The Megyn Kelly Show - Lawfare 2.0 Fighting Trump, and Sparring with Newsom, with Charlie Kirk, and Former Female Athlete Speaks Out | Ep. 1029

Episode Date: March 18, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA and host of The Charlie Kirk Show, to discuss the activist judge who is trying to stop the Trump administration's deportations of Venezuelan gang members, why district court judges have no jurisdiction to interfere, the Lawfare 2.0 strategy of the left to fight Trump, Stephen Miller shutting down an activist CNN host's attempt to "gotcha" him, the truth about the law the Trump administration is using for deportations, the bizarre way Mahmoud Khalil was able to obtain a green card so quickly, whether other interests in the Biden administration fast-tracked his application, the full backstory to his appearance as first guest on Gavin Newsom’s podcast, how he saw an opportunity to expose Newsom’s inauthenticity, why it could hurt Newsom's chances in a Democratic primary, his hypocrisy in talking moderation but governing as a radical, and more. Then Minna Svard, former NCAA athlete, joins to discuss her experience placing second against a man posing as a woman, how he robbed her of a national championship, the pressure she faced to stay quiet about the situation, and more.Kirk- https://thecharliekirkshow.com/podcasts/the-charlie-kirk-showSvärd- https://iconswomen.com/Ground News: Use the link https://groundnews.com/megyn  to get 40% off the Vantage subscription to see through mainstream media narratives.Home Title Lock: Sign up at https://www.hometitlelock.com/MegynKelly  and use promo code MEGYN250 for a FREE title history report AND access to your Personal Title Expert —a $250 value! Check out the Million Dollar TripleLock Protection details when you get there! Exclusions apply. For details visit https://www.hometitlelock.com/warranty 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, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. We are starting to see the signs of Trump Lawfare 2.0 as the new administration battles with multiple left-wing judges, but one in particular, over the Trump team's authority to deport gang members. I mean, okay, we're talking about Venezuelan gang members, and this apparently is the hill the left wants to die on. The White House says the deportation flights will continue and that they will win this fight all while the media melts down. And Gavin Newsom's been busy podcasting. I mean, you know, like your state, parts of it, large parts of it remain in ashes. Maybe you should be governing.

But instead, he wants to do what I do, which is fine. It's fun. But, you know, they elected him to do a different job. And he's trying to figure out how Trump crushed his party last November. He's talking with some of the biggest names in MAGA world. His first guest earlier this month was Charlie Kirk, the founder of Turning Point USA and host of the Charlie Kirk show. And he happens to be our guest today as well. Aren't you tired of the corporate media prioritizing certain narratives over the facts? I was too. And that's why we started this show, to have real conversations full of tough questions to get to the truth. And it's also why I want to tell you about ground news and independent app and website, not at the mercy of corporate control. They prioritize transparency. So you

can compare coverage on any issue and think for yourself instead of letting someone else think for you. They even show important stories that the other side is ignoring. Go to groundnews.com slash Megan to see it all in action. With so many outlets suppressing conservative views and ignoring facts, Ground News is more important than ever. Track all of your most trusted independent sources there so you never miss out on the story shaping our world. Right now, you can get 40% off their Vantage plan, knocking the price down to just five bucks a month. go to groundnews.com slash Megan. That's G-R-O-U-N-D news.com slash Megan to invest in your ability to think critically about the news.

Charlie, welcome back. How you doing? Thanks, Megan. I'm doing great. Great to be here. Thank you. Awesome. Okay. Let's talk about this judge, Boasberg, of the DC court, the federal district court, who is all over Trump on these deportations of the Tren de Aragua suspected gang members. Trump says these are gang members. Tom Holman says they're gang members. We've done our homework. That's who they are. And we are shipping them out of the country with a with a with a ride. I mean, we're being courteous to them, giving them a ride, although it ends in El Salvador at a prison, which is generally where gang members wind up, whether it's domestically or internationally.

And this judge is losing his mind that Trump is not doing everything he's commanding him to do. And this is the closest thing we've seen yet to a constitutional crisis. You know how the left has been throwing that term around. And it's not because of Trump. It's because of a judge who thinks he's the president. This Judge Boasberg is speaking to Donald Trump as though he's the judge's underling, his clerk, who needs to run around answering the judge's every little question. This is foreign policy.

And he like this is where Trump is at the apex of his power, which Judge Boasberg doesn't seem to understand. I just want to give you a little a little overview of what Julie Kelly, so great on the J6 cases reported, happened inside the hearing yesterday where Boasberg, who had said to Trump on Saturday, do not send those planes to El Salvador, any remaining planes, and the ones that are in the air, turn them around and bring them back to the United States. Well, that didn't happen with the three planes. The Trump administration is saying, look, they were in the air and we're not turning planes around midair when they're out of US airspace to come back to the US. Stephen Miller pointing out yesterday, did the judge have any idea how much fuel was in the planes? Did he have any idea

what the flight time was of the crew on board and whether that was safe for them to do, to turn it around? Like, this is so out of order what the judge is doing. And with the third flight, that's the one we're not sure

whether that took flight after the judge ordered it not to. Whatever. All of this is extrajudicial behavior because the Alien Enemies Act says he doesn't get to review presidential declarations under that act. All right. So that's that's where we are. But let me just give you a little feel for what Julie Kelly says happened yesterday. She writes this is 16 hours ago. Hearing now underway in Judge Boasberg's courtroom on his nationwide temporary restraining order

related to the president's March 15th proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg acted within hours of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of five suspected Venezuelan terrorists. By the way, Trump did not deport those five. He listened to the judge and said, all right, we can hash it out over those five. But these others, they're going. Boasberg, I've scheduled this hearing for fact-finding on the government's response to my order. We're focusing on a timeline involved. I want to get a sense of the numbers. I just want

facts, not planning to issue any ruling about the government's conduct. Yes. The DOJ, if it's still true that the five individual plaintiffs are in the U.S., DOJ says yes. How many planes departed the U.S. on Saturday under the proclamation? DOJ says flights complied with his order but won't disclose more. Boesberg, to anyone, including me? DOJ, yes. Boesberg, based on what? DOJ cites national security concerns and flight patterns. Boesberg, you're saying it's classified?

I can receive classified information. Okay, then he goes on. Here's a list of questions I want answered, and you can tell me why you won't give me these answered. And the deadline to answer is noon today, Tuesday. How many planes left at any time Saturday based solely on the on the proclamation by President Trump? How many people were on each plane? In what country did the planes land? What time did they take off? What time did they land? When were they in airspace? What time were individuals on the plane transferred to custody? Now he asked the ACLU if they have any questions that they want answered by the Trump administration. So the ACLU

is now directing our foreign policy about these flights. Julie Kelly continues, there are three flights at issue, two, and she's, I think she's repeating what the judge was saying. There are three flights at issue, two that left before, no, sorry, this is her, two that left before any written order, and that the DOJ says did not include individuals covered under the Alien Enemies Act, and one that might have departed after Boasberg's minute order posted on 730 Saturday. ACLU wants a sworn statement that the third flight did not include illegals covered by Trump's proclamation. Boasberg tells DOJ he will order the government to file a sworn statement as to the third flight. The ACLU is in charge of foreign policy.

Boesberg, now you can tell me why the other two flights complied with my order. How? How did they comply with my order? DOJ again argues Boesberg's oral statement during the March 15th 5 p.m. hearing was not controlling that this order went into effect once it was posted on the docket. They're trying to say the flights may have taken off after the oral ruling that they shouldn't take off. But I'm trying to get this right. He issued the oral ruling and they're saying that wasn't that didn't control. What controlled was the written minute order that posted. And these flights took off before the written order was posted.

But they're also arguing out of the same other side of the mouth. You didn't have the authority to issue this order anyway. Here we go. I'm almost getting to Charlie standby. Boasberg's now agitated that his verbal direction to return the planes during the hearing is not considered controlling. Boasberg's now saying the DOJ should not have allowed any planes to take off on Saturday at all because the DOJ knew Boasberg would be holding a hearing at 5 p.m. And Boasberg's first minute order related only to the five illegal plaintiffs. Boasberg's saying the Trump administration should not have executed the president's order

because Boasberg was going to hold a hearing that evening and maybe stop the government from deporting under the Alien Enemies Act. OK, that's where we'll kick it off today. What what is happening here and your reaction to this judge? I mean, there is so much to unpack. And Megan, what a wonderful intro. And I'm really happy to be able to comment on this. First and foremost, I encourage everyone in your audience to check out Stephen Miller's about 10-minute masterclass that he had on CNN the other day.

It was amazing. He was going through point by point. It was a 10. And Stephen is a dear friend. And we've worked together on a lot of different stuff. And I don't pump up him unless he's really hit it. I mean, it was one of the most effective cable news segments and the cnn host i mean she had no idea what was going on but essentially to distill it and then add some additional commentary

what we have seen over the last 40 years especially but over the last 100 years is the concentration of power in washington dc is largely vested in the unelected bureaucracy and the unelected judiciary. This is against the founding fathers' original intent and design. The founding fathers never put in to the original framework this idea of a fourth branch of government. We are seeing that finally, finally be criticized. That's what Doge is doing. And you see how the left is losing their mind. They're firebombing Tesla dealerships. They're saying that, you is, well, what if we also challenge the power of the unelected judiciary? This is not judiciable, and which meaning anything that happens overseas when it conducting foreign policy, a district court judge does not have

jurisdiction over. He can try to invent some ways while he does. But the ramifications of this could directly impair national security. I could go through dozens of individual types of movements or actions that a president has done over the last 20, 30 years that God forbid a district court judge would get involved with. One that was very high profile during President Trump is when he took out the head of ISIS, widely celebrated by both Republicans and Democrats. Remember, President Trump said he died like a dog and he was screaming. And what if a district court judge would have enjoined and said, you know what, actually? Yeah, exactly. Well, yeah, there was al-Baghdadi. Exactly. And there was also Soleimani from Iran. But you're exactly right. Al-Baghdadi. What if

a district court judge would have enjoined President Trump's ability to use American troops to go after the head of ISIS, saying, you know what? I want to learn more about actually who these troops are. I want to know the intelligence. I want to know really what's going on here. I mean, this is so outrageous to anybody that understands how American foreign policy must operate. Secondly, the Constitution is very clear. This is an Article II question, that all authority when it comes to foreign policy vests in a commander-in-chief. That is the President of the United States. And I want to give a lot of credit to Stephen Miller and Susie Wiles and the White House team, because they really thought this one through. You see, the kind of shallow analysis is, oh, the White House is moving so fast. They don't know what

they're doing. No, no, no, no. You look at how well prepared they have been for this. They picked the right fight. They wanted this one to go to the White House. Think of all the criteria that they were able to isolate here. Trend de Aragua. So every single one of these were people that were members of Trend de Aragua, which was mentioned and actually categorized even under Joe Biden as a foreign operative word,

a foreign terrorist organization from the Venezuelan government. That is number one. Number two, it involves foreign policy. So a district court judge absolutely does not have jurisdiction over it. And number three, which I think is so incredibly important, is that they then domiciled the terrorists in a foreign country. And President Bukele, who is awesome, by the way, is literally like laughing at this district court judge. Like, yeah, you don't have jurisdiction over here. You don't have sovereignty here. You see, typically the left, they made a big mistake here. The ACLU made a huge mistake. They took the bait. They said, oh, my goodness, the president is invoking a 200 year old law.

Well, time out. The constitution is over 200 years old. So I don't know exactly what they're getting at here, but they took the bait. They rushed into court. They sued. They said, oh, these murders and these rapists, we have to make sure that they stay in America. When in reality, they thought they were getting President Trump and his administration to stop what they were doing. The Trump administration likely, I'm saying this just as a gut instinct, I don't have this on first person authority, but I know the players involved and how sophisticated they are.

They likely wanted the ACLU to sue on this particular matter to have this eventually appeal to the Supreme Court and get a declarative final judgment. And this is the final point I wanna make on this, Megan, which is we talk frequently about how we finally have a southern border, right? Border crossings are down 95 to 99 percent. We're finally seeing it.

One of the reasons why that's possible is because the first couple of years of Trump won was spent in the courts actually putting remain in Mexico through the courts and getting a declarative decision at the Supreme Court, putting all the different pandemic-related emergency measures, working through the legal ramifications of what it means to actually have a southern border. That was done during Trump 1. Now, during Trump 2, we're going through the same legal ramifications of actually being able to deport foreign nationals from our land who are terrorists, the worst of the worst. So credit to the Trump White House team. This judge is completely out of control. Remember this judge is married

to a radical left-wing lunatic. Secondly, also gave a slap on the wrist of Kevin Clinesmith. You might remember that during all the Russiagate, FBI, FISA court stuff. This judge is an Obama appointee, is no good. And I'm so thrilled that the Trump administration is holding the line here to set a proper precedent that no district court judge should interfere with the president of the United States' ability to execute and perform foreign policy. It's amazing when you think Joe Biden opened the southern border and said, come on in, facilitated the millions, literally millions of illegals, including illegal gang members who would commit murder in the United States.

Come on in. And now, as Trump is trying to correct what Joe Biden did, starting with the worst of the worst, the people who not only broke our laws to enter the country, but actually broke our laws once here by engaging in gang activity or murder or rape, etc. That's where he's beginning the efforts that now we've got the ACLU involved. Now we've got the left filing legal challenges to slow it down. This is the hill they want to die on. Don't deport Venezuelan gang members. They have the right to stay here. They have the right to clog up our courts with person by person hearings to decide whether they're deportable as opposed to if there's no question that have stopped while trying to sneak across the border. We could have just kicked them out immediately, turned them around immediately and said, get the hell out of here.

But because Joe Biden let them in, let them commit crimes inside the United States. Now we're pretending like they have additional rights where they can go be a bunch of Americans who Tom Homan is confused about who need my protection as this D.C. federal district court judge. And here's just one more thing of the Julie Kelly thread yesterday. She writes, Judge Boasberg and the DOJ are now arguing over the court's jurisdiction over international waters and airspace. Boesberg keeps interrupting DOJ and insisting he has the ultimate authority. Quote, isn't it a better course to return the planes to the United States and figure out a better course instead of we will do whatever we want? He says Trump administration's only relief is to appeal his order, not ignore it. There is no evidence that that is the case,

she writes. She was quoting him here. I'm just asking how my equitable powers do not attach to that plane after it left the United States. DOJ citing presidential military and foreign diplomatic authority. Boasberg, you're saying the president has extra powers over a plane once it leaves the United States? I think my equitable powers are pretty clear that they don't end at the water's edge or airspace edge. These are interesting questions to have on a set of facts, which is what I was hoping to get to today. He literally thinks he has the power to take U.S. planes being conducted by the military, leaving the United States with people designated terrorists by the president of the United States and his top emissaries,

that he can tell them they must turn those planes around when they're in international airspace and bring these criminals back to America, Charlie. And a couple thoughts on this. Number one, if President Trump would not have defeated Hillary Clinton in 2017, you would have an entire Supreme Court composed of people like this. And I hope everyone in your audience takes a moment to really reflect on that. This is the predominant view of the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party relies on unelected non-democratic sources of power to be able to continue their ideological campaign against the American people. Even though they do it in the name of democracy, it's all about unelected bureaucrats in the federal government and an unelected judiciary.

Secondly, I'm glad the Trump administration is taking this posture. This judge himself thinks so highly of his ability as a district court judge that he's saying, well, of course I can conduct things overseas. Imagine the precedent here. The precedent would be that if the president of the United States, like for example, the president yesterday mobilized three aircraft carriers to defend shipping lanes outside of Iran. Is he allowed to do that? Is that going to be enjoined? And of course, a more lighthearted one, is some judge going to say, you know what, actually you have to return the two astronauts back to the space station. Because I have to find out exactly why you sent the rocket to SpaceX making money.

Does my jurisdiction go into orbit? I mean, does a district court judge, is a district court judge allowed to get involved in satellite movements? I mean, at some point you have to ask the question, who is in charge? And the founding fathers answered this question very crisply.

They answered it with great profundity and wisdom. The American people are in charge and their proxy is the president. The proxy is the president of the United States when it comes to all foreign policy decisions. I debated this with Glenn Greenwald yesterday. There is a check on the president's exercise of power and it's called impeachment. If the president has overstepped the bounds of Article 2, then he can be impeached by the Article 1 branch, and that's the U.S. Congress. They're not doing that. You may be saying, well, those Republicans are never going to impeach him. The audience may be thinking,

that's too bad. That's the way the founders set it up. If he does something egregious enough, something absolutely horrible, if Trump completely misused his powers, started executing U.S. citizens, I bet he would be impeached even by a Republican House. That's not what's happening here. And so there is a remedy. But the founders did not see fit to allow an Article three judge who has absolutely zero authority when it comes to foreign policy to second guess the commander in chief's wartime powers. And no, we're not at war the way we were in World War Two. But the president is saying and Stephen Miller was saying in that segment yesterday, which we have a clip of, which was amazing and well worth your time to watch all 10 minutes, that

all three pieces of the Alien Enemies Act allow the president to act here. Yes, there there has been a war declared on the United States by these countries, he said, including Venezuela when it comes to their gangs. And they've committed an invasion. And there's been something less than an invasion, an incursion on the territory of the United States, all three of which would activate the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to do this. Here's a little bit of the Stephen Miller, Cassie Hunt exchange yesterday, South 11. Masterclass. You're not hearing me and you're not understanding me. Read the statute, Alien Enemies Act 1798. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government,

so it lists the three qualifying actions. It could be an act of war. It does say in the very beginning there has to be a declared war against a nation or a state. That's what it says. Wrong. Look up the statute. It's on my account on social media. That's actually where we found it.

It's so good. It says or a predatory incursion or an invasion. The statute delineates three criteria for triggering the Alien Enemies Act. A district court judge can no more enjoin the expulsion of foreign terrorists to foreign soil that he can direct the movement of Air Force One, that he can direct the movement of an aircraft carrier. It was amazing. And what was especially great about especially great about it was what is it, Steve? Is it Cassie or Casey? I don't actually, I, I don't, we've talked about this person before,

but okay. Okay. It's Casey, but she, I mean, look, she was too dumb to get it. I'm just going to say it is she was, she was not smart enough to handle the truth bombs that Stephen Miller was unleashing. She can't handle. No. And you can see it. She just, every moment of the thing was her attempting to do a gotcha. But are we at war? Are we at war with Venezuela? Are we, Stephen? It's like, he was so far out of her league. He kept trying to explain it to her. She couldn't quite grasp it. She was just looking for her gotcha moment and she couldn't get there. She obviously had a producer or two in her ear trying to keep up with Stephen Miller because that's about how smart Stephen Miller is. It takes about like four liberal women producers at CNN to be even able to be competitive with Stephen Miller. And they couldn't even get it right. They couldn't even

get it right because they couldn't even read the sentence. And Stephen made an incredibly important point here, which is and I don't it wasn't in that in that piece of here, which is, and I don't, it wasn't in that, in that piece of tape, which is that the president does not even need to acknowledge this district court decision. Yeah. The Supreme court will rule on it eventually, but it is, it is well settled in American law that anything that comes to foreign policy is directly under the president of the United States. We did not doubt, for example, that Joe Biden had the ability to do a disastrous withdrawal of Afghanistan. We hated what he did. We hated how he did it, but he has that power. I mean, it's very simple. He could do it. And I want to just

get back to this point, though, that the very cheerleaders for democracy, you notice they don't talk about the threats of democracy very much anymore. They've kind of silenced on that entire talking point the last six months. But the very people that are saying that they're for democracy are now wanting unelected institutions to slow down the will of the American people and to completely stop it. Their goal is to try to throw sand in the gears. Right now, we have a record amount of injunctions. If you want to know my greatest concern about Trump 2.0, it is not the sophistication of his staff. It is amazing. Versus Trump 1.0, I mean, the president, he just looks so centered and composed and happy.

Seeing him at the Kennedy Center, I mean, he's in rare form. His staff is phenomenal. They are executing on are, they're executing on every element and every item. No, my greatest concern is that their ambitious plans to deliver on the promises that they, that the president made for the American people and that they are helping to put into practice will not be possible because a group of people in black robes that nobody voted for are going to make this go piece by piece and bit by bit. And yes, we do have the U.S. Supreme Court. And again, praise the Lord that President Trump was able to get three Supreme Court justices, two of them

pretty good. One of them is suspicious. But I think even Amy Coney Barrett, despite her recent, you know, let's just say posturing, is going to rule favorably on this. And again, the big takeaway is the slowdown of the Trump administration, everything from Doge to the southern border. And then eventually these district court judges are, imagine President Trump talking to Vladimir Putin, it's going to break the internet. Everyone's going to be talking about it. Can a district court judge say, you know what? Actually, Russia and Ukraine, the war must continue. Actually, the Israel-Gaza conflict must continue. This is the exact same thing that we are talking about here. It has to deal with matters of foreign policy and enemy invasion. And a law is on the books. And it is worth repeating that, you know, they say it's this 200 year old law, but what they're really getting at is that that which is old must be discarded. You see, we as conservatives believe that that which is old and that which lasts

is actually beautiful and worthy of studying because it's a reflection of human nature. And even though the times change, human nature does not change. That's why the Constitution is the longest lasting political document of its kind, because it was not written about that. For the times it was written to stand the test of time. The other thing about that is it's it is truly like the the boy who kills his parents and then begs for mercy on the grounds that he's an orphan. They're in there saying it's 200 years old. It's only been invoked three times during, you know, actual wars, hard wars, hot wars. And but they're the ones who allowed some 10 to 20 million illegals, criminals

in many instances on top of the illegal entry to come into this country over the past four years. The most extraordinary thing we've seen in a century when it comes to illegal immigration in this country. And now when President Trump does something extraordinary to combat it, which is to declare an invasion, to declare an incursion, now they turn around and say, you're using antiquated law. What are you doing? This is extraordinary. Like this has only been used. Yes, you created the circumstances that made this necessary. The thing that's so galling about this judge and that exchange with Casey Hunt yesterday was she kept saying to Stephen Miller, what court can review it? Okay, what court can review it? Then what court can review it? If this district court cannot do it? And the answer is no court can review it, Casey. No court. Not the Supreme Court, not the appellate court, not the district court. That's the answer. There is no court, including

the highest court in the land, that has jurisdiction over this. And in part, yes, there's the issue of his foreign policy powers alone, but in part is because of the words of the Alien Enemy Act as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court after it was passed. They held as follows. I read this yesterday. It stands. This is not reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court held the Alien Enemy Act precludes, meaning stops, doesn't allow judicial review of the removal order. This is the Supreme Court deciding a case after World War II had ended. Such great war powers may be abused, no doubt. But that is a bad reason for having judges supervise their exercise, whatever the legal formulas within

which such supervision would nominally be confined, the Supreme Court majority declared. Accordingly, we hold that full responsibility for the just exercise of this great power may validly be left where the Congress has constitutionally placed it on the president of the United States. That's the law, Casey, not the Supreme Court, not the appellate court beneath it, and not Judge Boas Burke. Bingo. It is completely settled. And the Democrats are going to continue to push for the most radical measures to stop President Trump. That is perfectly said. And the final takeaway here that I think is incredibly important, and you did mention this

as well, just understand the actual biographies of the people that they are willing to fight for, the hill that they are willing to die on. I mean, these are the worst of the worst human beings. I mean, some of these people are murderers and rapists and drug traffickers and criminals. I mean, Trende Aragua is an enemy occupation force. matter. And person after person came up talking about home invasions, talking about how the gang members have taken over apartment and condominium complexes, how their entire town has become a Venezuelan occupied city. Now, no more. It has now been liberated largely thanks to the federal government and Trendyaragua has been scattered across America. But the Democrats on the left, they are so desperate to try to slow down this administration that they are willing to side with drug traffickers, murderers, and

criminals for any reason whatsoever. And just understand the moral sickness that has infected the Democrat party. And I hate to put it this way, Megan, because I wish the Democrats actually would moderate on some issues. I know we'll talk about the Gavin thing and whether that's legitimate or not. I wish the Democrats wouldn't be like this. But over a span of a couple of weeks, the Democrat Party at whole, and if you count this judge as one of them, they refused to stand and applaud a young man with brain cancer who ceremonially became part of the U.S. Secret Service, while also aligning and supporting a judge who wants murderers and drug traffickers and criminals to have a piece-by-piece deportation process to potentially stay in the United States of America. That's the hill that they're willing to die on. It is a cancer that has infected the Democrat Party, and I'm thrilled that Trump and his team are willing to stand up against it, hold the line and understand that some district court judge

will not interfere with the president's power. Okay. Um, there, I want to get to exactly who is in these groups that are being deported. But, uh, before we do that, stand by one second. Okay. Mike Davis, who's coming, he comes on the show all the time, our audience knows him. He has been making the rounds about this Judge Boasberg, and here's what he's saying. I respect federal judges, no matter if they're appointed by Democrats or Republicans. But what Jeb Boasberg did in this instance is so illegal. It's so reckless. It's so dangerous that you are ordering, first of all, you are sabotaging the president of the United States during a national security operation. And if he doesn't resign, the House should impeach him. And look, I don't care if there aren't enough votes in the Senate to remove him. We need to put this guy through the process

so these judges understand when you do these reckless, dangerous things, there are consequences. So that's the question. I mean, he's saying that he should be impeached. There is a real question about whether there should be consequences for this judge. And yes, constitutional crisis, everybody will say it, but this guy is way out ahead of his skis. And I agree with you when this moves up and the process has been started and he's allowing it to go forward. He's demanding answers to the Trump administration that he gets a second guess with the ACLU's questions, Trump's decisions on how to keep the country safe, that the Supreme Court will rule in Trump's favor.

But do you think something should happen to this judge before then? Oh, without a doubt. I mean, the problem with impeachment of judges, it's very hard. It's very arduous. I also think removal and impeachment are two technically different things. I'd have to double check that because I think it still takes us. It's the same threshold in the Senate as a conviction takes of a president because the president has been impeached. President Trump twice, both on B.S. total nonsensical stuff. So, yes, I mean, this judge should absolutely be removed. But this is the problem that we're going to have with those four years that we didn't control the White House. This was not a Biden judge. This was an Obama judge. But the district courts are now filled with these radical left wing judges across the country that are just taking turns trying to enjoin President Trump on everything that he is possibly doing.

So absolutely, this judge should be impeached. I think an example needs to be made out of him. And look, the example needs to be very clear that that there's no merits to him trying to stop a foreign security operation. The president should just shrug this off and say this is a complete waste of time. I also think that this is a great opportunity for Mike Johnson and John Thune to maybe show some political muscle. But the Democrats won't vote to impeach this guy in the Senate. Of course not. We can't get them to vote to protect women's sports in the U.S. Senate, let alone vote to try to impeach a radical left-wing judge. And it is a disappointing moment in American politics, but it also shows,

and this is one that I want to invigorate your audience for those of us that want to see the president succeed and that are supporters of the president, is that it just shows how desperate the Democrats have, that they are willing to go to such extraordinary, unprecedented measures to try and stop the president of the United States. You did not see Trump appointed district court judges going to try to stop or enjoin Joe Biden's foreign policy decisions. We had too much respect for the U.S. Constitution, regardless of how bad Joe Biden or his auto pen actually was for the United States. We said, you know what? We're going to wait this one out. The Democrats, they have no such patience. They know that they are losing their grip on power. They know that they are increasingly unpopular. So they're going to even more dramatic and dangerous means to try to hold on to their

illegitimate power. And I don't think it's going to last much longer. It's amazing. You're right about, you know, they've got the juxtaposition of not standing and clapping for the boy who beat brain cancer when he gets, you know, appointed as part of the Secret Service, which was the most delightful, sweet moment. They couldn't bring themselves to clap for him. But this hell they'll die on,

trying to get the criminal gang members returned via flight back into the United States after we've already gotten them out. Not only that, but they're going to die on the hill of Mahmoud Khalil. Another debate I had with Glenn yesterday where they're saying this guy, oh, you know, he was just this. It was all about free speech. And as I said to Glenn, if this were just about Trump cracking down on Palestinian supporters, he'd be arresting all these people in Dearborn, Michigan. He'd be arresting people all over the country who rallied for the Palestinians who are on the other side. He'd be arresting Karen Atiyah

of the Washington Post who liked the tweet, this is what decolonization looks like. That's what he'd be doing. The reason he's going after Mahmoud Khalil is because he was the spokesperson for the group that held Columbia hostage for like, so the left is making these decisions to die on these very interesting hills after that state of the union where they already showed themselves to be heartless. And I do wonder if you, if you look at these decisions of like, you know, standing up for Mahmoud Khalil, standing up for these Venezuelan gang members and, you know, whoever else Trump is deporting who are not citizens. You cannot deport American citizens. That's not who he's deporting. Whether they've calculated in any of the political blowback.

And before you answer that, just let me play this up from Caroline Levitt yesterday, describing some of who's going and being booted out on these flights. They led a multi-state sex trafficking operation involving smuggling women into the United States, holding them in stash houses in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia, and forcing them into prostitution. And they kidnapped and murdered a 33-year-old woman in Texas. They sexually and physically assaulted a woman and her daughter in Wisconsin. They conducted a mass shooting in Illinois. Go ahead, Charlie. No, I mean, it's just, is that all, Caroline?

Is there anything else you'd like to add? I mean, at some point, you have to understand the political calculus of the Democrats is so short-sighted. I wish that they would allow just very basic national security operations that involve the worst of the worst. And yes, look, Trend de Aragua and their affiliated groups are a foreign occupation in American soil. We've seen it in communities all across the country. And let me also comment on that video of Bukele's people, troops receiving these Tren de Aragua gang members. What a phenomenal deterrent. to the Darien Gap, which is a very difficult forest to navigate, which actually you have to take from Venezuela eventually upwards all the way through Central America. The Darien Gap border crossings are down like 95 to 98 percent approximation, meaning that all of a sudden, not a lot of people want to go from Venezuela all the way up to America. And yes, of course,

the communist regime of Venezuela has been proven multiple times through congressional reports and congressional testimony and intelligence reports. Maduro has opened up his prisons and sent the worst of the worst of Venezuela to America because it was open season. We were a littering ground for the third world. In fact, crime was down dramatically in Venezuela during the four years of Joe Biden. While crime went up in America, crime in Venezuela went dramatically down. And so we have to look at this through an eyes of deterrent and precedent. It's an amazing deterrence.

This will only further decrease gang members and cartels. Say, I don't want to go to America. I might end up in an El Salvadorian jail. Forget this. I'm not going to go there. Phenomenal. And then finally, precedent. I agree that the Trump administration does not need to even get the Supreme Court to intervene. However, that will likely happen regardless. The DOJ will probably

end up appealing this and we will get another precedent. And so for both on the deterrence and the precedent side, the President Trump's team has done a phenomenal job. And also let me comment on the Mahmoud Kamil situation briefly. I thought you did great with Glenn Greenwald. I sympathize with you 100 percent, Megan. I think the president is firmly within his constitutional authority under the Immigration Naturalization Act. Secondly, I think he's making the right decision. You're an invited guest in the United States of America and not a U.S. passport holder. And you start actively involving in the fomenting of protest, outrage, and activity against the foreign policy interests of the United States, which involves the celebrating of the massacring

and the butchery of babies, of the most heinous crimes against civilians and the Jewish people we've seen since the Holocaust. Sorry, your invitation to the United States of America has been rescinded. You are here on a conditional basis and we rescind you on the conditions that you are now actively making America a worse place to operate and live. Go back to your country of origin, Syria, I think it is, and go make that country great with all of your protest vigor. But understand that the Mahmoud Khalil situation is a great test case because they're suing that to eventually get a decision that President Trump is operating within his constitutional authority. And actually, the authority actually goes to the Secretary of State as the Immigration and Naturalization Act is actually written. It's Marco Rubio's call. It's precisely on him. And so they're being very smart about this, is that they're going to get really good court

decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court on this. It might take a little bit more time, but the verdict will end up being that these radical left-wing judges did nothing but slow down the inevitable. And the Democrats end up siding with Hamas sympathizers and Trendy Aragua members. Quite a time to be a Democrat. Yeah, they keep talking about how he's a green card holder. Well, all that means is that he's got a permission slip to be here that can be revoked, unlike American citizenship, which cannot. He's here temporarily. We don't grant the same rights to green card holders as we do to American citizens. They are not allowed to vote. They're not allowed to do a lot of their in in most cases, they're not allowed to receive public assistance. There's all sorts of things that you and I can do as natural born citizens

that they can't. Sorry, they're on probation until they become an actual citizen. And he violated his probation by acting like a mafia thug going into the head of Columbia University and saying over and over, you divest from Israel or you get more Hamilton halls. Goodbye, Khalil. Hope you enjoyed America while you had it. No one gives a shit that you're married to an American or expecting an American baby. They do not give you the right to stay here. And by the way, everybody's like, oh, he's married to an American. That's why he got his green card so fast. I know. I don't know how this guy got his green card so fast. I'd actually like to find out because let me tell you something. I've said this before. My nephew, who's an American, he's the son of my sister,

married. He went over to teach kids in Korea, you know, like kids, like young teachers will do. And he did that for a couple of years and he met a Korean woman and he fell in love with her and they got married and they had a baby who had dual citizenship. And in any event, they wanted to move back here. So my nephew came back with his son, but his wife, who's a lawyer and married to an American citizen, but not a U.S. citizen and whose son is an American citizen, but she's not an American citizen. It's been taking her years, years just to get a green card, not never mind American citizenship. And they have nothing like Mahmoud Khalil's very sketchy history, like working for UNRWA, which is an arm of Hamas. She's she's still having trouble getting the permanent work paper. So

something is sketchy about that guy's case, Charlie. I think I think we can conjecture why he got his green card so quickly, is that there are anti-Jewish, anti-Israel forces within the State Department that likely wanted this individual here. Again, we're just hypothesizing, but you're exactly right. I mean, you look at Riley Gaines' husband, who has been trying to get U.S. citizenship and his paperwork all figured out, and it's been a nightmare for quite.S. citizenship and his paperwork all figured out. And it's been a nightmare for quite a while. I mean, we go through the list.

We all have examples of friends and family of people that have tried this, people that are phenomenal. And they marry American citizens and they follow the law and they're well-educated and they're great patriots. And no, you can't get them a green card or a temporary citizenship or citizenship, whatever status you want. You have to wonder, again, I think a proper investigation is warranted and Marco Rubio can look at this. Was there a fast track? Was there an accelerated process that was put into place for Mahmoud Camille because he was trained as a professional agitator and organizer. Now, when we look through the left-wing literature, if you look through the left-wing literature, there's documents such as Good Trouble and many of these organizations, they use a hub and spoke model where they believe that a singular agitator or organizer will be able to mobilize 500 to 1,000 people during a moment of

mass protest against quote-unquote injustice. We see this in the actual Alinsky literature. This is in their training and their guidebooks. You have to wonder if Mahmoud Khalil was put into Columbia University for the stated purpose of being a professional agitator against the United States and against Israel and was given a green card for that reason? And was there any suspicion acceleration by the Biden State Department? We don't know. It's worthy to look into, but it would not shock me or surprise me that anti-American forces did this on many college campuses, Megan. What if we were to find out that there were 20 identical type of Mahmoud Khalil, foreign-funded, foreign-trained people that were put on American college campuses, maybe at UCLA or some of these other massive encampments?

I saw the UCLA one firsthand or the one at University of Washington, where they were able to gin up all these well-meaning college kids that have been indoctrinated by their professors. It's worthy to look into. And it also begs a broader and deeper question. How often, if at all, is the American immigration system being used to aid our enemies to create sometimes very quiet or sometimes loud sleeper cells in the interior of the United States to sow discord and disharmony against the best interests of our country. Yes, Charlie, this guy got his student visa to come

study at Columbia in 2022. But his petition for relief on these deportation proceedings alleges that he got his green card in 2024 and suspiciously does not say the exact month in 2024. It could have been an 18 month turnaround from student visa to green card holder, which is some kind of bizarre fast track, right? Especially for a guy who was working for UNRWA, the UN group that basically helps Hamas. I mean, truly, that's even Joe Biden admitted that and started defunding them post 10-7. So and that's where he came from. That's where he was before he got into Colombia. So there's something very sketchy about this guy. And now he's represented by 19 different law firms. I mean, they they couldn't get to his

defense fast enough to try to stop the Trump administration from deporting this guy. And it's amazing to me to watch the left delude itself that this guy still has some shot at American citizenship. No, that ship has sailed. Mahmoud Khalil will never be a U.S. citizen. It's done. The only question is whether we can kick him out, which we clearly can. All of it is just so infuriating. And I know the left wants to say it's free speech is free speech it went well beyond free speech the people who just said we hate israel we stand with the palestinians they're

fine that's fine that's totally fair game under our first amendment you can you can even say i'm sympathetic toward hamas though you're getting closer to espousing support for terrorists there but go ahead but i just want to make one, which is that if an American citizen goes and burns a flag on a college campus, that's grotesque and it's bad. And that is constitutionally protected. But if someone on a green card, which is a permission slip, it's probationary, as you perfectly said. It's a time for us to see who this person is. Goes and burns an American flag. No, you should be returned to your country of origin. Sorry, you failed the test. You shouldn't be here.

You failed your tryout. Your job interview is an F. And so they do not get the same protections. Of course not. We're looking at them. We're seeing, are you going to make a good citizen? We have such a perverted and just such a left-wing view of how immigration should work. We have to reanalyze and go back to first principles that people who come here as immigrants, they are here as invited guests to enrich the homeland of the country and to make our lives better and to make the lives of native citizens better. And if their lives are also made better in the process, hopefully they are, then everybody wins. And that is immigration at its

best. Like the example of your nephew's wife, of course, you'd make America a better place. Those are the types of people that we want in the United States of America. She would not be going to Columbia University burning an American flag. So I think that we need to take a step back and say, if you are here as an invited guest and you act in a way or you espouse beliefs such as burning American flags or doing these types of practices, we're not going to throw you in a prison cell, but you will have to fly coach back to Damascus. That's only fair. That's only fair. So the thing about this group that he was the spokesperson for, the Columbia University Apartheid Divest, they put in writing that they're for the end of Western civilization. They want to end Western civilization. So Marco Rubio was exactly, that's the group for which he decided to be a spokesperson. Oh, it's just free speech. Okay. No, it's different. If an American citizen says something, that's one thing. You can't deport him for saying

controversial stuff even like that. But a probationary person who's asking to be a U.S. citizen has the same standard applied to him as somebody who's seeking to enter the country in the first place. If you could exclude him based on the behavior you're looking at, you can deport him based on the behavior you're looking at. And Marco Rubio had it exactly right. We would not allow somebody into this country if we understood that their goal was to destroy Western civilization. That would be a hard no. And if that's that guy's goal, which it is, of the group he joined and became a spokesperson of, it's done. I had this debate with Glenn yesterday where we were talking about, I believe he did commit crimes by being the spokesperson for this group, and that would get him deported. Crimes will get you deported. But even if they're not charged,

even if they're not charged, the government can go in there and say, we see there's probable cause to believe you committed these crimes, you're out. And speech that espouses or supports terrorism while you're a probationary citizen can get you kicked out. And if Marco Rubio and his discretion as Secretary of State thinks that there's a reasonable chance you might have bad implications for foreign policy, he can kick you out. It's just all sorts of different rules apply to somebody like this than apply to us. Okay, wait, I took the last word. Quick break. More with Charlie after this. Was it a good idea to go on Gavin Newsom's podcast we'll

talk about it did you know scammers can literally steal your home right out from under you the FBI calls it house stealing and it's a growing real estate scam criminals forge your signature on one document use a fake notary stamp pay a small fee and file it with your local recorder's office so when was the last time you checked your home title? Probably never. And that's exactly what scammers are counting on. So let me tell you about Home Title Lock. Their million-dollar triple lock protection

keeps your home and equity safe. They can help you do this. Here's what you get. Immediate 24-7 monitoring of your property, urgent alerts if there are any changes, and if fraud should happen, their US-based restoration team will spend up to $1 million to fix the fraud and restore your title at no additional cost. Get a free title history report so you can find out if you're already a victim

and access to your personal title expert, a $250 value just for signing up. Go to hometitlelock.com, use my promo code MEGAN250, or click on the link in the description. And make sure to check out the million-dollar triple lock protection details when you get there. Hometitlelock.com, promo code MEGAN250. And Charlie, in not unrelated news, there's this case making the rounds today involving a doctor named Rasha Alewi, who's 34 years old. She's a Lebanese doctor. She was here on a visa. She's not a U.S. citizen. And she just got the boot at Boston's Logan Airport when she tried to get back into the country because it turns out she was off

going to the funeral of the head of Hezbollah while she was overseas. And now she's yet another favorite poster girl of the left. They're very upset. She seems that Customs and Border Patrol didn't let her back in. this is what sort of drew our attention to it today uh the white house no as a homeland security posted this picture no it was the white house posted a picture of donald trump in the mcdonald's apron waving out the you know out the window at mcdonald's he's waving goodbye and they're talking about this case. They write last month, Russia, Al-Awae traveled to Beirut, Lebanon to attend the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah, a brutal terrorist who led Hezbollah responsible for killing hundreds of Americans over a four decade terrorist break. This woman, of course, you'll be shocked, shocked to hear that she got into the United States in 2018 on a student visa and became a professor at Brown University, which is truly the most anti-Semitic university in America, more than Columbia. I say that 100% believing it to be true. She was a physician specializing in kidney

transplants. So now the left is pretending we really needed her because we can't find any of our own doctors who do kidney transplants. We have to find terrorist sympathizers and let them teach at our universities with our young people. So she came here and did all the things I said. Then she left to go mourn her favorite terrorist, Hassan Nasrallah. And then when she tried to get back in, I'm sorry, but I just love this case. It's so ridiculous. She got caught and left. Why don't, why did they just not take the L? Like this one, sorry, she got caught. You're going to have to know they're out there defending her. Um, she was questioned by CPB officers on her way back in who searched her phone, which apparently they have the right to do. Oh,

when you're trying to get in and out of the country, you're not an American citizen. Uh, and so, um, they would not immediately admit her because they found sympathetic photos and videos of prominent Hezbollah figures in a deleted items folder on her cell phone. So she knew she should get rid of this, but she wasn't very good at it. She said she's apolitical, Charlie. She didn't really delete it. No, because those leaders are revered by many Shia Muslims. Like, you see, I don't love Hitler, but lots of other people do, which is why I have a whole deleted file of Hitler photos on my phone. But I picture it with doubles. Right, exactly. Just, you know, he's just an interesting figure. That's also,

I not only do I watch the History Channel about him, but I filled my phone full of photos of him. So I have a lot of WhatsApp groups, she says, with families and friends who send them. I am a Shia Muslim. He is a religious figure. He has a lot of teachings and he's very highly regarded in the Shia community. He's a religious, spiritual person. As I said, he has very high value. His teachings are about spirituality and morality. Okay, just note to the listening audience, he's a terrorist, and that's why he was killed in this Israeli airstrike. He was in charge of Hezbollah for 32 years, and in case you don't believe he was a terrorist, he was designated as such by the United States of America. In 1983, suicide bombing attacks against the first U.S. embassy in Beirut, then the barracks of American and French peacekeepers, killing at least 360 people, including 241 American service members. The murderous attacks were claimed by the Islamic Jihad Organization, considered a precursor to Hezbollah.

Some of the suspected planners included top commanders under Nasrallah. And on and on, we could keep going. So he's a spiritual and moral leader. And then when questioned about other photos she had of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei, Alawi said, oh, that's just typical of Shia Muslims. It has nothing to do with politics. Asked why she appeared to have deleted some of these photos just a day before arriving in the U.S., she replied, because I don't want the perception, but I can't delete everything. But I know I'm not doing anything wrong. I'm not related to anything politically or militarily. I'm really not much into politics. But yes, she admitted she did know about the U.S. terrorism designation for Hezbollah. Okay, so now the law firm stepped in, tried to rescue her from being booted out. She was detained for

like a day while they figured out what to do with her. The left wing law firms ran into court. They got a decision from an Obama judge, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin at 7.18 p.m. on Friday evening saying, don't deport her. Don't move her outside of Massachusetts. And at 7.20, two minutes later, not knowing of the order, CPB walked her to the gate to get her on her flight out of here. And the flight took off at it departed the gate at 7.43 p.m. It took off at 7.59 p.m. And now there's a meltdown over why she got deported, because apparently CPB, shockingly, the U.S. government didn't have the administrative setup to get this instantaneous notice that she was not to be sent out. But she was. So what do you make of it? Well, again, I think the president and his team are operating with phenomenal precision of the right cases to go after to set the right precedent. I mean, just the idea that you would try, I want everyone to understand. So she, she teaches at Brown or she's affiliated in Massachusetts somehow. It's not as if that the funeral that she was visiting was in Richmond, Virginia. She went halfway around to the other side of the planet. Okay. For a funeral for the Hezbollah

leader. This, this is not exactly, by the way, not exactly the nicest time of year to go visit that region of the world. Lebanon is not exactly like going to Turks and Caicos. Okay. You got to know somebody to even get in. And it's very suspicious. Okay. This whole thing, like, let's just understand the contextual elements here that you got to like connect through Istanbul. And then you're like, you're on on your own you got to take a train through the night and you do all that like oh yeah I'm not political bs you're obviously a sleeper cell of a foreign government and way to kind of expose yourself to the entire world that you you go all the way to this funeral and like yeah I really have have no ties to them and I I did take a bunch of pictures with

every single one of the mass murdering lunatics of Hezbollah. These types of people that have any connection to terror cells have no place in the United States of America. If they are not U.S. citizens, they should all be removed immediately. And I support the Trump administration completely. And again, it goes to show what the left is made of, is that the left views the entire world through oppressor and oppressed. We view the world through right and wrong, just and unjust, and moral and immoral. We look at this and we say that it is wrong. It is immoral. It is unjust for a country to willingly accept and receive a visitor who wants to become a permanent citizen who, I don't know, takes their PTO as a professor to go halfway around the world to a war-torn region to go visit the funeral of a Hezbollah leader, take pictures with all their top leaders, and then cry ignorant when asked questions upon reentry into the United States of America. She has no business being in our country.

And if she's such a qualified expert on kidney transplants, there's a lot of demand for that in the Middle East. So she'll have a lot of work. That's for sure. Yeah. She's going to go home and be with her people. I think she's going to be a lot happier over there. She should hang out with Mahmoud Khalil. They'll get along great. Exactly. Don't send your child to Columbia. Don't send your child to Brown. Do not send your child to Brown University. Over my dead body would my children go to either of those institutions. Okay. Before we leave foreign policy, Trump, uh, fighting back against the Houthis who have basically just run roughshod over, um, important waterways over in the middle East. And now he's saying, you know what, we're done with that. You're going to stop harassing us vessels and

other vessels. And, um, there was, I, I'm just going to get the stats since October, 2023, the Houthi rebels have attacked more than 100 merchant vessels and warships in the red sea with hundreds of missiles, drones, and speed boats loaded with explosives. And now Trump is fighting back, actually saying, you're not going to get away with this. We're going to put a stop to this. And also warning Iran, we know you're behind all of this and we're going to hold you accountable. We know it's not just this rebel group.

Now, interestingly, your friend in mind, Tucker Carlson, weighed in on this on Twitter and said the following. It's worth pointing out that a strike on the Iranian nuclear sites will almost certainly result in thousands of American deaths at bases throughout the Middle East and cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars. The cost of future acts of terrorism on American soil may be even higher. Those aren't guesses. Those are the Pentagon's own estimates. A bombing campaign against Iran will set off a war and it will be America's war. Don't let the propagandists lie to you. Now, I think he's referring to what's happening with the Houthis and Trump's increasing rhetoric against Iran. In fairness, he doesn't get that

specific. But what do you make of this? Because there is a large portion of the MAGA base that is very non-interventionalist and does not want to saber rattle against Iran, even though they clearly are backing the Houthis. Trump is a little bit more, he's not a neocon, but he's a little bit more aggressive on like dropping the bombs on people like Soleimani than that wing of the of the party is. So how do you see this going? Yeah, I mean, look, the president is a masterclass of being unpredictable and he's not ideological when it comes to foreign policy. That is the most important thing you must understand with President Trump. And that's why he's the best peace president and the most effective commander in chief of my lifetime and probably since Dwight D. Eisenhower, where he doesn't

come after it being from a very specific, abstract worldview of we must be dovish or we must be hawkish. He looks at every independent situation, ways and measures and says, what is best for the United States of America? I do sympathize with Tucker's view that a war with Iran would be totally, would be terrible. And I think the president also agrees with that. By the way, the president not once has signaled either in his campaign addresses, in his first term, that he wants a kinetic hot war with Iran. What does have some people worried is the mobilization of three, I believe it was three aircraft carriers or naval ships towards Iran, towards the Strait of Hormuz, which is all about shipping lanes. I think that's perfectly justified. Just to clarify that, our retaliatory strike on them,

carried out by jets from the carrier Harry S. Truman, per Reuters on Sunday, at least 31 were killed. Keep going, Charlie. Right. And so the, I think that's the Houthi strikes, right? Not the ones on mainland Iran, if I'm not mistaken, which have not happened and hopefully will not happen. And so then there's a mobilization of some of a naval fleet as well. So I take the president's view on this, which is what is best for the United States of America, while also understanding that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a non-negotiable. Understand this is an incredibly difficult balancing act that President Trump has to perform here. He has three simultaneous and probably even four simultaneous difficult Nobel Peace Prize level accomplishments that he has to do simultaneously.

He has to end the Russian-Ukrainian war. He has to figure out the Gaza situation with Israel, which is just so sad. And it's very difficult. I'm of course on Israel's side, but it's a terrible situation. Gaza has become a slum, literally. And I don't say that in a pejorative way. It is just, it's like Armageddon. It's a terrible place, unfortunately. Number three is this Iranian situation. Number four is China with Taiwan. He's inherited from Joe Biden chaos and the world viewing us as weak, and they're not really sure what America's role is here. And so the way I interpret this is that President Trump is not a neoconservative. He's not a nation

builder. He's not an empire builder. He has campaigned on peace through strength. But it's time for us to kind of show that America's muscle is still alive, that we do still have the capacity and the ability to mobilize ships, to launch missiles, to be able to execute airstrikes, or else our enemies will think that, oh, you know, America will not intervene and America won't get involved and we can go after American interests or even America troops overseas. The biggest of all of them, though, and we cannot lose sight of it, will be the sunsetting and the ending of the Russian-Ukrainian war. President Trump deserves phenomenal credit as he is beating

back all the neoconservatives, even entertaining, of which I think is really smart, the recognition of Crimea as Russian territory. That has been Russia's historically. It's where Russian wine is from. It's where the Russian fleet was centered and headquartered for hundreds of years. It was only ceremonially given to Ukraine, I think, in 1954 as a gesture to try to show Russian-Ukrainian unity after World War II. All of that aside, the fact that the president is entertaining that is a big blow to the neoconservatives and goes to show that President Trump really wants this Russian-Ukrainian war to end, which I think is the most important of all of them. But he has a very difficult task

ahead of him because he needs to make sure that our enemies fear us without wanting to go into another boondoggle of our Iraq or Afghanistan war, Afghan war. He has to try to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon while President Biden gave them tens of billions of dollars of probably direct aid and hundreds of billions of dollars of tariff and sanction relief while simultaneously understanding that a military strike against mainland Iran would be catastrophic and terrible for our country getting involved in potentially an Iraq war 2.0, which I don't support and you don't support. So I'm going to trust the prudence and the sophistication of President Trump to thread all of these needles. Praise God that he's actually being able to make all these decisions because he comes through everything through a strictly America first citizen first perspective. I see it as a brushback, the same as I hate to use

a sports analogy since I know very little about that arena. But I see it as like when the pitcher that's right, you know, almost hits the batter with the ball, like get back from the plate. That's what he's doing with the Houthis to Iran, like a little a little music. That's right. talked about how weak Biden was with the Houthis and how U.S. ships are not able to sail through the Suez Canal, the Red Sea or the Gulf of Aden. And said the last American warship to go through the Red Sea four months ago was attacked by the Houthis over a dozen times. This will not be tolerated any longer. We will use overwhelming lethal force. The Houthis have choked off shipping in one of the most important waterways in the world. And he says no terrorist force will stop American commercial naval vessels from freely sailing the waterways of the world to the Houthi terrorists. Your time is up. Your attacks must stop starting today.

If they don't, hell will rain down upon you like nothing you've ever seen before to Iran. Support for the Houthi terrorists must end immediately. Do not threaten the American people. Their president, who's received one of the largest mandates in presidential history or worldwide shipping lanes. If you do beware, because America will hold you fully accountable and we won't be nice about it. Okay. So that's where we are on the Houthis yet another area of the world. We've got to keep our eye on again, not caused by Trump trying to be addressed by Trump in a way that stops the nonsense. He's absolutely right. Why should we be like kept out of these waterways by the Houthis? This is bullshit anyway. No one wants a war with them, but Why should we be kept out of these waterways by the Houthis? This is bullshit. Anyway, no one wants a war with them, but why should we just cede the three waterways in the

world because of these terror offshoots? Okay. Got to get to Charlie Kirk as the inaugural guest on the Gavin Newsom podcast. And of course you did a great job. And of course you made news with him on his own podcast by getting him to admit that it's unfair to allow boys to compete against girls in girls sports, which was great. You were your typical on point, substantive self. And he couldn't resist giving you what is such an obvious point and one on which even the Democrats are with him over 70 percent, even though lawmakers won't admit it. But here's what I said. And, you know, I love you and I love Steve Bannon, too. I don't like to see it because my own feeling is this guy's in training for 2028 against J.D. Probably. That's what we think will likely be the standard bearer for the Republican Party. And he needs practice. We saw that when he debated Ron DeSantis on Hannity. He needs practice. He's not very good at it. And we should not be helping him. Like the more times he sits across from Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon and any of our sort of lead fighters, the better he will get, the better he'll do. The more he'll understand how to appeal to people who are more right wing or independently minded, but but on the right.

And he doesn't deserve our help. And we shouldn't be in there like giving him the assist. So explain to me why you disagree. Well, first, I mean, understand being the inaugural guest, it wasn't really even sure what I was going into. Right. Because at the at the front end, it was like, hey, you know, there'll be no, you know, gotcha questions. It'll just be a discussion, which was largely true. And secondly, when when when you arrive and they tell you all this stuff, they're like, oh, you know, his son is a fan and all that. It was like so over the top, like charm offensive. I was like, are you going to want to become a member of Turning Point or something? Governor Newsom, it was like over that.

It was like almost like nauseatingly positive. Right.? In that way, it was very difficult to navigate. I will say, if you look at Gavin Newsom's numbers, there's a Newsweek article, though, his numbers are down dramatically as far as favorability, trust, authenticity, since he started this podcast. It's not going very well for him of how people view him. So for that, I will say that i think we have done a good job of exposing him for be the synthetic fraud that he actually is i will give him credit for having the discussion great they didn't edit any of it that deserves credit because they very well could have edited the trans thing out but i do understand complete where you're coming from

megan however i would just view it a little bit differently. I don't think that Gavin Newsom is getting his spring training to become a presidential candidate. I think he's actually being exposed as someone who will not be able to get through a Democrat primary. He's making a very calculated bet that no one's going to remember that he was a failed governor, that no one's going to remember that he literally has no accomplishments, and that he's going to try to run to the middle and to be able to take his Democrat base for granted. The Democrat base, as exhibited as how they're acting in the streets and how they're acting in Congress, is not moderating on these issues. In fact, I think this podcast might be ending Gavin Newsom's presidential ambitions, not preparing him for his presidential ambitions. Again, all this is just speculation and conjecture.

And then I will also speak just for myself personally, why we decided to do it. Being the first guest, we consider that to be a pretty cool opportunity to be able to sit down and disagree and even debate at times with the governor of the world's, the largest state, the fifth largest economy in the world. And I do think that sitting down and being able to educate, which was well over 30 or 40 million people that ended up consuming our conversation, which was the most listened to so far of all the ones, of people that were in the middle and people that were at least politically curious, I think was really helpful. I got text messages from people in the tech world, CEOs, some of the wealthiest people on the planet, also just rank and file normies, if you will, people that aren't exactly as politically engaged

as you and I are, Megan, that were persuaded far more of the presentation of ideas that I presented far more than what Gavin did. And so the final point I'll make is this, is that it wasn't just about Gavin. It was also about the tens of millions of people that were able to get their eyes open and say like, yeah, why didn't Gavin go stronger on the trans sports issue? Or why didn't he do this? And now Gavin Newsom, I could say this, you're seeing this all across the board. He is under nonstop siege and he's handling it all wrong, in my opinion. Instead of doubling down and being like, you know, I'm going to keep on going to war against the Democrat Party. He keeps on doing these podcasts with, you know, people like us and trying to like win favor with us. When in reality,

that's not happening. He's becoming more unpopular with his own base. He's becoming least trusted with moderates. People look at him as a synthetic and as a fake, and I have no regrets of dialoguing with him. So do you think more conservatives should say yes to him? Only if they come after it in the way that I think we did, without being overly braggadocious. I think we were polite, but we were incredibly disagreeable and firm, and we were willing to challenge him and ask him questions about issues

and get him on the record. If you notice, that's what we did with the trans thing. It wasn't just like, hey, let's have a discussion. I asked him a direct policy question. No, and so that's the only condition that I would say is that insofar that it's not just kind of a bro session of like, hey, so good that republicans and democrats are talking i don't think that's helpful for anybody but the next time someone sits down with

him ask him an update hey governor newsom you said with charlie kirk that you think it's not fair you have yet to do anything about it sign an executive order talk publicly about it because a young man named ab hernandez is about to win the long jump championship in California as a biological man. Why haven't you done something about it? Or are you just doing this podcast for clicks to try to make yourself seem more moderate? If Republican guest after Republican guest goes with that kind of attitude, be polite and firm and hold them to the standard that he is setting on his own show, that will even collapse his political ambitions even further. That's interesting. I guess I'm still in the camp of don't help him. Don't don't help train him and don't help build his media brand, because there's also a possibility what he really wants

is to be Charlie Kirk and not Donald Trump, that what he really wants is to be the next Bill Maher with an audience that's large and that can appeal to both sides. And maybe that's his next invention. Either one, I'm against. And so I'm just not in favor of it, notwithstanding the fact that you did a great job and made a lot of news. Thank you. All right. Well, Charlie's got to run.

It's a pleasure, as always, my friend. Good to see you. Thanks for being here. Thanks, Megan. Talk to you soon. Thank you. Okay. Pleasure as always, my friend. Good to see you. Thanks for being here. Thanks, Megan. Talk to you soon. Thank you. Okay. But before we leave the topic of Gavin Newsom, let me give you some of those numbers that Charlie was referencing because they are brutal. Capital Weekly, a nonprofit publication

covering California politics, did a poll of 100 or a survey of 1000 Californians and had them watch clips of Newsom's interview with Charlie. The podcast only made 13% of voters have an improved perception of the governor. 26% said it harmed their perception. 58% said made no difference. Among self-identified liberals, 37% said that the snippets harmed their perception of the governor. So in other words, 26% overall said it harmed their perception of him. And among liberals, 37% said it harmed my perception of the governor. Among those who have very favorable opinions of Gavin Newsom, he lost 16%. So he went from people who liked Gavin Newsom, liberals, saying, I have a very favorable opinion of him at 46%. It fell to 30%. So Charlie's correct. He's hurting himself with his liberal

base by doing these interviews of people like Charlie and Steve and Michael Savage. It's because the thing about Gavin Newsom is he's, he's not very good at pushing back. So he's not going in there and doing battle with the Charlies and the Bannons of the world. He's somewhat obsequious, to be honest with you. I mean, it's very strange because when you listen to him, you would think like he's a moderate, but he's not. He's, I mean, on the trans stuff and virtually every other subject, he is as radical as they come. He is another Kamala Harris, but there's something about him. Maybe he is a people pleaser, you know, a vintage politician. When he gets across from our, well, these are our war fighters. I truly like the three I mentioned, these are war

fighters in a way, rhetorical war. He feels the need to get their approval. That's how it feels. And he's getting excoriated by the left wing press as a result. It's actually kind of amusing. We put together a butted soundbite. Take a listen here. I thought that that was one of the most inauthentic things I have seen Gavin Newsom do.

Wow. Terribly, terribly. So you don't believe him to let them hang themselves, theory? No, I'm terribly disappointed. I think you meet energy with energy. And what he did was he showed his pretty white teeth and his cute face and did nothing other than that. And I think it's despicable. I texted him about that.

I'm like, what are you doing? And I used other words, but it wasn't challenging people who are actually famously trollish and say lies and things like that. If you don't push back on lies, they exist. I always thought he was kind of a he'll be whatever he needs to be politician. This is way worse. Look, there are many of us that actually, I'm not saying this for sympathy, but basically sacrificed a career taking on people like Steve Bannon. Democrats are ticked off, Adam, and there's no Republican that's going to go, you're not a California liberal. I like you. Amazing. Adam Kinzinger, I sacrificed a career taking on people like Steve Bannon. Did you? Did you really? I don't,

I don't, that's not how I remember it at all. You got Trump derangement syndrome. You decided to be a J6 anti J6 warrior. You participated in the J6 committee, which was completely dishonest and a show trial. And Republicans decided you weren't their cup of tea. It was not Steve Bannon's fault. In any event, they're they're melting down on the left over what Gavin Newsom is doing, which is kind of fun. I mean, it almost makes me want to see it continue, but not really, not really, because unlike Bill Maher, who definitely has a touch of the TDS, but can be fair to Republicans, the way Gavin Newsom governs is truly radical. I mean,

there's nothing fair about the way he runs California when it comes to fairness to Republicans. Nothing, nothing. He's got he's sided over and over with that lunatic Scott Weiner, the one that Carrie and Brett and Brett have been chasing down all over California on his radical trans ideology. I think he's only rejected that guy one time on his most crazy trans agenda. And now he wants to come out and say like, oh yeah, boys shouldn't be in girl sports. Like Charlie said, well, what have you done about it? You loon. That same guy in Massachusetts who I've been railing on, Seth Moulton. Remember after the Dems lost in this past presidential election, he was like, you know what?

We've really gone too far. Boys shouldn't be playing against girls. I have two daughters. You go back. He voted against stopping that every single chance he had. He's a U.S. congressman. He voted in favor of allowing boys access to girls sports and and girls' private spaces. Every single chance he had. So it's like, that's great that you can now go on a podcast or issue a press release saying you're on my side, but you govern, you legislate 180 degrees the other way, and I choose to look at what you've done, not your rhetoric when you're across from a conservative or a

reporter confronting you with polls that show everybody's on the side of reason, which is to keep these boys out of these sports. All right, on that subject, we have a special guest coming up next. This is the first time she's spoken out, and wait until you hear what happened to her when it comes to her NCAA medal and who took it from her. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of The Megyn Kelly Show on Sirius XM. 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 Megyn Kelly show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura Blandbeck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn

Kelly show on Sirius XM 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 MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. Trump's executive order keeping men out of women's sports was a victory for women and a huge step in the right direction. But one female athlete does not think it goes far enough. Mina Svard is a

Swedish track and field athlete, and she wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that dropped yesterday laying out what else she would like to see done and for good reason. Mina joins me now for an exclusive interview. Welcome to the show, Mina. Great to have you. Thank you so much for having me. Oh, my pleasure.

Okay, so you were born and raised in Sweden, but you came over to America, um, for college, right? How did you make your way to the U S? I started talking to a different, to some different coaches in America about getting the chance to get a full ride scholarship and go over there to, you know, experience the American way of doing things, getting the chance to get my education while continuing my athletic career. Okay. So you decided to come over here to compete in track and field. That's your sport. Yes, ma'am. And where did you go to school? I went to a school in Texas. At the time, it was called Texas A&M University Commerce. And how is it going for you as an athlete? At this point, I'm not competing at the same, same level at anymore. Um, I'm still practicing. How was it when you went to Texas?

Oh, when I went to Texas. Okay. Uh, it was, it was going really well. I had a great experience until 2019, uh, at the national championship. But other than that, me as an athlete, I developed and I did really good. Okay, so you wind up going to the NCAA championships, right? Like, explain what happened there. So in 2019, I qualified for the national championship and division two. Um, I was going to run the 400 hurdles, um, for a few weeks prior to getting to the competition. I heard a lot of

rumors going around that, um, I would be competing against the male competitor um so you know coming up to the competition I was trying to focus on myself and making sure that I got ready for the meet um but yeah showing up at the track competition uh one of the competitors that qualified was a man, took a spot from one of the females that would have been able to be at the national championship. So that was a very shocking experience for me. It was not something that I expected. When did you find out that this man, CeCe Tefler, posing as a woman, was going to be allowed to compete against you? Personally, I found out just a few weeks prior to the actual competition. There was nothing you could do?

I tried to focus on myself more, you know, because I can't affect anyone else's results on the track. So I tried to focus on myself to make sure that I'm ready for whenever I need to be. Uh, but I heard it from teammates and other people in the track community talking about it. So, yeah. And was there anything you, you could have done Mina? Did anybody say what you could challenge it or were they basically like, you're stuck with this deal with it? You're stuck with this, deal with it. So how did that make you feel? Because you had to realize that, I mean, look at this person and for the listening audience, it is very clearly a man with male size, with male musculature. And indeed, CeCe Teffler was running and competing in track and field

as a man shortly prior to declaring himself a woman and running and competing against you. Yes. How close in time was it? Two years prior, he competed as a man yeah and his stats were terrible as i understand it he was in the mid 300s in terms of his where he ranked in track and field at that point as a man yeah somewhere around there and then two years later he won the national championship for women something that we've been fighting for years so he wins the national championship here he is running the hurdles and he's way ahead of everybody and i understand he won by some two seconds which is explain that to us because

that's like an eternity that's the average viewer may be thinking two seconds that's not but that in track and field that's an eternity yeah look at the average viewer may be thinking two seconds. That's not, but that in track and field, that's an eternity. Yeah. Look at the video. We're not even in the picture when he's crossing the finish line and taking that moment away from in this situation, me, but in other situations, any woman in that race that we just watched, are you the number two racer? Yes, ma'am. That was the year I placed second at the national championship. What event was that? 400 meter hurdles. Wow. So if he had not been allowed to race, that's you coming up behind him, you would have been the gold medal winner. Yes, ma'am. I would have. The first place finisher at

the NCAA championships. So this person, I mean, it's really unbelievable. You've got to go and look at the video because you'll see that this is clearly a man. He's six foot two inches. He was born in Jamaica. Now he goes by CC. His real name is Craig. Now it's been changed. First competed without success in the men's division at Franklin Pierce University from 16 to 17 and was, again, middling at best. He had terrible numbers. He was in the mid 300s place there until he became suddenly, quote, a woman and then took first in the 400 meter hurdles in June of 2019. I mean, right, like days later, basically you decided he's a woman and there he is. And so when you stood up there as a second place finisher,

did you feel like you had to pretend this was fine? Like what was going through your head there on the, on the podium, holding up your trophy? I tried to pretend like everything was fine. I remember crossing the finish line and my, I started tearing up and I wiped it really quick to try to hide it from everybody else. Because even though I knew a lot of people felt the same way I did, no one spoke up, no one there to say anything. When we were at the meet, you could feel it in the air that something was different. In the speakers, they called out that we had to show sportsmanship and that we had to be inclusive. And that's something that I hadn't heard at a national championship for the NCAA prior to what was happening at this meet. So I felt like I had to be quiet.

Mm-hmm. The, um, by the way, I looked it up. He was 390th among the NCAA division, two men, 390th, and then suddenly declares himself a woman and he's number one and really loving the joy of defeating all of the women as though it's some sort of a feat for somebody who's been through male puberty and was running as a man two years earlier. It's just absurd. So what, what is it that you would like now? Because we've got the Trump executive order, which is great. The NCAA is interpretation of it and promise to comply with it is less great. You could drive a truck through the holes that they've left, but it's something, I guess. So what would you like to see now? I want NCAA to give back what was ours. The females that

lost their trophies, their recognition, their records. They need to get back whatever they deserved and take it from the men because men have no place in women's sports. That is why we have two separate categories in sports because we shouldn't mix that. And I also feel like it's really important that we actually make sure that this don't happen again. So that upcoming females don't have to deal with this issue and they shouldn't have to go through this.

Because when you're entering in the NCAA, when you're entering and competing there, you expect the NCAA to be there and protect you and support you because that's what they're supposed to do. What would NCAA be without their athletes? So why wouldn't they want to make sure that we are safe and that we are protected and that we get what we deserve? So, I mean, it's really amazing when you think about what they did to you and like all women i think you were told and probably raised to be nice worry about this person's feelings you know there's such a small percentage that's what they always say mina such a small percentage of the country is trans and you know this is just such a niche issue when it comes to athletics too. Like, you know, what, where's the harm? That's really what people like Megan Rapinoe,

soccer player, who's already made her millions ask what's, what's the harm. And to that, you say, what? It's everything that I fought for since I was four years old. I started track and field when I was four years old. I knew that I wanted to go somewhere with this. I knew that I wanted to become the best that I could. And that moment in 2019, I had worked for that moment for years. And it got taken away from me. And even though, yeah, you can get a trophy back, you can get the recognition now, but like the moment will be lost forever. So NCAA has done things to women that will never be able to be completely fixed.

But that's why I feel like it's really important that people understand how severe this has been for women in sports. Yes, you were, even if you get the medal back, you were denied the glorious joy of winning, which you earned. It is unfair, period. Yeah. I can't imagine training for as many hours as you did, you know, just to have that feeling, right. I'm not an athlete, but maybe you could describe it for me. What does it feel like when you do cross first, when you were competing against other women, also fierce competitors and you, you beat them fair and square. Like, what does it feel like? It's so many emotions at once. It's, you bottle up all like the sweat,

all the hard work, all the tears, all the happy times in practice, like all of it, it just comes out at the same time. And you feel, when I crossed the finish line in 2022, when I won the national championship, I, I was so proud of myself. I, I didn't need, I, I don't think I can put words on how I felt. It was, it was just everything that I had been wanting and worked for for so long. And then you get this boost of confidence and a belief in yourself and a belief in hard work. Like so much is gained by these young women, thanks to the glorious joy of winning. And that's what's being stolen. That's part of what's being stolen. And it's not replaceable whether you get the trophy or the medal or you don't. That's don't trust the NCAA no more.

All of that went out the window when I had to step on the track and compete against the man. So my trust for them is very low. But you can always hope, and that's what we're fighting for. We want that to happen. But if it doesn't, that's what we're fighting for. We want it. We want that to happen. But that's right. If it does, that's a different thing. They could do right by you. CeCe Tefler has been a media darling. Craig went on CNN after the Trump inauguration and tried to paint himself as a victim.

Here he is in 51. How has life changed or has life changed since President Trump's inauguration? Oh my gosh. So I'm Black, I'm a woman, and I'm transgender, and I'm an athlete. Each of my identities is a target, especially in America. Prior to this set in stone administration, I woke up every day and I faced adversaries when I leave my house. Now it's I wake up every day and I have to make sure that I make it home alive. It's really sad to see people going out of their way to make it known that you don't belong here. When you hear this man calling himself a woman and trying to get our sympathy for him because he's a woman and has it so tough among all these other challenges that are allegedly being targeted by the evil Trump, transgender and black and a woman, what do you think? It makes me really annoyed because everything that I hear is him expressing his emotions.

But for all this time, we have been asked, we women have been asked to be quiet and keep our emotions quiet just to please someone else or another group of people. So that makes me really frustrated. This is just for the listening audience, a post that he put up on his Instagram vacillating between his feminine and his masculine voice. Take a listen. You saying that I look like a girl and sound like a girl is just not making no sense to me. In the great words of Kiki Palmer and Maya Angelou, you know who you are and no one can tell you who you are. Okay.

The fact that that man has your metal is infuriating. And, you know, the truth is, Mina, that most actual trans people, people who actually genuinely have gender dysphoria, is what I'm saying, they would never use the man voice. They would be embarrassed to use the man voice. So what that tells me is that more than likely this is an autogynephile who gets off, gets sexually aroused by dressing like a woman. It's not about gender dysphoria. It's about a sexual fetish. And you lost your medal to that, that you were forced to participate in this man's

sexual fetish more than likely in that race who is standing up for you is there anybody at ncaa is there any sympathetic person is there a lot like who is standing up for you well when it happened since it was the first time it ever happened in the ncaa history um everybody was kind of quiet about it. They didn't know how to react. My coaches were supporting me at school, but other than that, we were just keeping quiet. Are you thinking about suing the NCAA?

I don't know if I'm able to. I don't know if I can, but if I could, that, that would be something that I might want to do. I would love to see it happen. And I'm sure, uh, our friends over at the independent women's council or at the icons group would be interested in kicking that one around. Mina, I'm so sorry this happened to you. You did not deserve any of this. All your hard work, blood, sweat, and tears earned you the first place finish. And we know you won that race. Thank you for speaking up. Thank you so much for having me. Wow. I don't know, guys, maybe God had a more important race for Mina in mind. You know,

maybe he had a bigger challenge that he wanted her to step up to and she's in the midst of it right now. This it's infuriating to me. It actually like makes me emotional. It's infuriating to me that they are doing this to young women. Think of it. He is a sick person. He's sick. And they enabled it. They enabled his mental illness and our unwellness to ruin that girl's life and everything she had worked for. It's infuriating. It has to stop. And I mean, actually stop. Not just the Gavin Newsom window dressing of, gee, I'm against it, but let me pass legislation allowing it. Just as soon as you leave the room and before you got here, too. It actually must stop. And people like Mina are going to make it stop. Thanks to all of you for joining me today. We're back tomorrow with our friends

from National Review. See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.