Okay, symptoms can have many different etiologies or, you know, origins. So just like, let's say fever. Fever is a symptom. Fever can be due to so many things. Okay, you can have an infection. You could be dehydrated. You could have an autoimmune disease. You could have cancer. So fever is a symptom, and we don't lump all these different conditions that may cause the symptom of fever. We don't lump them all together and say this is the one treatment for fever. Of course, we don't do that. But that is exactly what the proponents of gender affirming care are saying. It doesn't matter if your kid is two years old or 20 years old, and they come to you and say that they're having the symptom of gender dysphoria, the way that you deal with that is to immediately affirm it. And there's only one approach and one understanding. There's no other way. This is the danger of gender affirming care. It's bad enough if you just do it with words and pronouns and social transition, as you point out. But then we go to the medicalization of it. And there are so many severe risks and poor outcomes from doing this that you just don't hear talked about in in the mainstream media, which is really the filter for information for folks. And let's just start there. So puberty blockers, they say, calm down. It's just a pause, just a pause,

doesn't do any harm, lets the kid get some time to sort of figure out what he or she wants. And that, of course, ignores the discussion we just had about you've already sent them on the road if you're doing social transition. Very hard for these kids to then turn around and say like, nevermind, I changed my mind. I really am the sex, you know, that, that I thought I was originally. Um, so it's, it is dangerous to go along with, okay, yeah, you, you, you've changed sexes, but now we get to the point of the, just the mere pause. Can you talk about the puberty blockers? Yeah, sure. Well, I, you know, I explain in my book why puberty is such an important developmental stage of life. There's no other time in our lives, aside from development in the womb, when we have such a massive, such a massive, you know, restructuring and development of the body and especially of the

brain. Now, the body expects, you know, any biological system is a extremely sensitive and complex, to put it lightly, system that we don't want to interfere with that system unless we have a really good reason. Puberty is not a disorder. Puberty is not a disease. It's a normal process that the body needs to go through in order to become an adult. The brain especially needs to be exposed to the process of puberty and to the surge of hormones of estrogen and testosterone in order to develop into a mature adult brain. And we've known this for a long time. Now, doctors are coming in, and this is all based, by the way, the use of these blockers, and I explain it in great detail in my book. The use of blockers is based on one small study that came out of Holland, a small study of about 55 kids.

And it's a very problematic study. And that study is the basis for what we're doing now to hundreds of thousands. Well, I don't know if it's hundreds of thousands, probably across the world, it is hundreds of thousands of kids. But we don't have, we are being led to believe that the science in this area is a settled science. And that is simply not true. That's one of the many falsehoods. That's one of the pieces of misinformation that parents are being given, you know, by pediatricians and endocrinologists and by our government. I mean, you know, that health and human services, our president has come out and said that, you

know, gender affirming care, that's the only way to go. There's a medical consensus. No, there is no medical consensus. And, you know, I get angry over this, Megan, you'll have to forgive me. I get angry. But you know what? I wake up every morning and check my email. And I have another bunch of emails from desperate parents all over the country, some of them from other countries. And they're telling me, they're begging me for help. They're begging me and they're saying, what do I do? Do I need to give my kids these blockers? Do I need to affirm them in this opposite sex? I mean, when I finish this interview with right now, and I'm going to pick up my phone and check my email on my phone,

I'm going to have another 10 to 15 emails from parents, from desperate parents, and from siblings and grandparents. So, yeah, I get pretty emotional about this. I get pretty angry because there's just a massive misinformation that's being put out there by the establishment, the medical establishment and our government and our educational system. And people are suffering. There's massive suffering that's going on as a result of this misinformation. I don't remember the stat off the top of my head. I don't know if you remember this off the top of your head, but there was a stat in

the book about how it used to just be a sprinkling of people who would show up at these gender clinics, you know, that they didn't get many takers as recently as like 2017. And now there's something like 140,000 people, it might have been girls, but people on the waiting list to get treated at these gender clinics. Well, okay, so there's a few different things. First of all, the largest gender clinic in the world is in London. It's going to be shut down shortly because of the malpractice that was going on there. We also know, by the way, you're probably aware that there was, back in February, a few months ago, a very courageous woman whistleblower in St. Louis who exposed the terrible things that were going on in that gender clinic. And I have two chapters about

that as well. So yeah, the numbers have exploded. Just in the past 10 years, the numbers are up something like 4000 5000% increase in the numbers of kids that are showing up at these clinics. If you go on to GoFundMe, and you look at their page of girls who are trying to raise money for their bilateral mastectomies, there's something like 47,000 girls who are trying to raise money to have their healthy breasts removed because they've been led to believe that they're going to feel better after that surgery misinformation false you do not seven you do not girls i'm sorry what 47 000 girls trying to get a gofundme raise to have their healthy breasts chopped off. That's right. And this is the fault of our medical establishment, of our sex educators, of our educational system, and those parts of the government that have been

taken over by this ideology. And the facts on the ground. And I am seeing these kids and families every, not every day, but six days out of seven, I'm seeing these families and the amount of distress and suffering and tears and hopelessness is really, you know, I don't have words to describe it. Because in some of these families where the kids have been indoctrinated to think that if their parents don't accept them as their new persona, synthetic persona, that their parents are evil people,

they then leave the home and they become estranged from their families. And I have a chapter in the book about the parents, Megan, and about how they are mourning the living. They're mourning the loss of their child. And not only that, but the grief that they have is a disenfranchised grief because they are told by society, by their therapists and their pediatrician and almost everybody. They're told that they're the reason that their child has this problem. They're the bad guy. They need to wake up and understand that their child was born in the wrong body and they need to accept that. And they need to bury their daughter and embrace their new son. And the procedures, again, just for the listening audience, the book is called Lost in Transnation. I hope everyone buys it, Lost in Transnation, Dr. Miriam Grossman. But the procedures

you outline in the book, you're Miriam Grossman, but the procedures you outlined in the book, you're talking about, if you go from puberty blockers to cross sex hormones as a boy, you're a boy who's confused and thinks you're a girl. You're, you're likely looking at a penis that will never work again. Like you, if you decide you made a mistake and you just want to be a boy again and not, not live as a girl, good luck. I mean, the outcome is devastating. That is correct. So the guidelines, so to speak, guidelines that have been given to us by these major medical associations like the Endocrine

Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics call for the intervention, the early intervention at the start of puberty. Now, puberty can start, so that his body is never exposed to the surge of testosterone that it's waiting for, then he will never develop mature sperm. He will never he will he will be infertile. He will never be able to have biological children. And in addition to that, what we're learning now, what we've learned from Dr. Marcy Bowers, who is probably the most prominent gender surgeon in the country, if not the world, Dr. Bowers recently admitted that in those, those boys will never be able to orgasm because they're, you know, as I was saying,

puberty is necessary to, you know, to become a functioning adult. And that includes to have a normal sexual response for your body to be aroused normally and to respond normally to sexuality. So what we are doing over here is these kids whose parents are agreeing, and they're agreeing because they're afraid that the kid will commit suicide. You know, I'm not blaming these parents. They're being, you know, misinformed. They're being by everyone, by all their trusted officials. They're being emotionally manipulated to do this to their kids. And then lo and behold, they might realize a few years later because it's not, I don't know how much this is part of the informed consent that parents are being told that your kid's never going to,

you know, experience normal sexual function. If your boy decides he really was a boy, he's never going to be able to get an erection. He's never going to be able to have an orgasm. He's never going to be able to have a child of his own. I mean, my God, my God, over somebody who might just be having a momentary confusion because he's depressed or because his friends are doing it. And the authorities you trust in your life, your doctor, your pediatrician, your endocrinologist, you might seek out of a child psychiatrist are all telling you, do it, do it. That's why I said the other, it's a five alarm fire right now. This. To be judged by these

people on the air who are like, oh, you're just a transphobe if you don't see it the way I... No, you are missing the severe damage we are doing for a lifetime to minors without so much as pausing to discuss the realities waiting for them. Forgive me, I've got to squeeze in a quick break. There's so much more to discuss with Dr. Grossman after this. Don't forget, the book is lost in transnation. Oh, I'm feeling that pit in my stomach, and I'm sure you are too. So, doctor, you get into specific examples in the book, and the one that stayed with me was the story of Jake and what happened to Jake. This goes to a dark place, but Jake is not alone. Can you talk about that? Sure. Jake is my patient who, well, let me first say that, you know, all the identifying details, of course, have been changed for purposes of confidentiality. was convinced by medical providers and therapists and his LGBT group of friends

that the answer to his psychiatric issues, which are very many, would be to transition, quote unquote, to living as a woman. And so he went on to estrogen and also had a vaginoplasty, which is a surgical procedure in which the penis is inverted and the skin, well, it starts with being castrated. So the testicles are removed and then the skin, the scrotal skin and the skin of the penis are used to create a sort of a vault, you know, an opening and a canal. They, you know, they call it a vagina, but, you know, it's obviously not a vagina. So Jake went through that and realized soon afterwards that it was not at all helping his psychiatric issues.

In fact, they were getting worse. And he realized that he had just been sucked into this ideology, that he was a victim of it. And sadly, he now has neither a penis or a vagina. Because you have to work tirelessly to keep the opening open. And if you don't do that, it closes up. That's correct. And then you have to work tirelessly to keep the opening open and if you don't do that it closes up that's that's correct yeah when a a a faux a faux vagina is created by surgeons um the body sees it as a wound and when the body senses that there's a wound its reaction is to close up. As you know, you get a cut on your hand or a burn or something.

The reaction is to close up that wound. And so the faux vagina, in order to prevent it from closing, the individual has to dilate. And they have to, you know, so they use a device and they insert it into their faux vagina. And this has to be done regularly, initially a few times a day. It's very, very painful to do. So what happened with Jake is that he was, he was dilating. But then when, you know, he realized that this is, this isn't who he was, he's not a woman, he'll never be a woman. He stopped dilating. It was also very painful to dilate. And so his faux vagina closed up. And so he he has neither and so you know and he's not he's not at all the only person who this has happened to uh you know there's a whole community unfortunately sadly there's a community of of people like jake uh detransitioners, not all of them have been through such extreme surgeries, but many of them have. And if you go on to Reddit, for example, reddit.com, there's a detrans thread or a subreddit. And there's, I mean, I haven't checked recently, but I think there's something

like 50,000 people on there who are ready. We're told it's just a handful, just a handful of people who regret. It's not true. It's interesting how you say the body identifies it as a wound. The body's right. It is a wound. The body's right to try to heal it. The body knows. If only our minds could do the same and be as proactive in healing these other wounds that are leading to this confusion. Instead, we intervene just like we do on the body and block it. Can I ask you just to shift gears? Because part of what's so compelling about the book is those medical stories. I mean, I had no idea. And people are paying now to make themselves into eunuchs voluntarily.

I read recently people are paying to have their nipples removed, their belly buttons removed. They're just trying to turn themselves into something that is non-human. And doctors are doing it. Oh, yeah. Doctors are happy to do it, apparently. But I think that, you know, the take-home lesson here isn't so much, you know, that the kids are suffering, the kids are mixed up. The kids don't know who they are, because they're being told, they're being inundated with this idea of celebrating confusion and celebrating, you know, denying reality. And that's why parents have to represent reality.

Let me ask you about the pronoun issue in this context, because I know you've spoken out about it and I talked about it recently. And I was struck because when Twitter showed what is a woman in which you were wonderful and so influential, it originally said, no, we're not going to show it because in two instances, someone is, quote, misgendered, which is a misnomer in and of itself. What misgendered means is we've gone with their actual gender. And he said, I wrote it down. He said, I should know. Elon said, we are going to show it.

The Twitter minions were wrong. But he said, I should note that I do personally use someone's preferred pronouns, just as I use someone's preferred name, simply from the standpoint of good manners. Is he right? Can you speak about the good manners thing? Yeah, yeah. I thought about this for so long, what to do in my book with the pronouns. I really did. I thought about it. I talked to people and my thinking was this, you know, if, if we were, if it was 10, 15 years ago before the, the current disaster that we're in, the epidemic of kids who are, have been sucked into this, I, of course I would use someone's preferred name and preferred pronouns you know I'm I'm a compassionate person I wouldn't have gone into

psychiatry and child psychiatry if I wasn't drawn into having a role in people's lives and you know helping them to feel better and being there for them as a understanding and compassionate person. But we're living in different times right now. We're living during this time of insanity, of celebrating the denial of reality and the denial of biology. And kids are paying a terrible price for that. So I decided that I would not use pronouns at all for transgender identifying individuals that I discussed, which is a cumbersome thing. But I decided to do it because, you see, if I call someone like Admiral Dr. Levine, if I call, if I use pronouns her and she, then I'm giving a message to all the young boys out there, 8, 10, 12 years old, 15 years old, that they too can be considered by society to be female.

That's not a favor. I'm not doing them a favor by that. I decided against it, and I do not use preferred pronouns in my book. It's not good manners. It actually is harmful. This is what I came to see as well. You actually are part of the problem. It's not a kind and generous thing to do. It's adding, as we've been discussing, to children's distress. So the final takeaway, and the book, again, is Lost in Transnation, a Child Psychiatrist Guide Out of the Madness. It's available right now. It's out next month, but you can pre-order on Amazon right now. What's the last thing in the 30 seconds we have left that you want to leave

parents with? The last thing that I want to say is that no family is immune and that parents need to get educated and be prepared for this issue to hit their home. And they can be prepared and educated. You don't need a PhD. You just need common sense. And this is the guide. Finally, someone's written the guide to help us do that. God bless you. Thank you so much, Doc.

It's wonderful to meet you. I hope you'll come back. Oh, I will. Thank you so much, Doc. It's wonderful to meet you. I hope you'll come back. Oh, I will. Thank you, Megan. Wow. She certainly helped me when I watched What Is A Woman. I've been trying to get her on ever since, and you can see why. Wow. We're going to continue our discussion, though on different issues tomorrow when Adam Carolla comes back to the show, one of our very favorites. I hope you enjoyed today's discussions. Wow. She's given us a lot to think about. Thanks for listening. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.