The Megyn Kelly Show - George Floyd Riots Damage Persists, DEI Jobs Disappearing, and Where are Epstein Files, with Heather Mac Donald and Alan Dershowitz | Ep. 1082

Episode Date: May 28, 2025

Megyn Kelly begins the show by reflecting on the five-year anniversary of the 2020 BLM riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death, the overwhelming damage and violence that erupted, the false narratives that persist today, and more. Then Heather Mac Donald, author of "When Race Trumps Merit," joins to discuss the cultural and political fallout from the BLM protests, the media’s role in fueling destructive lies about law enforcement, the way DEI jobs are disappearing from corporate America, how the DEI agenda was driven by virtue signaling, the way DEI persists at elite higher education institutions, and more. Then Alan Dershowitz, author of "The Preventive State," joins to discuss the institutionalized antisemitism of Harvard, the decline of meritocracy in favor of DEI ideology, how DEI was elevated to the highest levels with Claudine Gay as president, Trump’s fight with leftist state governments and elite law firms, Dershowitz’s personal experience with backlash in his legal career, why Trump’s initiatives are likely to be upheld, the death of Virginia Giuffre, what he says were her false accusations against him, his push for full transparency in the release of Epstein files, why he thinks powerful people are still being protected, and more. Mac Donald- https://www.city-journal.org/article/trump-restoring-meritocracy-executive-order-disparate-impact-theory-civil-rightsDershowitz- https://www.amazon.com/Preventive-State-Preempting-Cataclysmic-Preserving/dp/1641774401 Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on goldMasa Chips: Get 25% off your first order | Use code MK at https://MASAChips.com/MKTax Network USA: Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit https://TNUSA.com/MEGYN to speak with a strategist for FREE todayFYSI: https://FYSI.com/Megyn or call 800-877-4000Everglades Foundation: Learn more about President Trump’s Everglades support project at https://www.EvergladesFoundation.orgFollow 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, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. It may be hard to believe, but it has now been five years since the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. The protests caused weeks of unrest and destruction in cities across the country in the wake of the death of George Floyd. A report by the major cities chiefs association documenting 2,385 looting incidents, 625 acts of arson, including 97 police cars burned, 2,037 police officers injured from May 25th to July 31st of 2020. David Dorn, a 77-year-old former police captain, was shot and killed during a burglary of his pawn shop in St. Louis during the riots, which were, of course, infamously described by CNN as mostly peaceful. According to the New York Post, insurance

companies made between $1 and $2 billion worth of payouts to cover the damages around the country from the week of May 26th to June 1st, 2020. It started with the Memorial Day death of George Floyd, who died during an arrest by Minneapolis police officers, where video showed Officer Derek Chauvin with what appeared to be his knee on Floyd's neck as he shouted for help. Officer Chauvin is now in prison after being convicted of second-degree murder, later pleading guilty to violating Floyd's civil rights. Protests over Floyd's death quickly erupted in Minneapolis and soon after spiraled out of control, with the city overwhelmed with incidents of looting and destruction and a governor who did next to nothing. His name was Tim Walz. A report by the city finding the

riots caused 133 structure fires, $500 million in damage. Again, just from May 25th to June 3rd of 2020. Here's some of it. 9901, 9901 emergency. We got individuals breaching the gate at the third precinct. We also got people trying to breach the front doors. We're about to breach the back gate. We're taking heavy rocks. Heavy rocks. Airing information citywide, the 3rd Precinct has been compromised.

3rd Precinct is up in flames. We're going to move back. They're starting to throw Molotov cocktails. We're going. In perhaps the most dramatic moment, rioters took over Minneapolis's 3rd Precinct, you heard it referenced there, burning it to the ground. That happened on May 28th, exactly five years ago today. Here's what officers said about that event from an Alpha News documentary. So I get a command over the radio that we need to evacuate the 3rd Precinct. Evacuate now, evacuate now. I said, like, right now? And they said, yes, immediately. We run. We run with our belts on and 50-some people and three SWAT teams,

and we get to the fence, we can't get out. We got a gun where you're sitting just here. There was only one way in and one way out, and the way out was locked. 12-83, they've breached the northwest corner of the fence. Northwest corner of the front has been breached. They're coming in, they're coming in the back. We need to move, we need to move. Need to move now. One of the squads rams through the fence to get it open.

I remember looking through the rear-view mirror as we left. It looked like a zombie movie. They all just rushed to the fence and started climbing the fence, and they caused the fences to collapse, and then they just all rushed to the precinct. But as I got maybe a quarter block away, I realized that not everyone was in vehicles. They were running basically for their lives at that point.

This is allowed. That Alpha News documentary is amazing. It was put together by Alpha News, including Liz Collins. She's been on the program multiple times. But our in-depth look at the documentary with Liz is episode 670. If you want to go back and listen to it, it's well worth your time. They allowed the third precinct to burn. There was a complicit mayor. And as I mentioned, the governor and no one was looking out for regular law abiding citizens in Minneapolis.

And as you well know, it went far beyond Minneapolis. The BLM bullies went coast to coast in their so-called activism, trying to target not just cops, but regular people to repeat and support their message, including this incident in Pittsburgh. People being harassed as they tried to eat outdoors, which we were all forced to do because of the COVID mania by these BLM rioters, protesters, activists, you can call them whatever you want. They were bullies harassing private citizens into repeating their message or raising the fist like what happened here in Washington, D.C. For the listening audience, one woman is surrounded by dozens of mostly white people with their fists up trying to get her to do the same.

No peace! They're yelling, put your fist up. No peace! White silence is violence. Unbelievable. Unbelievable. We lived through this. It was only five years ago. The city of Minneapolis still has not recovered, despite all of the money that's poured into that city to rebuild so-called George Floyd Square, many buildings showing the scars from the unrest. The New York Post earlier this month talking to a black man who owns an auto detailing shop near the George Floyd Memorial who said, quote, Black Lives Matter was never here. I never saw them even one time. Everyone was just capitalizing off of a dead man. That's what happened here.

And that's what no one will tell you. But let's not forget what Democrats were saying at the time. Here's what Kamala Harris told Stephen Colbert in June of 2020. I know that there are protests still happening in major cities across the United States. I'm just not seeing the reporting on it that I had for the first few weeks. But they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop. And this is a movement, I'm telling you.

They're not going to stop. And everyone beware because they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they're not going to stop. They're not going to stop before Election Day in November, and they're not going to stop after Election Day. And that should be, everyone should take note of that on both levels, that they're not going to let up, and they should not. And we should not. Cities were burning. Cops were being regularly hurt. She didn't care. It's not going to stop and we shouldn't stop. She's now a lawyer looking for work. Joining me now for reaction is Manhattan Institute

fellow and author of When Race Trumps Merit, Heather MacDonald. This July, there is a global summit of BRICS nations in Rio de Janeiro, the block of emerging superpowers, you know, including China, Russia, India, and Iran. They're meeting with the goal of displacing the U.S. dollar as the global currency. They're calling this the Rio Reset. As BRICS nations push forward with their plans, global demand for U.S. dollars will decrease, bringing down the value of the dollars in your savings potentially. While this transition won't happen overnight, the Rio reset in July marks a pivotal moment

when BRICS objectives move decisively from theoretical possibility toward inevitable reality, according to many experts. Learn if diversifying your savings into gold is right for you. Birch Gold Group can help you move your hard-earned savings into a tax sheltered IRA and precious metals. Claim your free info kit on gold by texting MK to 989898

with an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers. Let Birch Gold arm you with a free no-obligation info kit on owning gold before July and the Rio reset. Text MK to 989898 today. Message and data rates apply. It really brings up strong emotions when you see it now, five years later, the insanity, Heather, that we were subjected to in the wake of George Floyd's death. What's your take on the insanity we went through, whether it was temporary, whether the fever's now broken and where we are five years later? Well, Megan, I think we're living through a cold riot. We're living through a slow motion George Floyd anarchy. When you have Luigi Mangione assassinating a health care executive and getting widespread support, when you have Tesla dealerships, Tesla cars being assaulted, you have assassinations of people coming out

of a Israeli museum. This is because there was virtually no consequences for this absolutely civilization-ending mayhem. You have judges being attacked. I'll believe that we're good and over the George Floyd mass psychosis when I can buy toothpaste without having to wait five minutes for a clerk maybe to come and unlock it. When we're locking up the criminals who steal things and not locking up the things that they steal. And I just want to emphasize, Megan, that this period of overt hatred for law and order and for people that abide by the rules was based on a complete lie. It is not the case that the police are systemically racist, that the criminal justice system is racist. Here's the reality in Minneapolis

itself, where Jacob Fry, who you quoted earlier, the mayor of Minneapolis, just said on the five-year anniversary that George Floyd's square should be a sacred space for the racial injustice that Blacks continue to suffer from. Here's what the police chief of Minneapolis himself said. A Black person in Minneapolis is 480 times more likely to be killed by a cop, I'm sorry, to be killed by a Black person than he is to be killed by a cop. Nationally, police officers are 400 times more likely to be killed by a Black male than an unarmed Black male is to be killed by a cop. The fact of the matter is, is that any disparities in the criminal

justice system, whether it's with regards to arrests or stops or incarceration rates, those disparities are not based on police racism. They're based on real differences in criminal offending. Blacks commit the majority, the disproportionate majority of violent crime. That's why they have more encounters with police officers. Nevertheless, this view that George Floyd was a sacrificial lamb to systemic racism became the jumping off point for a level of anarchy that we have not seen and that is still a watchword for the left. We have to be vigilant and continuously beat this thing down. And again, the anarchy is still going on. I'm out here in Irvine, California, this Saturday in Los Angeles. There was a crowd that rampaged through streets, tagging everything in sight. They tagged police cars with the police still in them, destroying cars, completely unchecked. Why? Because there were no consequences, because we sent the message that if you're if you're vandalizing, if you're looting in the name of of social justice, you can

get away with it. We have an organization called BLM, you know, in addition to the overall movement of which some untold numbers say that they're a part. But the organization of BLM has basically imploded. Several of its founders have found themselves in trouble for allegations of fraud and related misdoings when it comes to the donations and federal investigations. This is under the Biden administration, into where the money went and whether their declarations about themselves as tax-exempt entities ought to be honored. And it's just the story after story after of the multiple homes owned by someone like Patrisse Cullors. So that's the organization now in tatters because of all of these things. But so are many of our police departments, thanks to the lies that were spread about them by the BLM crowd and

all of their media enablers. Heather, this week in the news is that book, Original Sin. We had Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on last week, and I believe I'm literally the only one to have given them a hard time about whether Jake Tapper in particular is the right messenger for this. You've gotten a complete pass on every other program. But he's acting dumbfounded about the fact that Joe Biden was mentally infirm while CNN was covering him and running cover for him daily. It's the same thing. The media was equally, if not more complicit in covering for BLM and the lies that they were telling about law enforcement. And regular folks are still dealing with the fallout of those lies. Well, they still are complicit because they still

are. The New York Times is gamely putting forth the the message that, say, if Trump gets rid of disparate impact liability, it's going to plunge Blacks back into Jim Crow and possibly even slavery, that there's so much systemic racism in this country that the only way that Blacks can be protected is with these completely unnecessary rights to sue unwitting, non-discriminatory employers. And it's the same thing with the police. You know, we have made progress. There's no question. But you're right. The police are demoralized.

They're still way down in many departments. Los Angeles is way down. And you still have the police handcuffed. This phony idea that the Black blacks are subject to systemic neighborhoods to be able to hear shootings, even when somebody in the community doesn't call them in, which is the vast majority of shootings in minority neighborhoods are not called in because people sort of don't give a damn anymore. But the technology allows the police to be able to get to shooting scenes very quickly and give aid to the victims. Well, Brandon Johnson declared that this was a racist technology because it showed that most

shootings go on in Black neighborhoods. So we're supposed to believe that insensate, blind audio sensors are somehow discriminating against Black blacks. This has gone on everywhere. We're also getting rid of red light cameras because they show that the driving in inner city neighborhoods is very poor. That's why blacks die of traffic accidents at much higher rates, because the driving in inner city neighborhoods is insane. But we'd rather shoot the messenger and believe that red light cameras are somehow discriminating against blacks. So those types of of completely preposterous, hysterical reactions to a reality, which is great disparities in criminal victimization and criminal offending continue to drive our criminal justice system.

Mayor Brandon Johnson was just in the news this week because he's notwithstanding the law is doubling down on his racial quotas and preferences and hiring, which is illegal. It is illegal to consider skin color in your hiring or firing of people. That's been the law for a long time. But again, post George Floyd, we didn't honor it. We just decided to pretend that wasn't the law. And you could say, we're only hiring blacks. We don't hire whites here, which when you flip it, we don't hire blacks. We only want whites. Everybody would see its racism and illegality immediately. But somehow we went nuts post

George Floyd and we're still doing it. And he went on camera and was like, I'm still doing it. And then there was an announcement that there was a DOJ investigation into him because this is illegal. And in response, he decided to go off on Trump. I think we have the soundbite. Yes, let's watch it. You know, as far as, you know, the president's animus towards women, people of color, working people, we have always known who he has been. This is not a surprise. He's a monster. Period. We have the most diverse administration in the history of Chicago. And he is threatened by that. You can tell when someone is fearful is because they act out. We have a president that is screaming and having tantrums

right now because we have an administration that reflects the city of Chicago, but he would much rather have administrations that reflect the country club. So that man says that he's got a 6% approval rating, just FYI, 6% lower than Blagojevich did when he was going to jail. Go ahead, Heather. Well, I hope he gets voted out. You know, I'm enough of a pessimist, Megan, that I'm never going to really celebrate until I actually see the results. But that's just hilarious. I hadn't heard that clip.

You know, Johnson was the one that, again, the long arm of the George Floyd insanity. Chicago still has these marauding youth mobs that come to the Magnificent Mile and break everything and steal everything in sight. And every time they come, Brandon Johnson says, oh, these poor youth, we shouldn't arrest them because they're just victims of lack of opportunity and we need to understand our youth. This idea that poverty, first of all, let me put poverty in like six layers of scare quotes, because it is a preposterous concept in the United States, especially with these kids.

You show me a single marauding, looting kid who does not have a smartphone, and I'll eat it. Police media is the best friend of the police. Why? Because these kids that are committing the lootings, that are committing the shootings, they all have smartphones and they're throwing their gang signs on WhatsApp and Instagram and showing off their guns and their cash. Any kid that has a smartphone is not a poor child. And by definition, anybody living in America is not poor. You have clean water, electricity. As Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector periodically shows up, shows the, you know, 100% practically of so-called poor people

that the government categorizes as such have cable TV, they have air conditioning. So it's all a fraud. But Johnson says, oh, it's because they're poor. That's absurd. It has nothing to do with that. But that type of excuse making and refusal to hold people to a single standard, but instead to have racial standards of behavior is what has gotten us into this mess. The same ideas that drive the George Floyd long arm of the cold riotate rates of school discipline for blacks and whites on the assumption these lawsuits were that teachers are somehow racist. Teachers, which is the most left-wing profession in the country, teacher ed schools is two years of long marination in critical race theory and white privilege theory, that somehow these teachers were blindly and arbitrarily disciplining black kids. No, it's because if you, given the degree of illegitimacy and social breakdown in Black communities,

yes, Black kids are acting up more. But instead, we have to have double standards of discipline or get rid of discipline entirely. Now, I'm generally a pessimist, Megan. The optimists and the Trump supporters in your audience are going to be saying, wait a minute, you're talking about ancient history. A new age has dawned.

Trump is waging war on the phony racial victimology, on the lies about American racism, about white people. That is absolutely true. And I had a very telling experience a week after the inauguration. I was in a CVS store in Manhattan. We all witnessed another theft, a kid with a black garbage bag who ran out the door, having looted the store. And the clerk, who looked like a Puerto Rican radical with dreadlocks and a long beard, shook his head and said, maybe in another week, this will be over. In other words, Trump is going to save us. And I was amazed because this guy looked like somebody who'd be voting for maybe Bernie

Sanders, although he may be too conservative for this guy. And he said people, and he didn't even need to mention Trump. He just assumed that I knew what he was talking about. And so Trump comes in with a lot of expectation from the working people, those who have lived the brunt of this unchecked looting, this unchecked anarchy, and have seen that it's heartbreaking to be there helpless as your store is plundered. He has the expectations behind him, and he is making some progress, but it is going to be a hard fight. The Brandon Johnsons of the world are not going to go quietly. There is too much invested in it. There's still prosecutors who are handing out different deals explicitly based on race.

They'll plea bargain more leniently with black criminals than white criminals. The universities are not going to go quietly into the night. Nevertheless, it matters that we have somebody standing up there who in essence is saying the grift is over. I don't care. Call me a racist. You can't scare me. We're going back to civilized norms. It's it's so heartening just to hear him say it and stand by it. It's just whether he can do it is a different question, but there's a lot, I don't know, it's just validation and hearing somebody in that position of power speak what is actual truth. Just say what we know is real, which is this is racist. This whole DEI grift is racist.

Couple of things I want to get to first. Well, you and I've talked about this before. And by the way, you were on that episode with Alpha News and number 670, where we looked at the documentary into George Floyd. But we've spoken many times about these bogus consent decrees that first the Obama administration and then the Biden administration, especially as it was closing out, the Biden administration opened up with their investigations by the DOJ into various police departments. And then they get the police departments who have zero bargaining power in this situation to agree to these, quote, quote, consent decrees, which are ill named. And it allows the DOJ to have

authority over law enforcement and how they do policing. So Harmeet Dhillon, who is now a deputy at the DOJ, went on Tucker recently and talked about how this has become one of her main initiatives to dismantle these consent decrees that make no sense, including she started with the one in Kentucky where Breonna Taylor was killed and then one in Minneapolis where George Floyd was killed. Here she is in SOT. Well, let's start with SOT 18. It was a priority of this administration to review all pending consent decrees and look at the data and see are these really justified and

tucker i looked at these findings and i and the lawyers who report to me in the doj said we cannot stand behind these conclusions i can't stand in front of a judge with a straight face and say that memphis's problems are racist cops i mean they're they're not racist. They simply are dealing with a population that happens to have a particular racial makeup. The conclusions are not correcting for that. The conclusions are not correcting for what neighborhoods have crime. There's cherry picking of statistics. raised the example of Memphis, Tennessee, where they alleged that there was a disproportionate amount of arrests of homeless black people. So there must be some sort of racial animus going on with the police department. And she said, the fact is the majority of the city is black. The majority of the police officers are black and the majority of homeless people are black too. That doesn't make it racist that the majority of people who are getting arrested as and they're homeless happen to be black. But finally, we have an administration that looks at

actual facts and data making these calls and reversing some of the nonsense. Well, first, I want to give a shout out to Jeff Sessions, who was Trump's first attorney general in his first administration. He, too, put basically an end to the consent decrease. He time limited them. He said, you've got to have much, much stronger evidence before you put these on. The second administration of Trump is doing things much more publicly. That's probably a good thing. But anyway, he was there first. And let's remember, you know, that Harmeet Dhillon oversees the civil rights division in the Justice Department. These are the lawyers who went out crying and weeping and moaning that they were now in a racist administration and were being let go.

Yes, the civil rights division of justice has been infamous for years among people who know the truth about the police. They have no connection to policing, and they go around deciding, well, what city should we investigate next? Well, I want to visit my girlfriend in Seattle, so let's find some incident in Seattle to investigate. They write these completely preposterous reports that are based on the phony idea of disparate impact. I cannot emphasize enough, Megan, to your listeners, that this is the key thing. Disparate impact holds that if you apply a neutral, colorblind constitutional standard and it has a disparate impact on Blacks, it's per se racist. You're not allowed to look at behavior.

And so if you look at a city and find that, yes, most arrests are disproportionately of Blacks, you can only conclude that's racism. You're not allowed to look at crime. And so all of these reports that said Minneapolis police are racist because the majority of their arrests are Black people, but that's because that's who's committing the crime. So all of these consent decrees were based on a lie. They were based on wrong information. The only thing I would correct a little bit in what you say is that the police departments were sort of helpless in accepting these. Oftentimes, to my amazement and frank disgust, the police chief would go along with it, which was such a seemingly completely voluntarily, which was such a admission of complete powerlessness and inefficacy.

Like you're so incompetent as a police chief that you can't enact if you say these reforms are necessary on your own. You need a federal monitor. The sort of more real politique explanation is that it allowed departments to go to the state and say, well, we need another hundred million dollars of funding to comply with this federal monitored requirement and the consent decree. So they saw it as kind of a way to leverage money. But a lot of that money just went into the care and feeding of these ridiculous monitors who were making millions of dollars a year. So this is going to be a big change in morale for the police to know that they can do their jobs, go where crime is, go where people

are being victimized. Don't worry about who you're arresting and what the color is of the criminal because the criminal doesn't give a damn about the color of his victim more or less although let's also be honest here if we're going to be our honesty hour uh that that the vast majority of interracial crime is disproportionately black on white, not white on black. About 85% of all interracial violent crime is black on white rather than white on black. Nevertheless, the law enforcement system should be and is colorblind in going where people are being victimized, not based on the skin color of the perpetrators. Yeah. And the, you know, the people who are struggling economically, who in the inner city, many of whom are black, are the ones who want more cops more than anyone.

You've done a great job of documenting that in your journalism. The other thing that came from George Floyd Palooza was the explosion of these DEI so-called experts. It became this very popular degree that you could get at all these elite universities. I mean, by the thousands, they churned out these DEI graduates who were ready to go into all of corporate America and DEI-ify their companies and make sure that everybody was learning about implicit bias and equity and all of this nonsense. It's documented in part in Matt Walsh's brilliant documentary, Am I Racist? But there was an interesting report on NPR on Monday, Heather, Tuesday, that was lamenting, but to me, it was a very interesting fact, the collapse of this industry and how now under Trump,

they're all getting fired. All these DEI heads at all these companies, they're getting fired and they're crying in their soup because they can't get hired someplace else. Here's a little bit of that report. The numbers are pretty bleak. More than 2,600 jobs in diversity or DEI have been eliminated in the last couple of years. That's more than 10% of the jobs that existed at the start of 2023.

This was a dramatic change from five years ago. After George Floyd was murdered, there was this huge rush for companies to hire chief diversity officers and other people with experience in this kind of specialized field. But now these people are being reassigned or having their jobs renamed or in some cases being laid off. So this is a really steep loss of a lot of jobs, and it's affecting thousands of people who are trained and experienced in this area. So I know I think we're both happy about this news, but you tell me. I know you say you're a pessimist. Is it really possible to root out DEI from corporate America and, dare I ask, from universities? Different question. First of all, there weren't there. There were very few programs that actually had majors in DEI, but all it took was to major in women's studies or black studies or gender studies to find yourself qualified to be a diversity bureaucrat

in a corporation. And the idea that these are highly specialized fields is absurd. There's no whatsoever. It is a total grip. Why? In part, because there's no problem. You know, I hate this phrase that says, well, studies have shown that that DEI training doesn't work. I reject the entire premise of that because that presumes that there's a problem that DEI bureaucrats are supposed to solve. There is no problem. There is not systemic bias in corporations against females or minorities. The opposite is the case. Females and minorities are being privileged at every possible opportunity. It's straight white males who are being disadvantaged by their race and sex and sexual preferences. So let's get that straight. There is nothing necessary here. Interestingly, though, you notice she slipped in that even in the corporate world, well, they're just being renamed. So they're not. And that's what's going on in universities where a lot of before we get to university before. Because I know I compounded the question, but I do want to ask you something quickly.

As an aside, what you just said is so true about the young white straight males. And I would posit, but I love your take on it. You know, the Democrats are unleashing the news in the Times over the weekend was $20 million and try to figure out how to talk to white men. They can't get in particular young white men to vote Democrat and they don't understand why. And they're studying the syntax used in talking to them so that they can find a way back in, Heather. And I mean, what they need to do is listen to what you just said, like until they start hiring them again and treating them as full, equal citizens who are not demonized because of their immutable characteristics, they will continue losing them in election after election after

election. It's people live this. I get approached by so many people when I speak publicly saying my son had perfect MCATs and he didn't get into any of his medical schools that he applied to. Same with law schools. It is systemically biased against white males. They can also stop talking about the patriarchy. Females, to the despair of anybody who cares about civilization, are taking over institutions. That's why the universities are in such bad shape right now, because poll after poll shows that it's females who do not believe in the pursuit of truth, who do not believe in academic freedom, who believe in safetyism, of shutting down ideas that some psychotic people claim they're injured by. So, you know, females are being privileged all the time, and it's white males who live this all the time so yes the

democratic party should say we no longer believe that we have toxic masculinity we are grateful to the contribution of creating western civilization of creating civilization across the world uh that males have given us uh and and yes it's not a question of rebranding or or getting Tim Walz out there in a in a, you know, jacket. It's nobody's fooled by that. Studying the syntax of Joe Rogan. Like, I don't I'm not even sure what the idea is there. OK, now let's do universities, because Trump is in a massive fight with Harvard and Columbia over the anti-Semitism that has exploded on college campuses. Let's face it, in large part due to the same DEI principles about the oppressor and the oppressed and the hierarchy of skin color, where now because whites were at

the top for a long time, they must be subjugated. And the Ibram X. Kendi theory, the answer to racism is more racism. Trump's trying and he has two massive fights going with those two universities. But you tell me whether it really can ever be routed out of the so-called academy. Well, I believe everything that Trump says about the universities is absolutely correct. And it's actually worse than he says. Harvard, you know, let's not forget that Larry Summers, the economist who was the president, was run out of the presidency in large part because he dared in a academic conference to put forward a hypothesis. He did it very gently and tentatively that is actually true, which is that the disparity

in the higher end STEM fields between men and women may be based on the fact that men are more interested in pure ideas and coding and abstract things and women are more interested in relationships. And at the high end and low end of math skills, men way outweigh females in the high end of math and the low end of math. That was unacceptable to Harvard's community. There's one string after another of free speech violations of Harvard. There was this placemat controversy. So these schools,

it cannot be overemphasized enough. They are pervaded through and through with the left-wing ideology. It's in the curriculum. It's baked into their system. That having been said, I'm going to take issue somewhat with Trump's methods. I think he's going too fast. He's not. I think he should be scrupulous about obeying the law, whatever, anything he does. I ask myself, what would we think if the left were doing this? Is he playing by the rules? about the federal government seizing power that it doesn't necessarily have illegitimately because these precedents are gonna be used against us. And I would also say this, Megan, and this is the most controversial. I think he is using the antisemitism charge pretextually. I don't think that that's the main problem with these universities, but he uses it because people can grasp it.

There's buy-in to the fact that we should go after anti-Semitism, but I think that's a facile diagnosis. Yes, there's students who in their pathetic studentdom and their desire to go around in packs and be conformist and to feel like they're the first people to ever spot injustice, have become just shameful apologists for anti-Jewish, anti-Israel terrorism. That is true. But I do not think that these institutions are anti-Semitic. They are anti-West. And that is the- Interesting. ... to get to. And I don't know, how do you prove that you're not anti-Semitic any longer? He hasn't set out clear markers. If you're going to be stripping funding right and left because of

anti-Semitism, you have to be clear about what it will take to get that funding back. And because I think the diagnosis is wrong, it's not really clear what the remedy is going to be. That having been said, I'm not sure I have a solution myself because these universities, I say the real problem is that their entire worldview is to approach every creation of Western civilization with skepticism and with contempt. Every humanities course, every social sciences course starts out from the premise that they're going to read the art of Michelangelo or the music of Mozart or the novels of George Eliot or the philosophy of Kant and Hegel as a smokescreen for illegitimate power, and they are going to unmask it. That is the stance par excellence of the academic world today. And that teaches students to hate

their inheritance when instead the only obligation of universities is to teach students to be down on their knees in gratitude for what they have been given through no accomplishment or virtue of their own and to appreciate how fragile is the legacy of civilized order that the West has given them. These universities are betraying that. So Trump is calling attention at long last. I mean, people, not just me, but lots of people for four decades have been talking about this, and it seemed to fall on deaf ears. So I certainly applaud Trump for making this a central aspect of his administration. But I share your hint of doubt, Megan, whether this can be done quickly. And I'm also a little bit worried that Trump is actually

kind of looking like a maniac now. I get the argument that it's a lot easier if you single out like Harvard, which everybody hates because it's so damn wealthy and it sits on its fat hedge fund of $53 billion endowment as it goes around with its cup saying to the federal government, if you pull our funding, we're going to just die. And what will America be without Harvard? So I get that. But at some point, it looks a bit deranged where he's just coming in with one day after another

with another sort of funding removal. And now this may be that I'm way too much like with my ear trying to hear the left but but i would almost say that he's making harvard look like a a virtuous david standing up against the big mean the live government because he is the a lot of these executive orders have ignored. Written, you know, legal procedures for how you go about stripping funding, and he's just done it. And I think that's. The president of Harvard was also on NPR. I listen to NPR's morning show every day so that you don't have to. And occasionally they do have something interesting on there, like that DEI report,

though it was interesting to me for very different reasons than it was interesting to them. Anyway, they did this week have the current president of Harvard on in an interview. It was in connection with this fight they're having with Trump over defunding. And the president, Alan Garber, did say something that caught my attention. I don't know whether I believe one word of this, Heather, but tell me how you feel, Sat 17. And it's particularly concerning when people who have views that they think are unpopular and the administration and others have said conservatives are too few on campus and their views are not welcome. And so far as that's true, that's a problem we really need to address. Is it true?

I think that we have heard from some people that they do feel that way. So we certainly need to address that. It's amazing that second part. He won't admit that it's true. Just some people feel that that conservatives are too few on harvard's campus i'm sorry like this is i i really i should just be on our team completely and not have any well on the other hand because it is sickening to hear these universities garbert when as soon as trump started in this, he sent around all these emails to the Harvard community about how Trump is threatening us. We free beacons of free speech and free inquiry, and we're the source of enlightenment and openness in society. It makes me throw up. It is not just a hypothesis. It is true. Harvard, it wasn't a university-wide mandate, but many divisions, many departments required any applying faculty member or faculty

members that wanted to get promoted to sign loyalty oaths to diversity, equity, and inclusion, which basically means, I agree that systemic racism is the problem. If we don't have enough Blacks at Harvard, it's because we're discriminating against them in our admissions office, which is absurd. It's just the opposite. You're discriminating in favor of blacks. Students do not feel like they can express in classrooms or in social settings, dissenting views on race, on gender, on family structure, you name it.

The disparities in political affiliation, now, I think that's less of a metric that we should look at, but it is useful, I guess, to see, because I can imagine a school that is 100 percent Democrat, where those professors are so committed to open discourse and so committed to not just institutional neutrality, but faculty neutrality, that they assiduously keep their point of view out of the classroom. In that case, it wouldn't matter. But nevertheless, these schools are not in any shape or form supportive of free speech. And yes, they are complete ideological monocultures. But the difficulty is, again, you are going to engineer viewpoint diversity or you lose your funding. Because what if the Kamala Harris administration said to a university, you are going to engineer understanding of systemic racism or you'll lose your funding. All of these things will be used by the other side.

Now, the response to that is they're already doing it. You know, they're already using power illegitimately. So it's our turn now. And I get that argument, too. It's a very difficult question. So, you know, maybe I just don't have the stomach for the fight. But to me, I just I think it's funny because to me, he sounds like one of those characters in a Jane Austen novel, like I would never say it about myself. I only know that some people say I'm amazing. It's like I have no idea that whether there's actually a viewpoint problem in not having diversity here on that front. I only know that some people claim it. Yes, many people do claim it because it's obviously fact. And the fact that you can't

just acknowledge it is hashtag part of the problem. Heather, always a pleasure. I love talking to you. Thank you so much for being here. Thank you, Megan. I appreciate it. All right. Well, back next with speaking of Harvard, Harvard professor of 60 years, Alan Dershowitz, next. Did you know that chips and fries used to be cooked in tallow all the way up until the 1990s when big corporations switched to cheap processed seed oils? But today, seed oils make up 20% of the average American's daily calories. And some studies have linked seed oils to metabolic health issues and inflammation in the body. We had a couple of experts come on and say it creates bad fat on you that holds on

like harder and longer than fat you could get from eating tallow. I mean, like, go look at the episode. Disturbing. Well, this company called Masa decided to do something about it. They created a tasty and delicious tortilla chip with just three ingredients and no seed oils, just organic corn, sea salt, and 100% grass-fed beef tallow. These chips don't just avoid all the bad stuff. They taste incredible too. Masa is crunchier, tastier, and sturdier than other chips. And an added bonus, the beef tallow makes the chips much more satiating, so you will not find yourself uncontrollably binging and then still feeling hungry right afterward. Masa chips, beloved by thousands of customers,

and it's actually been endorsed by industry-leading health and nutrition experts. Ready to give Masa a try? Go to masachips.com slash MK and use the code MK for 25% off your first order. That's masachips.com slash MK and code MK for 25% off your first order. We just talked Harvard with Heather McDonald, and we've got to get into that and more with Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School, Alan Dershowitz. I mean, when you think Harvard, you think Alan Dershowitz. I do. He's like their most famous professor for the longest time. And he's got thoughts on what's

happening between Trump, who's a former client of Alan's. He defended him in the first impeachment trial and Harvard too. Alan has also just released a new book called The Preventive State, The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties. It's available right now. Allen's calling this his magnus opus. This is it. This is the book that you've got to read if you like Alan's viewpoints on various subjects. We'll get to that one second. Alan, great to see you. So let's pick up where we left off with Heather, who said she's really not sure about Trump's methods in cracking down on Harvard, though she's not opposed to the general thoughts.

But she also thinks it's about much more than anti-Semitism. She thinks really Harvard's problem is it's anti-West. Your thoughts? Well, I think it's both. Obviously, it's anti-Western, wouldn't allow him to say or do anything. And the school said they would punish these students for their harassing behavior. Instead, the Divinity School made one of them the class marshal, which is the highest honor of graduation. And the other one was given a

$65,000 scholarship from the Harvard Law School in order to continue his anti-Israel work at an anti-Israel organization. So, you know, in one respect, it understates the problem of anti-Semitism. Harvard not only tolerates it, it teaches it in the Divinity School, which is a cesspool. In the name of Christianity, in the false name of Christianity, the Divinity School, this is according to the Harvard report, not me, according to the Harvard report, is a centerpiece of anti-Semitism at Harvard. The public health school, similarly, the Carr Center for Human Rights has become a sewer for anti-Semitism. So there is a lot of anti-Semitism. A lot of it is a manifestation

of anti-Western, anti-Christian values. But the core group that is being attacked, because they are a distinct minority, are Jews, Israelis, Zionists, Christian Zionists. You know, in my book, The Preventive State, I predicted what happened tragically last week in Washington, D.C. I predicted that there'd be shootings. How did I know there'd be shootings? Because you'll recall this, Megan, I defended many protesters in the 60s and 70s, anti-war protesters. And I saw some of my own clients become murderers. Kathy Boudin became a murderer. The line between violent protests,

making bombs, shooting somebody is a very thin line. And so I think we have to take preventive action, including, for example, one of the most important preventive actions you can ever take is denying people the right to come into the country and deporting them if they engage in illegal conduct. That goes back to the Bible. It's called exile. We call it deportation. They called it exile.

People were exiled when they threatened the legitimacy of the country. So we can take a lot of preventive measures to assure that these shootings like last week didn't occur. You know, I got an honorary degree the day after the shootings. The school that gave me the degree had to redouble their security. They had to give me a security plan telling me how to escape, to make sure that there were policemen there with shields to protect my life because I'm an outspoken prominent Jew who supports Israel. And everybody has a target on their back. You know, they come for the Jews first, but it's not long before they come for other perceived enemies of the radical correct approach to life. These folks from DEI and from intersectionality know no principles, no morality,

and they will come after you after they come after us. Did you happen to see last week, Alan, the segment with the CNN anchor Sarah Sidner, or Sidner is her name, where an eyewitness to that double murder of those two young people leaving the Israeli event, an eyewitness went on CNN and was still very jarred. It had just happened the night before. And he made a correlation to what we're seeing on college campuses. And the anchor absolutely revolted in response. Like, I'm sure you don't mean to conflate this double murder with anything we've seen on college campuses. And this young man was like, well, you know, actually, I'm okay with some conflation here. It's the exact same messages that we're hearing in both places. She did her level best to try to knock him off of that viewpoint. I thought it was a valid place to go. He wasn't saying one directly caused the

other, but he was saying exact same rhetoric. And it actually happens to be, I know this is a problem for us free speech lovers, and you are definitely one, somewhat dangerous rhetoric. Your thoughts on it? Well, there's no question that globalizing the Intifada means kill Jews all around the world, and we know that people understand it that way. I think it's intended that way, but even if it weren't intended that way, that's the way it's understood. And we saw this guy who killed these two people was essentially mimicking those statements. Now, the vast majority of people who participate in these demonstrations would never, ever kill. But the majority of people who do kill, who do plant bombs, do shoot, are influenced by these college demonstrations, which have become legitimated. Look,

both Vice President Kamala Harris and her vice presidential nominee both legitimated the protests on campus. And these protests included from the river to the sea, there'll be no Jews, you know, Judenrein, from the river to the sea, and globalized the Intifada. Those are incitements to violence. Now, those incitements are protected free speech because they're not directed at a particular person, that doesn't mean Harvard has to tolerate them. You know, the one thing, the one reason why I think it is anti-Semitism, and the definition of anti-Semitism is very simple, applying a double standard to things Jewish, including the Jewish state. And it is a double standard.

What has been tolerated against Jews would never be tolerated against blacks or gays. Can you imagine somebody who had a reputation for harassing blacks or gays on campus getting elected class marshal or being given a $65,000 scholarship? It would never happen. It's the double standard. It's what is permissible to be said against Zionists, Christians, Jews, the West can't be said against people who are favored and privileged. And let me use that word very clearly. There's no group on campus that's we're talking about on campus. These are the most privileged groups. These are the groups that get all the advantages, and yet we have DEI, and we have intersectionality, and we have all these fake academic programs that are being taught at schools at Harvard, schools at Harvard. And I can tell you, having been there 60 years, today there is no room, no room on the campus for pro-Israel, pro-American, pro-Western statements.

I have been retired from Harvard now almost 12 years. I have never been invited back to speak about Israel. The one time a student group invited me, they had to take my speech off campus for fear that I would be physically harmed if I made the case for a two-state solution for Israel. And let's remember one more thing. Not a single one of these demonstrations, not a single one has ever called for a two-state solution. They do not want Israel to exist. In fact, they prefer a no-state solution to a two-state solution. Obviously, their preference is for a one-state solution. So none of these demonstrations are pro-Palestinian. They are anti-Israel, anti-Semitic,

anti-Zionist, anti-Western, anti-Christian, and they are embedded within the school. And thank God that Donald Trump is doing something about it. I agree with your prior guest. I think that sometimes he goes too far. For example, he shouldn't be defunding cancer research. He couldn't be keeping shouldn't be keeping students out by denying them visas if they're good students and if they support values that we support. But remember, when it comes to coming into the United States, no one has a constitutional right to come into the United States and then preach against the values that make our country. But let me just say this. Let me just let me just interject, because he's he's now ordered a review. He wants all of our embassies taking a much harder look at

those seeking student visas to check social media and other things to make like, who are we letting in? We don't seem to have a very good vetting process. But with respect to Harvard in particular, he said, if Harvard doesn't turn over all the data he's demanded on who the foreign students are and other facts around them, then all of the foreign students who are there now, some 7,000 of them are done. They'll be kicked out. Harvard will lose its rights to have foreign students starting in the fall of 2025. So that's one piece of where the latest fight is as he tries to get more documentation from them. And two other pieces I'd love to get your take on are he's announced now he intends to cancel the federal government's

remaining federal contracts with Harvard worth an estimated 100 million. This is kind of what he was doing to those individual law firms that he was targeting, saying, I don't think the federal government wants to do business with your law firm or necessarily the clients who use you. So he's doing that with Harvard, and he's also threatening to withhold $3 billion from Harvard and give the money to trade schools instead. I'm not exactly sure where the $3 billion is coming from, but he's saying he's going to pull from them potentially the $3 billion and definitely the $100 million in federal contracts. What do you make of those two things? Well, again, I think it's a good idea to reallocate some of the funds to trade schools. Those are very important institutions in America, and they need the money perhaps more than Harvard with a $53 billion endowment. But again, I think it could be overgeneralized when you focus on all the visas.

Look, Harvard has too many foreign students. When I started teaching at Harvard, what, 3%, 5%? Now it was up to almost 30%. Yeah, almost a third. Every foreign student who gets a place at Harvard means an American student doesn't get a place. I think Harvard has cynically

raised the number of foreign students for financial reasons, but it has produced ideological results because I think a very high percentage of the anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism is focused on some, not all, obviously, of these foreign students. So I think vetting foreign students is a good idea. By the way, before you can become a citizen of the United States, you have to take all kinds of oaths to support things that the First Amendment would never require you to support. So there's a big difference between your rights once you're here and once you're a citizen or a permanent resident and what you can say and then expect to get into the United States. I think Oliver Holmes put it well a long time ago in an opinion involving, I think it was a racist well a long time ago in an opinion involving,

I think it was a racist policeman, saying he may have a right to be a racist, but he has no right to be a policeman if he is a racist. And I think that's true at Harvard, too. I don't think you have a right to get awards, get prizes, or generally get federal funding if you're engaged in bigotry, anti-Semitism, violations of Title VI. Let's just take this back to the 1950s when I was a college student. In the South, after Brown versus Board, some Southern schools were still allowing Klansmen to come on campus and harass black students.

They were teaching white supremacy. If in those days the federal government had cut off some funding to those universities, every liberal in the world would be applauding it. Or even go back 20 years earlier in the 1930s, Harvard, under President Conan, was supporting Nazism. It was sending professors to celebrate Nazi universities that had excluded Jews. It was bringing in Nazi professors and Nazi students. If the federal government had said at that point, no visas for Nazis, even though Nazis have the right to congregate in Madison Square Garden, as they did in the late 1930s and early 1940s, we'd all be applauding that. So you can't have a separate standard for Jews and for Zionists. No, it's just like what you were saying earlier, like these chants about globalize the intifada. We can understand if they were all over college campuses saying, kill all the Christians, kill all the Christians, it would be very clear they had to go, that this is completely inappropriate and that no Christian student would feel comfortable on campus. Well, that's what globalize the intifada means. That's what they're talking about. From the river to the

sea, same thing. So, I mean, it doesn't lose its pernicious import just because the targeted group is is quite a minority, is a very small minority in the United States and in the world. OK, I want to keep going. Yeah. A small minority now when I started was I was teaching at Harvard. About 23 percent of the student body was Jewish. Now it's below 10%, which was the anti-Jewish quota that was imposed by President Lowell. The number of Jewish students now are lower than that. It's true of the number of white students in general. And we've seen a dramatic change in the demographics of the university. And that's part of the end of meritocracy. You know, we'll never get back to having universities first grade again unless we get

back to meritocracy. Broadly defined, I'm not talking about grades or SAT scores. I'm talking about what the merits are. When you pick your surgeon, you want the best surgeon in the world. You don't care how far he's developed or what he's come from. When you have a pilot on an airplane- When you pick your pilot. Yeah, same. We should have the best students at Harvard meritocratically selected. And I think meritocracy always produces some diversity, maybe not enough, but it produces diversity. We have to get back to meritocracy. Harvard undid its Harvard reputation. Harvard did that. Harvard used to be in a class of really just one like Harvard. That was the goal of you could be at Harvard or teach at Harvard. It was the gold standard. It was like the unattainable height of heights. And they've beclowned themselves. Now it's like a hotbed of anti-Semitism. I would never send my kids there to go make them into little anti-Semites. No no thanks. Forget about anti-Semitism for a minute. The Harvard Corporation picked as its president, Claudine Gay, a clear DEI choice,

a clear affirmative action choice, utterly unqualified, probably unqualified to be a professor, ultimately charged with plagiarism. Why would anybody pick Claudine Gay, who was against the First Amendment, against free speech, fired a professor because

he represented somebody that she didn't like. And this is the corporation headed by Penny Pritzker, who's still the chairman of the corporation. You'd think you fire the person who hired Claudine Gay to be the president, but no, she's still in the corporation. And so the problem goes deeper than anti-Semitism. It goes deeper than any kind of bigotry. It goes to changing Harvard's motto from veritas, truth, to mediocritas. We'll accept mediocrity now as long as it satisfies social justice principles. Yeah. Well, you say, who would put Claudine Gay at the head of the Harvard University? Who would put Kamala Harris at the head of the United States? I mean, the same principle. I mean, Kamala Harris, let's face it, was a DEI hire as vice president and would have been a DEI hire

had we voted her in as president. She was just in Australia as an aside this week because some real estate conference hired her to speak. She's represented by CAA here in America, one of the biggest agencies out there. And they're apparently having trouble finding jobs for her domestically because they had to ship her halfway around the world in order to get a paid gig. And I just want the audience to know this is how she sounds. This is what they paid. I don't know how much for she sounds just like Kamala Harris. Here's SOT 10. The ability to understand the context in which you live, the context in which others live. You're more likely to then connect with them and understand what's important to them.

I mean, this is the thing that I've also known about life, and I'm sure everyone here understands. The vast majority of human beings are very intelligent, regardless of their education level, regardless of where they're from, and intelligent enough to know whether when you are looking at them, you are looking at them with a level of respect. Oh, my Lord. They will know that you are someone who is actually interested in their life and their reality and their fears and their dreams or not it requires you to to be self-aware enough to understand that

you may not understand their life yes oh my god and then do some work to figure out how you can understand it better. My head hurts, Alan. Yeah, it's $1,000 a cliche and she's getting paid. At least. I mean, you've been around actual smart people enough in your life. I'm sorry, but we were being sold a bill of goods. There's no there there. This is what DEI gets you. It gets you an empty suit who they prop up as, in her case, the next Obama when we all knew she was not the next Obama or Claudine Gay as, you know, some intellect who could not be touched. She could not be questioned. Remember who Claudine Gay replaced to later was Larry Summers, who was the most brilliant president of Harvard, former secretary of treasury. He got fired not because of what he said about women. That was the excuse. He got fired because he was perceived by the left as being pro-Israel. And in fact, there was a cartoon in one of the local newspapers and it had Larry Summers on his hands and knees begging the corporation saying, no, no, no, I didn't say women aren't good at math. I said Israel is an apartheid state. Now, the first Jew who wore his Jewishness on his sleeve and stood up and defended the rights of Jewish students.

Harvard had had a sordid reputation in relation to Jews for many years. And tragically, it's coming back. Look, Alan Garber is a very decent guy. He's trying his best, but he has a hard left faculty that won't let him sit down and negotiate. He should be negotiating with with the president, President Trump, and giving in on about 80 percent of what the Trump administration. Well, that's the problem. He says he is negotiating and he says, oh, well, we offered data on foreign students that was responsive to his requests. But we only had a couple of students that fell within his categories. And Trump accurately deduced, I'm sure, a lie that they cast a wide net and they got back only a couple of students whose data was responsive to Trump doesn't believe them. Pam Bondi doesn't

believe them. So they're upping the ante. Well, I understand that. And look, the key now is to prevent more of what happened in the District of Columbia last week, because I think it's going to increase. I think we're going to see more and more people crossing that line because we're going to see T-shirts with the killer. We've already seen people praising the killer. I'm not even going to mention his name. But and the same way we saw Mangione t-shirts and people praising him. Once we begin to praise terrorists and killers, we become Hamas- terrorism. And it's dangerous because the more we do to prevent, the more nuclear war, pandemics, but our ability through AI and other mechanisms to prevent and predict these threats are greater than they've ever been. And so it's important to create a jurisprudential framework for allowing us to take preventive action. And deportation is one of the keys to it. Deciding who lives in this country is the single most important

preventive measure we can take. And if we can keep our country free of terrorists, of people who come from across the border illegally, we will have a much, much better country. But we have to do it within the rule of law. And I think the Supreme Court ultimately will uphold the presidential decision who comes into the country, but will make him do it by crossing every constitutional T and dotting every constitutional I. But that in that in a way is stopping it altogether. You know, if you gave me one of those here, I got to take a break. I got to take a break and then we'll pick it up on the back and stand by more with Alan after this on his new book, The Preventive State. You heard him describe it there. This is his magnum opus. He really wants you to read this one. And as you can hear, it's a very timely read. Stand by. Tax day may have passed, but for millions

of Americans, the real trouble is just beginning. If you miss the April 15th deadline or you still owe back taxes, the IRS, you should know, is ramping up enforcement. Every day you wait could make things worse. With over 5,000 new tax liens filed daily and tools like property seizures, bank levies, and wage garnishments, the IRS is applying pressure at levels we haven't seen in years. The good news is there's still time for Tax Network USA to help. Self-employed or a business owner, even if your books are a mess, they've got it covered. Tax Network USA specializes in cleaning up financial chaos and getting you back on track fast. Even after the deadline, it's not too late to regain control.

Your consultation is completely free and acting now could stop penalties, threatening letters, and surprise levies before they escalate. Call 1-800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Megan. You may have missed that April 15th deadline, but you haven't run out of options. Let Tax Network USA help before the IRS makes the next move. Let me tell you about Financial Yield Solutions, Inc., known as FYSI. If you are handling your own books or you have a bookkeeper,

you risk inaccuracies, missed deductions, and blind spots in cash flow. FYSI's team of seasoned accounting professionals, corporate and tax attorneys handle every journal entry, bank reconciliation, and month-end close with unmatched precision, delivering clear and timely financial reports that keep you in control. They weave advanced tax avoidance strategies into your bookkeeping so you capture every deduction before you file and plug you into their network of industry leaders and referral partners for real-world growth opportunities. Set up your free consultation to learn how FYSI's experts will transform your books into a growth engine and accelerate your business to the next level. Act now to claim your free $5,000 business assessment, available only for a limited time. Go to fysi.com slash Megan, use the promo code Megan,

or just call 800-877-4000 today. I'm Megan Kelly, host of The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today. You can catch The Megan Kelly Show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey. And yours truly, Megan Kelly. You can stream The Megan Kelly Show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are.

No car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now. Get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MK show to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MK show and get three months free. Offer details apply. Alan, a couple of things I want to ask you about in the legal world.

One, Trump's war against certain law firms. And two, his attempt to rein in California, among other states, in their refusal to comply with his executive order preventing boys from playing in girls' sports. So the war on certain law firms has been very interesting. Trump's got a grudge against some who hired his nemesis.is and says, you know what, like Paul Weiss, you're no good because you hired this guy who hated me and tried to get me criminally prosecuted. And therefore, I don't think the federal government wants to do business with you anymore, which is a major threat to these law firms because their clients are calling them up saying, hey, if you can't do business with the federal government, I can't have you as my lawyer. I'm in an industry that does business with them. I can't lose all my contracts, et cetera. So it's not just Paul Weiss. It's been a law firm. WilmerHale just got a victory because it's one of the handful of many of the law firms have just submitted to Trump and said, we'll do what you want. And it's included creating like pro bono law work for clients of Trump's preference and so on. Some have fought back, like Wilmer Hale saying this is totally illegal. You can't interfere with

a private law firm saying you can have these clients and you can't have those lawyers and so on. And on Tuesday, a judge struck down his executive order against Wilmer Hale and was not happy about it. His name is Judge Richard J. Leon of the Federal District Court for the District of D.C. He said it was unconstitutional, must be struck down in its entirety, adding that Mr. Trump appeared, quoting here from The Times, intent on driving the firm to the bargaining table by imposing a kitchen sink of severe sanctions. He said in the ruling, the cornerstone of the American system of justice is an independent judiciary and an independent bar willing to tackle unpopular cases. However daunting,

the founding fathers knew this with an exclamation point, wrote Judge Leon in a 73-page opinion, laced with more than two dozen exclamation points. Accordingly, they took pains to enshrine in the Constitution certain rights that would serve as the foundation for that independence. Little wonder that in the nearly 250 years since the Constitution was adopted, no executive order has been issued challenging these fundamental rights. And then he ripped into Trump for doing that here. That's how he sees it. My pals over at National Review, like Andy McCarthy, agreed when he first started issuing these things, calling them bills of attainder, which you explain what that is. But that, in my mind, tends to be like singling somebody out

for criminal prosecution, like one individual here out to get. This isn't exactly that. But what do you make of the law, the war on law firms? Well, do you know where this idea all came from? It all came from radical Democratic lawyers who started a project called the Project 65. It started during the Biden administration. And its express goal was to punish law firms and lawyers who had defended Donald Trump. So I wrote an op-ed piece saying, if you go after anybody because they defended Donald Trump, I will defend them pro bono. So what do you think they did? They filed a bar charge against me.

It cost me over $100,000 to defend myself against frivolous bar charges in Arizona and Massachusetts. I won all my cases, of course. But a bunch of lawyers who were asked to defend Donald Trump said, no, we don't want to be quote Dershowitz. We don't want to have happen to us what happened to Dershowitz. So it all started with Project 65, a group of left wing lawyers. And there was no objection from the bar. Indeed, there was cooperation by the bar. And so we're seeing a lot of hypocrisy. I don't like what

Trump is doing to law firms. But it all started with liberal Democrats, and nobody cared about it then. So this is, again, the application of a double standard. Don't stand up against Donald Trump if you are prepared to stand up, if you are prepared not to stand up against the 65 Project. The 65 Project, look it up. It started all this, and it expressly said it was going after lawyers who defended Donald Trump. So let's understand where this started from. And it's wrong no matter who does it. We should not be weaponizing our legal system. We should not be having warfare on either side. But it's understandable when the left uses lawfare, going after Donald Trump in the New York case

was the worst criminal case I've seen in 60 years of being involved in defending criminals. I've never seen a case as bad as the New York case. So lawfare started, started with the Democrats, and now we're seeing tit for tat reprisals by the Republicans. Both are wrong. Right on. OK, so on the boys and girls sports issue, Trump issued an executive order saying that needs to stop and clarifying that title nine means what it says it means, which is it's a protection of girls in sports and they should have their own sports, uh, in which to compete. And that does not include boys who say they quote identify as girls. California has made an open vow to not follow that executive order. They say they, quote, identify as girls. California has made an open vow to not follow

that executive order. They say they have a state's human rights law that requires that they recognize anybody's claim of gender identity when it comes to sport. And this is coming to a head right now because there is a male runner named A.B. Hernandez who is running in the girls track meets. In particular, he's doing the long jump and the triple jump and he's crushing the other girls. I mean, we reported on our morning show today. There was one meet in February in which his jump, his long jump was eight feet longer than the next best competitor who was female. He's definitely got male advantage. And Trump issued Truth Social two days ago saying, you will comply or I will withdraw federal funds from you, the state of California. And he added, I'm directing local authorities

to not let this happen on this upcoming weekend where it's the state championships. Now, generally, police power is with the state. The federal government wouldn't be directing local cops on what to do and what not to do. But are either pieces of that threat enforceable in your view? Well, let's just go back to Governor Wallace, who made the same kinds of statements back in 1954, 1955 and 1966. He said, we have laws in the state of Mississippi, the state of Alabama, that prohibit, no. We have a constitutional and in this case, Article 9, Article, you know, all these various titles coming in that are federal law. And under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, the civil rights laws, federal civil rights laws, Trump state laws. And so there is a legal basis for enforcing federal law over the states. And as I say, it goes back to the 50s when the shoe was on the other foot. Again, if the state of California, they would never do it. But if the state were to say, we're not going to permit

black athletes from participating in basketball because they're too good and they, you know, or dominate the sport. We would never tolerate that for one second. We would never tolerate. We need more diversity in the NBA. No, that's meritocracy. And, you know, when when when the Indiana Pacers beat the Knicks in a close game, that's because they were a better team.

And and and the rule. I that did not go over well in my household, and I think my sons would debate that with you. But yes, I see your point. So you think he can get away with the with the threat, but can he withdraw federal funds? Is that OK? And what about is this just empty words to the attempt to direct local authorities not to allow it this weekend at the state championships? I think ultimately the Supreme Court is going to have to uphold the withholding of federal funds from states and other institutions that violate federal law. It has nothing to do particular case. It has to do with the dominance of the supremacy clause. Without the supremacy clause, you couldn't have the United States of America us may not like the way it's being used. And in my family, too, we fight like children about transgender athletes. There are many points of view on that. And it seems to me that President Trump ran on that theory.

And the majority of Americans support it. and the law seems to support it. So whatever you think of the policies, I think we're going to see ultimately the Supreme Court upholding most of these Trump initiatives, but demanding that they be done with due process, that they not have shortcuts around the constitutional requirements of due process of law. I mean, to me, it's like, OK, we're dealing with a federal law here, Title IX. But it's no different than that case that went up to the Supreme Court two years ago, 303 Creative, in which a woman in Colorado said, I don't want to create a website for an LGBTQ couple. And the state of Colorado said, well, we have state human rights laws that require you to

do it. That say you may not discriminate against anybody in the providing of a business service just because they're LGBTQ. And the Supreme Court sided with her. And there it was because of the Constitution, not a federal law, but each would be treated as trumping a conflicting state law. And they said the First Amendment allows her to object to doing this, notwithstanding what the state human rights law seeks to compel her to do. To me, this is the same thing. You can't use your state human rights laws to violate Title IX, which is clear and has always been clear. It's only Joe Biden who tried to make it unclear, but it was thrown out his interpretation by a federal district court in the, one of those nationwide injunctions that the left now loves. Right. And president Trump, once obtaining the

presidency has clarified its meaning back to the original as well. So, all right. So, so do you have any thoughts on whether Trump can actually prevent it? Cause he's saying to local authorities, don't let this happen. State championship is this weekend. You got a lot of girls who are about to not feel the glorious joy of winning because they're going to lose to this boy. I mean, can he pull a George Wallace? I mean, not a George Wallace, but can he pull, you know, a federal like troops in there or National Guard in there? Or he has no command over local authorities to actually stop it is my point. He can't stop it, but he can punish it.

And that's what he's threatening to do. I suspect that we're going to see because of the politics of California, they're going to go through with it. That gives the governor of California and others a domestic political victory. And then we'll see Trump impose some punishment that gives him a national victory. And we're going to be a conflict throughout the country between various titles of the Civil Rights Act and what people think is the right thing. I helped to draft the title of the Civil Rights Act that applied anti-discrimination provisions on college campuses to Jews. And that was unpopular with some people. But it's now the law. You're incredible. You've done everything. You were involved in Title VI? Yeah, very much so.

I always forget how old you are, Alan. No offense. But I just mean, you've been around. You've done so much. I think you're 86 years old now and you're hashtag goals. But that's incredible that you were part of that. Yeah, yeah. I was at the White House when it was announced, etc. So,

you know, I've been involved in a lot of these things right from the beginning. But, you know, I am a meritocratic egalitarian. I care deeply about that. I am, you know, a constitutional libertarian. I am a constructive contrarian. Those are my three philosophical bases. I haven't changed one bit in the 70 years since I entered college, but the world around me has changed dramatically. And it's interesting, you know, my book, The Preventive State, I started writing this 60 years ago. I wrote my first article on prevention in the 1960s. And now all of these things are coming out. The COVID vaccines, the attempts to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. All of these are preventive measures that we now have to create a jurisprudence around because we live in such a cataclysmic world. There are so many

dangers that we face every single day. And we can prevent them because we've developed AI methods of predicting and preventing. But we can't do it without diminishing freedom a little bit. And it was Benjamin Franklin who said, those who would deny basic freedoms in order to achieve a little bit of security deserve neither. But in my book, The Preventive State, I try to argue that we can sometimes diminish a little bit of inessential freedoms in order book, The Preventive State, I try to argue that we can sometimes diminish a little bit of inessential freedoms in order to get a great deal of prevention. If we could have prevented 9-11, if Israel could have prevented October 7th by falsely arresting a half a dozen people, that would be a trade-off that would be worth it. And we have to figure out how to prevent

these cataclysmic situations from occurring. And we're seeing the hard left and the radicals and the terrorists and the people who call for global intifada trying to introduce massive, massive violence into our society. And we have to figure out ways of preventing it legally, lawfully. Ways of fighting back. That's really what you're saying. Ways of fighting back. All right.

I got to ask you two other quick questions before you have to go. This was in the news like a month ago, but we've talked to you many times before about what I have said I fully believe were fake allegations against you by Jeffrey Epstein, sex trafficking victim, Virginia Dufresne. She looped your name into it. For the listening audience, we've gone through this many times with Alan about how your name was suggested to her by somebody else. You weren't mentioned by her in her initial round of accusations. And ultimately, you sued her for defamation. And that case went away with her saying, I may have made a mistake. So Virginia Dufresne died at only 41 years old. She's the mother of three kids. She died by suicide, according to the local authorities,

though her father has doubts about whether that's true. He expressed them on Piers Morgan. I think we have that. Let's take a listen to her dad, whose name is Sky Roberts, SOT25. Tell me about your reaction when you heard that she'd taken her life. Well, first of all, I couldn't even believe it. I mean, I started crying right away. I'm still crying.

I can't believe that this is happening. It just, it's impossible. And then for them to say that she committed suicide, there's no way that she did. Somebody got to her. Somebody got to her. Your thoughts on it, Alan? Well, I feel terrible for her, for her family. This is not the way anything like this should have ended. She did falsely accuse me. She admitted she may have misidentified me for somebody else. I was hoping to get on with my life and let her get on with her life. By the way, we still haven't seen all the Epstein files. I want every single file out. I want every video taped out. I want everything. Why do you think that is?

Well, because there are still people in there. I know a couple of people who are named. And I think there are people who don't want their names to come out. I want everything to come out because they would prove I never met the woman, never heard of her, never had any improper contact with anybody since I met Jeffrey Epstein. And so I want everything to come out. And I don't know why they aren't bringing it all. Everything, every piece of paper, some of the being, uh, being withheld by judges. Um, and by the way, some of them would show that some of the accusations are false, that they would, uh, be negative toward the accusers. Some would be negative toward the clear, you're saying, you know, of certain men who would be caught up in the scandal. And you believe what? Because of influence or power that they have power over even this DOJ in not releasing these files? I don't know what the reasons are, but I know the names of people whose names have never been released and there's no reason for them not to be released, they may be innocent. And I know information about the accusers that haven't been released, devastating information

about the accusers, the accusers themselves having been involved in bringing people to Jeffrey Epstein for improper purposes. So I think all of this has to come out. The truth has to prevail. And I've been pushing for this since the day I was falsely accused. I can vouch for that day saying I want the FBI to investigate me and let everything hang out there. You came on my show in 2020 and said exactly that long before it was resolved. And we had a full airing of everything. I encourage people to go back and listen to that. There's no question in my mind, Alan did absolutely nothing. Okay. I got to ask you about P. Diddy all over the news. This trial has been riveting to so many Americans. And I

don't know, I know you've been following it a little on your show, but yesterday we had testimony from his assistant from 2004 to 2012. Capricorn is her name. And she talked about how Diddy shoved her 25 yards at one point with his hands and shoulders leaning into it, that he kidnapped her. He brought her over to Kid Cudi's house. He broke into Kid Cudi's house. He messed with Kid Cudi's house. He said he was going to kill Kid Cudi, though Kid Cudi wasn't home. Kid Cudi drove by. They then chased Kid Cudi. But it came out at the end of the day that notwithstanding the fact that she also claims he subjected to a five day lie detector test because he suspected her stealing from him. She had multiple emails to him after the fact saying, I'd sure love to come back and work for you. I did ever tell you I had a massive

crush on you, you know, and so the defense was obviously trying to show, geez, for all these horrific things he allegedly did to you and around you, you still really wanted to work for him quite badly. How do you think it's going for the prosecution? Well, it's going very well at the trial, but it will be reversed on appeal for the same reason the Harvey Weinstein case was reversed. The jury shouldn't be seeing all this material because he's not charged with any of it. If this were a state

case in which he was charged with domestic abuse, with kicking his wife or girl. It's part of the RICO Foundation, right? It's like these underlying predicate criminal acts. Trafficking and all of these things undercut that. It makes it sound like he had terrible relationships with the people close to him rather than trafficking or doing anything involving R Rico. So I think from a legal point of view, the state is undercutting its own case. But from a jury point of view, my God, what could be better than showing them a videotape of him being a terrible, terrible person? But he's not on trial for being a terrible person. He's on trial for specific violations of specific federal laws, and they will be reversed on appeal. Alan Dershowitz, in addition to his many other talents, appeals are his specialty.

And I don't I don't know if you've ever even lost one. I mean, what what percentage have you won? What percentage have you lost, Alan Dershowitz, on appeal? I can't get into percentages, but I've won a very, very large percentage. Remember, appeals usually win only five percent. So my record has been very good, which I've been very successful. Thank thank God for that. And I'm going to continue at 86 to argue the right appeals for the right people.

I do most of them pro bono. I don't know how you do it. How do we wind up like Alan Dershowitz at 86, as mentally sharp as ever? How do we do it? Marry the right woman. That's the key. Marry the right person. That's the key. Marry the right person. That's my wife keeps me going. I couldn't have done this show today without the help of my wife. So, uh, Oh God bless her success. Okay. I like it. I check in my case, check. I've got

that spouse. So I'm happy to hear this. I hope you're right. Thank you. And all the best with the book. It's called the preventiveive State, The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties. And as with so many of Alan's books, boy, he really knows when to drop them. I mean, that's that's really one of the main things we're debating right now in our society under Trump and really under Biden as well. So check it out if you want to be informed. Tomorrow, Glenn Greenwald is here, right here in studio. We've never had him in studio. That'll be fun.

See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear. Since President Trump's election, the eyes of the nation have been on Mar-a-Lago and the free state of Florida. It's a thriving, booming place. South Florida is a special place too because of its amazing water. It's so blue and clean and gorgeous. They boat, they swim, they fish, they drink. Today, that clean water, well, sadly, it's endangered by toxic algae. Did you know that? You may have heard of red tide or blue-green algae. Well, it can be dangerous and it can be gross. In his first term, President Trump signed a law to solve this problem with a new reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee to keep clean, fresh water flowing constantly to South Florida.

President Trump said after years of rebuilding other nations, we're finally rebuilding our own. Washington can finish the job in next year's budget and keep President Trump's promise. The Everglades Foundation, our advertiser, says that would be very good for Florida and good for the Everglades. Learn more about President Trump's Everglades support project at evergladesfoundation.org.