The Megyn Kelly Show - Massive Day For Women's Sports at SCOTUS, and Remembering Scott Adams, with Kristen Waggoner and Andrew Klavan | Ep. 1229

Episode Date: January 13, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, to discuss what she saw while she was inside the Supreme Court watching the "trans" sports arguments today, the massive day for potentially protecting women’s sports, what Megyn believes the court will rule, why she's worried about what some of the more right-leaning justices were saying today, the disturbing use of incorrect pronouns and "cisgender" during the arguments by the justices, the leftist spin from the ACLU and other liberal Supreme Court justices on the "trans" sports issue, why it's crucial to protect girls in this moment, and more. Then The Daily Wire's Andrew Klavan, author of "After That, The Dark," joins to discuss the true dangers of the radical left being revealed after the Minnesota ICE shooting, the violent rhetoric and lies from the leftist media, the brilliant Scott Adams passing at age 68, the way People magazine and other corporate media outlets smeared him in their obituaries, his powerful final message, and more. Waggoner: https://adflegal.org/Klavan- https://www.youtube.com/@AndrewKlavan Lean: If you want to lose meaningful weight at a healthy pace and keep it off... Add LEAN to your diet and exercise lifestyle. Get 20% OFF WHEN YOU ENTER MK at https://TAKELEAN.comDone with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.com & tell them Megyn Kelly sent you!PureTalk: Cut your wireless bill to $20/month—switch to PureTalk now at https://PureTalk.com/KELLYMelania: Step inside the 20 days before history is made—watch MELANIA, only in theaters January 30; get your tickets now!  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 Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. We are live in Washington, D.C. today. I had to be here to witness the historic arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court. I was in the high court today. For the first time in a long time, I got when I first started at Fox News, I was the Supreme Court correspondent. And I, that's what I did for a living.

I went over to the Supreme Court not every day, but most of the first. weeks, depending on how big the argument was or the case was going up before them. And for three years, I was your humble correspondent at Fox News Channel, and it was an honor. I had just come off of nearly 10 years practicing law, and I loved, love, love being there. And today, it was cool, still, but it was a little boring, not going to lie. But I loved being there because I loved what was being argued. And this is a hugely, hugely important case. The question was basically, does a state have the right to ban biological boys from girls' sports? One case involved the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

One case involved that plus Title IX. And it relates to not just these two states, Idaho and West Virginia, but 25 other states, because 27 states have passed laws banning biological males who say they identify as females from participating in girls. sports. Now this is not what I would describe as the big cahuna. That case is not yet there, which is what about the other states, the 23 states, is my math right? Yes. That allow boys to participate in girls' sports. Do the girls in those states have a right under Title IX or the Constitution to have those sports to themselves? Do they have, in other words, can we overturn the permission slips that the blue states have given boys to participate in girl sports at the U.S. Supreme Court.

And so my own take on what happened today in the High Court was the following. The court's going to uphold the bans. So I think the 27 states are going to be happy. And I predict, I think it's going to be 6.3, that the High Court will uphold those bans as constitutionally valid. But they were already talking about the 23 other states who have given a permission slip for the boys to participate in girls sports. And unfortunately, my strong read of the conservative justices today was they're ready to join with the libs in saying, that's just fine too. It's really unfortunate, but that's what I heard today. I want to get into it with a woman who has been behind the heart of not just this case, but so many cases that we care deeply about. Honestly, like Kristen Wagoner

is like an angel. She's every case you care about, every issue. issue you care about, she's defended it. She's gone to the Supreme Court with her group. She's always on the right side, like literally, right, but also correct side. And we owe her a debt of gratitude. She's the CEO, president, and chief counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, love ADF, which represented both of the states here, Idaho and West Virginia, and submitted briefs in this case, along with three female athletes that do not want to have to compete against males. You know all those fad diets, half of Americans do it. And if you do it enough, you could be at risk of diabetes, liver damage, heart attack, and stroke. Weight cycling is when you lose 10 or more

pounds, but then you put the pounds right back on plus a couple more. That puts tremendous strain on your organs and leads to serious health issues. Bottom line, most people need help to stop weight cycling. And that's why I want to tell you about non-prescription lean created by doctors. Lean is an oral supplement, not a GLP1 injectable. It uses studied ingredients, which Lean says target weight loss in three powerful ways. Maintaining healthy blood sugar, helping control appetite and cravings, burning fat by converting it to energy. And burning fat helps keep the weight off. If you want to lose meaningful weight at a healthy pace and keep it off, consider adding lean to your diet and exercise lifestyle. Get 20% off when you enter mk at takelean.com. That's code mkatakelein.com.

Kristen, thank you so much for doing this with us today. I'm so grateful to you and so proud of you because it went so well for the side of sanity today. Give me your take. I gave the audience my quick back of the envelope, but your take is more important and more informed than mine. Well, I loved hearing your take first because I, you know, I feel like we're all somewhat emotionally invested in it, but when you're sitting in it and you kind of know the ins and outs,

let's just start with the court. I mean, I think overall I agree with your take. 6-3 is probably the way it will result with some concurrences as well. I think that the argument, went very well. I was surprised at, well, maybe not surprised, but delighted by some of the ACLU's concessions. They essentially rolled back their arguments on Title IX altogether, even saying that the lower court decision that they won under was wrong. So that's great. I think that the veil was brought back on the fact that they refused to even define what sex is. So I'm not sure how you can

find sex discrimination if you can't articulate what sex is. That was crazy. Put a pin in that audience. because we are definitely coming back to that issue. Keep going. And then, I mean, I don't know. I'm really curious to see what you think about this. And maybe it's because, like, we have been living these cases out from, we started in about 2015. First big stuff comes up, 2017, where two boys take 15 state championships from girls.

So that's how long we've been in this. And I've been with these female athletes. You've interviewed them. And we have the privilege of representing three that are in that case. And I want it so badly to. to just stand up and scream, why are we not talking about the women here? I don't want to hear about Hecox or BPJ. I want to talk about these girls, the girls that are impacted.

And it's just, that's probably what made me most upset. That just gave me the chills. That just gave me the chills when you said that. There were multiple times. And I did dawn on me, Kristen, that like the Supreme Court is really one of the last few places where there's true decorum that is maintained. You know, it is very formal. You're expected to behave.

every reporter had a suit on. It's not casual. Every guest that's in attendance there has got their Sunday best on. You may not stand up to stretch. You will sit there and you will obey the rules or you will be promptly ejected. And I like that. I like that a lot. The judges come in in in their robes.

It's all very formal. But I actually was tempted to break the protocol a couple of times to stand up and be like, what? What? Right? Like the nonsense. when the lawyer for BPJ in the second case, this is a boy pretending to be a girl who wants the right to play in girl sports, and said, the one thing you really shouldn't do in your ruling, because he was sensing that they were going to rule against him. And now this lawyer has switched to, let me limit my loss here so that it's just these 27 states can uphold their ban, but don't touch my 23 that affirmatively allow this. And so I think it was it was a case. or was it Katanji Brown Jackson was like, tell us what not to rule. Like tell us exactly how we're supposed to rule so that we can sort of protect these other rights.

And he was like, for the love of God, don't define biological sex. What? It's stunning, but that is their argument. I mean, you know, we've got to look behind the curtain and know what is at issue in this? It is about biological reality and it is about erasing the differences between men and women. And that cannot happen on our watch. It cannot happen. But, you know, these girls that we're talking about, the opening argument of, you know, BPJ is this 11-year-old that just wants to have fun. We should have compassion for BPJ. BPJ is obviously very confused, and we should

treat BPJ with kindness. But let's be clear about this. BPJ has taken 423 girls have been affected and lost places since BPJ competed in middle school. 1100 times this has happened. And And he's taken 57 medals from the girls. So let's talk to those girls, like our client, Adelaia Cross, who couldn't compete. She was in the top three on her team. He starts, you know, throwing amazing supposedly after puberty blockers, you know, when all this is not supposed to have an advantage, at least from what we heard today. And instead, it's displacing all these girls. And now Adelaia wasn't even able to compete in the competition.

She was completely knocked out because as Justice Kavanaugh said today, there's limited number of spots. That's right. He was good. Kavanaugh was good today. Gorsuch was a nightmare. Kavanaugh was good. Even Chief Justice Roberts was good. We have to talk about Gorsuch in a second. But the thing on BPJ is if you listen to just today's argument, because his lawyers were up there saying, oh, he wasn't very good. And their briefs were like, he wasn't good. He barely made the track team. And then when he got on, he wasn't at the front of the pack. And like eventually, after a lot of hard work, he moved up a little. but like you would really think this is a Charlie Brown of athletes and none of those facts that you just said came out today in court.

They left everybody there with the impression that this was like not even a middling athlete and like what are you complaining about? This poor guy was like this little weakling who barely made the team. But Kristen, wasn't this? This was the case at which I saw Riley Gaines with the shot putters who walked out of the shop put circle and said, I'm not competing against a boy. and he had started to dominate. Megan, there is so much to this case that, I mean, it's just, yes, it starts with our client,

Adelaia Cross was on the same team as BPJ was competing in the top of the team and had these spots. And, you know, the first year when BPJ was in sixth grade, she was in seventh grade, and during that time, you know, she was still in the top spot. By the next year, she starts getting knocked out. BPJ allegedly starting to throw 10 to 20 feet longer. and then all these girls are falling off because he's taking these spots in higher competition. Next thing, you know, the five shot put or discus people were at a different school, actually, and they protested and said, we're not competing against a boy.

It's not fair to make us do that. So this is not even BPJ's team or Adelaus team. It's a completely different school protesting. And those girls are punished by their school. where is our protests? We're showing some of the girls

they got in the circle as though they were going to throw it and then they walked out in protest which takes so much guts I mean especially in this environment it was an act of true courage for these girls to take a stand

not mentioned at all today and the number like what does the court have to go along with she pronouns for these boys it was infuriating Kristen because of course it gets to the very issue

of why we're all there. Reality matters. Actual fact, biological pronouns mattered, but the whole court went along with the lie today by using she-her pronouns. Well, I wouldn't say the whole court did, but I would say

some surprising justices did. I didn't hear Alito do it. I didn't hear Thomas do it. But I definitely heard Gorsuch do it. I think I heard Barrett do it. And I think I heard Kavanaugh do it. It is, language is so critical and the court knows that. I mean, you know, majority of the court would consider themselves to be originalists and textualists

and, but at the same time, this decorum that you're talking about, no one wants to hurt people. No one wants to hurt their feelings or unnecessarily offend. And I think that's how this thing, you know, the women got steamrolled in the first places, is we don't want to have to confront and hurt people. But I think we're getting confused about what compassion and kindness actually looks like, it can't exist without truth. And so you're right. I mean, even the idea of having to keep track of cisgender and transgender and transgender girls versus, I mean, it was, it's mental gymnastics in the courtroom. I find cisgender girl and cisgender woman a slur. I, I recoil when

I hear that. And I heard it about 12 times today from Katanji Brown Jackson, who, of course, was unable to define what a woman is during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. And once again today, seemed very focused on how to get around defining women and get around a ruling that would help women in any way, which she sensed, as I think you and I did, is coming from the majority. Well, remember that in her nomination, when she answered that question of she couldn't answer what a woman was, she said she'd need to talk to a biologist. And fortunately, the record is chalk full of them in these cases. There is ample science, real biologists, that actually know what it means to be a woman and can define it. And I believe the court will uphold biological reality in these cases.

But man, if today is not a reminder that we have much more work to do. And again, in the Idaho case, as an example, we represent two athletes who were beaten many times by a man at the collegiate level who took the Big Sky Championship. So, you know, there are, there's so many different women that have suffered as a result. And, of course, we haven't even started talking about locker rooms. I know. Exactly. That's not really at issue here. So let me just play this moment where the Alito called BS on BPJ's lawyer who is trying to say, whatever you do in this opinion, do not define biological sex. Because, of course, he knew this is going to seal our fate in many cases.

God forbid, they just say that a woman is a woman is a, a certain set of gamates and a man has a different set of gamates. The women's will turn into ovaries. The man's will turn into testes, period. Or a woman can have a baby. Or a woman has XX chromosomes, whatever. They don't want that. And Alito was the first one to break the dam.

Because this guy was getting away with it. Like, the last thing you should do is this. And Alito brought some sense. And then I was pleased to hear the Chief Justice tag team in. Like, yeah, what Alito said. Here's that moment. And what is that definition for equal protection purposes? What does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I think that the underlying enactment, whatever it was, the policy, the law, we'd have to have an understanding of how the state or the government was just understanding that term to figure out whether or not someone was excluded. We do not have a definition for the court. And we don't take issue with the – we're not disputing the definition here. What we're saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women's teams and that there's a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn't make sense to do so according to the state's own interest. Well, how can a court determine whether there's discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for equal protection purposes?

I think here we just know that they've identified pursuant to their own statute. Lindsay qualifies as a birth sex male, and she's being excluded categorically from the women's teams as the statute. So we're taking the statute's definitions as we find them and we don't dispute them. Okay, that was in the first case, HECOX, and then it happened again in the second case with BPJ when there was a male attorney up there. Title IX prohibits discrimination on basis of sex. It's a statutory term. It must mean something. You're arguing that here there's discrimination on the basis of sex.

And how can we decide that question without knowing what sex means in Title IX? I mean, it could mean biological sex, it could mean gender identity, it could mean whatever a state wants to define it to mean, but it has to mean something. Now can we decide that without knowing what this statutory term means? I think there are a whole range of sex-based characteristics that can give rise to discrimination. I think if someone said, I'm going to discriminate against anyone who acts in a feminine manner. Like anyone with limp wrists, I don't care who they are, but I'm going to discriminate against them. Like, I think that would be sex discrimination.

It would be sort of gender presentation. But I wouldn't say that's not covered by Title IX. And so I just, I'm not saying that biological differences aren't part of sex. You don't think we should have an operating definition of sex in Title IX? Now, I understand the idea that the question then becomes not whether or not there's discrimination on the basis. of sex, but whether it's discrimination on the basis of whatever characteristic you think should be included in the definition of sex. Now, when it's used as a statutory term, I'm not sure you have that kind of flexibility. The question would be instead, what does Congress think the word means?

But that's really what it comes down to, right? Kristen, and do you think that they will have the courage to do the very basic work of defining what biological sex means? in order to determine a case in which these bans are based on biological sex? I think it's going to be very challenging to resolve the equal protection claim without bringing some sort of definition in on sex and it being related to biological sex. I mean, under the Equal Protection Clause, the whole threshold is when the legislature draws lines, are they drawing those lines so that they're treating similarly situated people similarly. And so the biological distinctions here matter greatly, and I think that you have to define it for equal protection purposes, and we all know what it means.

You know, the only person that doesn't seem to know are a progressive left activists who are actually trying to erase the rights of women and girls across this nation. Title VII also, I think you just look at the statute, which says, is there sex-based discrimination? And the statute itself anticipates that you will separate the sexes based on athletics, as well as in, living facilities because again they know what biological sex means and what it meant when the law was passed so I think the court may not want to fully go there in this but I think you almost have to to resolve it and I sure hope they do I mean I just kept thinking Megan I can't ten more years of this is insanity no no no I mean in just the day by the day by the second well I think of Adelaia as an

example I mean yes this is about but we all know that, you know, Title IX as an example, has just been a weapon used by the last administration, you know, changing the regulations, changing the standards. And as they're doing that, they're opening up locker rooms, BPJ, in the locker room. Adelaia Cross, under oath, multiple times says, he comes up behind her, threatens her with sexual assault.

The school does nothing because they don't want to have to deal with it. And yet, all along, girls and boys are sharing these locker rooms. They have different anatomy, and that anatomy plays. out in a very real way. Imagine having your daughter being threatened with sexual assault two to three times a week, which is what's going on here. No more. We've got to, we've got to correct it. That, so the B.P.J. case was the case. It was the Hickox, or Hickox, whatever you pronounce it, case involved somebody who was at the University of Boise, right, in Boise, Idaho.

Yes, they were in Idaho. Boise State, okay. So this was a person who was older because they were in college. college and they wanted to play college sports. But the plaintiff in the other case out of West Virginia was somebody, BPJ, who said that they had started puberty blockers. They knew that they were, quote, trans as of third grade, that they went on puberty blockers straight into cross-sex hormones and therefore never had male puberty and therefore never developed male advantage. By the way, the plaintiff in the Idaho case, who did go through male puberty, also argued he had no

advantage because he lowered his testosterone levels. And so he's just the same as you and I, you know, as if like Shaquille O'Neal, post-puberty, but taking testosterone, you know, blockers could, would have no male advantage over us because it's all wiped out once his T levels go down. It's absurd. But we were, we were operating under that premise like it was real today in the high court. But the BPJ kid was somebody who is a, male, but at a very young age, started to do these cross-sex hormones and so on. But you just mentioned something that doesn't come out in the coverage of BPJ, which is that there's been an allegation that he repeatedly has been saying to the girls on his teams, you can suck

my D. I'm going to take my D and shove it in your pee and like really vile, disgusting stuff, which is sexual harassment. It absolutely is. And I mean, it's crushing. When you talk to Adelaia, she's, she's, she's She's not playing sports anymore. They're in the same high school. They would be on the same team. She's been excluded from her own locker room and her own athletic team because there's one, not equal opportunity, not fair play.

And he's taken a spot on the team. And then would you go back into that situation? No one would. I wouldn't let my daughter do it either. I'd be afraid. No, absolutely. And I think when we're thinking about the legal question here, you know, the question is, can states draw legislative classifications and what's the standard that they should be based on when they're reviewed.

Certainly states can recognize that generally speaking there are advantages that biological males have that just exist. And so essentially what was being argued today is that we have to create individualized exceptions, first of all, which would mean, I mean, I don't even know how a state would pass a lot if every time you needed to make an individualized exception. And then second, on the assumption that sort of the science doesn't support it and the record's just clear that the science does even puberty walkers. So let's just set that up clearly for the audience. They were saying, okay, there are these laws. Title IX is allowed to discriminate on sex and the Equal Protection Clause doesn't ban it. It's been in place for decades. It does differentiate based on sex between

boys and girls, but that's been accepted. To do it in this fashion and especially based on sports, that's been made perfectly clear, is totally fine and A-OK. And so, these plaintiffs couldn't get up there and say Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause like have to go because they're discriminatory against our clients. They said, oh, we, one of the arguments was we deserve exceptions because our clients don't have male advantage. One because they lowered their testosterone and one because they did this drug regimen. And the justices were like, so we have to make an exception like just for just for your clients or like for all clients who don't have male advantage and how are we going to figure that? that out, like, as a group. And, like, the impossibility of it, Kristen, became pretty clear to me. And then we got to the point where the one lawyer in BPJ's case was like, well, I think, you know, back on the sex question, you shouldn't define biological sex in determining any of this, because even if you were to go with, like, the biological sex definitions that we could all recognize, there's going to be the XY chromosome kid who's got a limp wrist.

He actually said that. He was talking about how some boys have limp wrists and started arguing, like, we should factor that stuff in in figuring out who's going to get an exception and who's not. It's completely unadministrative, but I think that also just the underlying truth of what was being debated in just the sense that boys are treated the same under this law. girls are treated the same under this law. And the idea that somehow boys who identify as girls need a special exception, what about the many others out there?

As you said, maybe shorter, I'm short. What about those who have a disability? What about those who are just on medication and that might impact their performance? Are we doing exceptions for all of those individuals? The fact is, the ACLU today made the case that they do believe in sex-based athletics. They do believe that there are differences.

They agree to that. And they don't want to get rid of those differences. They just want boys who identify as girls to be able to come into the girls category. And we need to ensure that that doesn't happen because women deserve equal opportunities, fairness, and privacy. They actually got up there and tried to spin us that boys who are on puberty blockers may actually be at a day. disadvantage. It was crazy. It was like not even puberty blockers. I think this was about like a post-pubescent male who then lowers his testosterone, like the first plaintiff in Hickox, that that person's at a disadvantage versus biological girls. And here's how that was spun by

attorney Kathleen Hartnett, Sot 11. I do think that's the most prudent, but definitely on a record that's more developed because I think a lot of, I think in the end of the day it might end up being a surprise to, we don't know yet, but I think we have some good evidence that actually at the end of the day, being transgender woman, actually to the extent there are, and you repressed your testosterone, you're at somewhat of a disadvantage in many ways because you have, again, this larger frame with weaker muscles and no testosterone. Okay. By the way, it's not no testosterone. That's a lie, too. They just get their testosterone own levels down to something closer to what a female would have, but they still have all the

advantage of male puberty and male bone length and strength and heart and lung capacity and all the rest of it. You mean like Will who goes by Leah Thomas? Is that what you're talking about there? Exactly. That's a great example because people can see it with their own eyes. That's a post-pubescent male who tried to pawn himself off as female. And puberty blockers or whatever, testosterone pills to lower it or not, you can see with your own eyes, he's got an advantage over the females.

Well, the science tells us that they're denser bones, longer bones, that all of these physical advantages don't go away with puberty blockers. Again, the science confirms that even after puberty blockers, their inherent physical advantages that boys have that girls simply don't and they never will. And again, I think it underscores the, and also, I just want to say this, why would we create an incentive for children to go on puberty blockers, particularly when the court has already just said in Scrametti, that, hey, this is a medical experiment and we're, you know, have some concerns about that, and the state should be working these things out right now. So I think there's just a lot of implications to that argument. But the science is clear, and again, so are the rights of the states to be able to draft reasonable legislative classifications. that are based on sex. And really what's being done here is an argument to say, we don't really mean sex. We mean gender identity. And we know that that essentially erases women. Yes, exactly right. And so unfortunately for us, though, we're stuck with Bostock, which was a Supreme Court case deciding that under Title VII, which governs employment, gender identity is a protected class and you cannot refuse to hire somebody based on their gender identity, which is just really

crazy. I mean, it's crazy. Just the other day, Kristen, we played a tape that a young girl at a Planet Fitness out in California took of an allegedly trans person, a guy pretending to be a girl in the women's locker room at Planet Fitness in California, not to get too graphic, but clearly he was pleasuring himself in the women's bathroom stall. And you could see it, not based on, you couldn't see him exactly, but you could see the shadow down below. And this clever girl took a video of the shadow, which clearly showed what he was doing. And you and I both know that the vast majority of these male to female alleged trans people are auto gonophiles who are actually not gender confused. They're getting off in a sexual fantasy that gets in which they get turned on by dressing like

women and being around women while they do it. And nonetheless, we had to be subjected to, you know, the court talking about these people like they're, you know, in, in, in, in Bastok, like they're just like you or me or they're just like somebody who's like a black person who has an immutable characteristic that's, you know, skin color, or a woman who's got an immutable characteristic that's, you know, her lady parts. And they actually gave them the protection of the law saying you have to hire these people. So if this guy who is pleasuring himself in the planet fitness comes into my company, and he wants me to hire him, and I know that he's probably an auto ginafile, I can't say no because of Bostock. Thanks, Neil Gorsuch, he wrote the opinion. And so we have to deal with that

finding. But they did accept, they excluded bathrooms and locker. rooms. And now today the question is, are sports also excluded from that? And I think it's going to go the right way. But can you just give me your, what did you make of Gorsuch today? Because I was alarmed by him. Well, Bostock is a decision that we've essentially been litigating around since it came out. We believe it's a wrongly decided decision and a poorly reasoned decision. And I've had Justice Gorsuch rule in some of the cases that I've argued and write the opinions and he's done a fabulous job. but Bostock is not one of them. And I think his comments today were concerning in the sense of talking about whether we should

essentially equate those who identifies the opposite sex to some sort of special class status under the law that would be akin to race. But, you know, we don't know the reasons he was asking those questions. So it might have been that he was trying to get to a place to resolve the case in a more straightforward way. But let me say this. I mean, just as we've been litigating these cases for 10 years and that issue of, you know, whether the states must essentially protect women. That's, we have an oral argument in that in two days.

So, you know, we're covering the landscape. We are continuing to work on that. At the lower court, right? At a lower court. Well, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, so it's not too much lower. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, these are on their way up right now. So it won't be long.

How is that looking? Because, like, I was so discouraged that the Gorsuch did not. seem like he's going to rule in our favor on that one. Cavanaugh seemed like he wasn't going to rule in our favor on that one, and we can lose one, but we can't lose two. I think we don't know when the issue is actually presented, and it underscores the importance of the American people, it underscores the importance of who we elect in terms of the legislators that are passing laws and the legislative history that they put in place. I would not give up on that argument. I think that there's a reason, even the Department of Justice today and the argument

said, you know, we're not going to take a position on that on equal protection, and we actually believe Title IX protects girls in these instances. And when it comes to Justice Gorsuch, again, I think there are easy ways to distinguish Bostock. That was about whether in a hiring and firing situation, and you had to take account of sex in that instance, that sex was like what it turned on, whether that qualified under the statute as sex discrimination. In this context where we're truly talking about gender identity, the hinge point is not sex. A boy who identifies as a girl is treated the same as a boy who identifies as a boy. That's not sex discrimination.

And states have the right to make distinctions on the basis of our biological differences. So we're going to keep going and I think eventually we're going to win. And if we don't, I worry about Western civilization, just candidly. I mean, I think that's how important this issue is that we can talk about what we know to be true in human biology. I'm honestly, I just have to reiterate, I'm so grateful to you. It's one thing to sit in the anchor chair and get outraged at these stories, and there is a role for bringing attention to them in the media.

So I'm not completely discounting the press in this, but, and usually they've been a force for evil. But it takes someone like you to get off the couch, get up early, file the briefs, go through the litigations, which are just painstaking and tedious and the interrogatories and the depositions and the motions to dismiss and the motions for summary judgment and then the motions for appeal and then the appellate briefs back and forth and then the oral arguments and then appeal up to the next level. And it's like it's so much work. And I know it because I used to do it for a living and I just, I'm so grateful to you for doing it over and over and over to make sure these

things come out right. And it's on all cultural issues, but this one is the one of our time, Kristen. I'm just, I can't imagine how when you go back and you talk to the girls, like the girls in this case, what was their reaction? How are they feeling? They're excited. They're relieved that the argument came. But I mean, I'll tell you, as we're getting ready yesterday, you know, there's some, there's some emotion involved about being, you know, having your face all over and what does it mean in terms of the hate that you get? And yet they're strong and they're courageous. And I believe they've unleashed warriors by taking this battle on. M.K. and Maddie, they're passionate about this issue.

They receive scholarships under Title IX. Scholarships that, you know, if they hadn't received them, they might not have been able to go to school. And Laining is the same. And then we've also been able to partner with Attorneys General Labrador and McCuskey in West Virginia and Idaho. And they have stood strong in this from the very beginning

as we've represented the states alongside them. So there are a broad, bright lights in this, but it takes endurance and grit. And just as you said, it takes the media, it takes your voice. That's what's helping us turn this corner. It's ordinary Americans, and it's Americans who have a platform saying, we're going to stand for truth. We're contending for our girls. These girls you just named and that we just showed, all of whom have been disadvantaged by boys pretending to be girls playing in their sports, are not going to get a puff profile done on them. they're made out to be villains.

And while the attorney stood up there today, the female attorney for Hickox, and said, oh, I would never call them bigots, you know, because there was a question, are they bigots? Oh, I would never call them. The reality is that the trans side does call virtually every girl who comes forward to stand up for herself a bigot, a transphobe. So that's fine. You can say that to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those of us who live in the real world have heard you and the ACLU and the translob. and the trans lobby do that every single day

since we started fighting back. This is instead what you get. You get a profile like this from ABC News. This is on BPJ. This is just this past Monday where I didn't hear about any of the controversy that you and I just discussed. This is how it sounded. SOT 16.

With each throw of the discus, Becky Pepper Jackson strives for perfect. I put time in over the summer and after practices, just trying to improve my technique and get better. The high school sophomore from Bridgeport, West Virginia was born into a family of runners. Consistently at the back of the pack, a coach instead pushed her to learn to throw. My times were too slow, and she didn't want me to not make the team. So she introduced me to shot put it and discus, and that's when I just fell in love with it. Becky's throws earned her a spot in the state championship last season,

the first time the only known openly transgender athlete in West Virginia in any sport took a top prize. Your teammates don't see a difference in your performance or your presence. No, most of them are really kind. They support me all the way. It's just like being any other person on the sports team. She may be embraced by some teammates, but she's been protested by other athletes and targeted by state lawmakers. Targeted. It's a failed Devin Dwyer of ABC. That's what we get about. about Becky, who's out at herself and her identity, as opposed to what we hear about the other girls, the alleged bigots, Kristen.

Well, a number of her teammates actually had to wear their track uniforms underneath their clothes or wear their track uniforms to school because they didn't want to have to share a locker room with BPJ and a boy. A number of the teammates have been displaced, exactly, you know, 423 girls, again, that BPJ has competed against in the course of the last several years have lost their positions 1100 times, and again, 57 medals. So, you know, some of those girls are afraid to talk because of the treatment that they get, and that's all a part of the design, the bullying that goes on.

But again, as this injustice occurs, as we bring light to it, more and more girls are coming forward. I'm sure you saw a recent U.N. report says there have been upwards of 900 medals lost. Yes, I was glad that that came out today. I was very glad that came out today because the one lawyer got up there and was like, oh, this is BPJ's lawyer. The lawyer was like, oh, there were no cuts. So BPJ did not. He didn't cost anybody their place on the team.

And he wasn't very good. So he didn't cost anybody, you know, any medals or scholarships. And I think it was in rebuttal, but one of the other lawyers got up there and said, let me give you the stats. Like the UN just came out with this report. It was like 900 girls lost, or 600 girls lost 900 medals to boys playing. This is a lie. They continue to tell it.

John Oliver told this lie on his show. my daughter's history teacher last year told this lie to her and her friend saying it's not happening, Kristen. There just really aren't boys playing in girls' sports taking their medals. Well, a significant portion of our work has been dealing with how gender ideology is affecting all Americans and, frankly, all around the world. You know, the UN report as an example, was a central feature of a hearing that we testified at along with the author of that report. And Sharon Davies, an example. This is happening around the world where they are losing these medals. In addition, when we talk about the work that Alliance Defending Freedoms had to do in these areas,

you know, lies can't exist without censorship taking place. And so we have to ensure that we can continue to speak freely and have the right to raise our kids consistent with the belief that men and women are different and to celebrate that. And that's the underlying issue here and what's really going on. The last thing I want to make sure is clear. It's not about not having a team to play on. It's that athletics, biological differences matter.

And so the biological boys need to play in their category. And the girls play in theirs, or they can play co-ed, or actually the girls, even who identify as boys, can play in the boys category because the laws recognize these biological distinctions and say, no, the girls don't have an unfair advantage. So, again, I think that the issues get distorted in the press and how they recounted. But I am optimistic that the court's going to rule the right way. I am also resolved that we have a lot more work to do before we ensure that the next generation

doesn't have to deal with this ideology that crushes people and families. Yes, we will cover the Eighth Circuit argument that you have coming up in two days. I will see you tonight. And again, my profound thanks to you and Alliance Defending Freedom. We're looking forward to celebrating tonight, so thanks for joining us at it. Can't wait. Okay, so Kristen had a run, but I do want to just give you a couple of thoughts of my own. I didn't want to suck up the top of the hour. I wanted to get right to her. I'm just going to give you a couple thoughts of my own on today in addition to what we just discussed. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe that Katanji Brown Jackson is a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Everything she asked was ideological. Every single question seemed designed to promote or justify or give her the ammo to support her ideology. I didn't even understand exactly what she was saying in some of these questions. I was just sort of like the dog that cocks its head. Like, huh?

Huh? Sotomayor, same. Alito, a hero. Roberts was great today. Thomas, of course, stalwart. Gorsuch, uh-uh. Kavanaugh, uh, pretty good, pretty good, I thought. Not totally sure where he's going on the second round, you know, what to do about the 23

blue states that have laws allowing it. because we need those struck down. We need to win these laws. The bans need to be upheld, and the laws allowing it need to be struck down because women's rights are women's rights, period. These girls have the right to participate in their own sports without boys coming in and under Title IX as well. So both of those things are equally important, and we'll see, you know, we'll see on part two.

Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh seemed a little shaky to me on that second piece of it. Surprisingly, I kind of got a good vibe from Roberts on it. definitely Alito and Thomas. So we'll see. Elena Kagan is smart. She's not, you know, she's a lib. But she's like a normal lib who asks normal lib questions. She's not some insane lunatic. Sotomayor is a partisan hack who doesn't seem like she's going to make it another five years on the bench. I mean, she truly was like slovenly. Can you be slovenly while sitting on the high court bench in like your robe or you're down here? Like, hello, over here. Over here, Sonia. And just overall, I love the Supreme Court.

I love listening to the arguments. It was, you know, I'm not going to lie. It took like four hours, so it was a little long and could have been a little snappier. But I love being back there. It's such a distinguished, beautiful body. And we're lucky to have them, and we are super lucky to have the majority right now. I think this case is going to come out the way we want. Fingers crossed, say a prayer.

Literally say a prayer, because I do think God has a role in making sure this wrong gets righted. God bless Kristen. And don't forget, Alliance Defending Freedom does take donations. So if you want to help support those guys, highly recommend. Up next, Andrew Claven is here. Don't go away. If you're stressed about getting out of debt, it's go time. This is one of those moments where timing matters, and let me tell you about done with debt. 2025 was a record year for them. People who collectively had more than 102 million in debt turned to them for help. Now, according to the Federal Reserve's latest survey, some banks have tightened their standards. Right now may be the best time to Negotiate settlements. Done with debt tracks credit card and loan company behavior. They're experienced at knowing who is negotiating and when and what it takes to get you the biggest reduction possible. Whether you are carrying $10,000 or $500,000 in debt, this may be the best chance you will get all year. So consider scheduling a free consultation. It only takes a few minutes. Imagine waking up without that weight on your shoulders and doing it without taking out another loan or filing for bankruptcy.

done with debt helps you through the debt relief process so you keep more of your paycheck every month. Go to done with debt.com right now. Done with debt.com. Don't wait. Here with me now, Andrew Claven. He's host of the Andrew Claven show on the Daily Wire and author of the novel. After that, The Dark. Andrew, welcome back. It's great to have you. I'll just ask you quickly. I don't know if you've been following the coverage of today's Supreme Court arguments, but it was a theater of the absurd with the preferred pronouns being used by everybody, biological reality out the window, cisgender being thrown around there, which is a slur. I don't need cisgender woman.

I'm a woman. That's it, period. For those of us who are actual women, don't call us cisgender. We're women, period. Nothing comes before it. Nothing comes after it. And then these lawyers standing up there trying to argue that a male who went through male puberty has no biological advantage over a woman so long as he's taking something to suppress

his testosterone a little bit. I mean, it was just insane. Well, it's insane. The whole situation is so insane that a college professor who's unhappy with her own sexuality can write a theory and talk an entire nation, an entire culture, really, out of one of the essential facts of human life, not one of the essential facts of human life, one of the greatest facts of human life, the thing that from which most of our joy comes from, most of our pleasure comes from, our lives come from, the difference between men and women, which is supposed to be

something that we celebrate and love, even as it causes us. us, all the troubles that romance causes us. And it's just amazing that a theory, a theorist, with no scientific backing with absolutely all the science speaking against her, can talk a culture out of that. That's an amazing power that we give to intellectuals and to academics who are coming out of just their own heads without consulting anything. Why there should, this should even be a conversation. And you guys, I heard you guys talking about Gorsuch, his decision in Bostock from a guy who says he's an originalist. Nobody who originally wrote a law was thinking of anything but women when they mentioned women or anything but men when they mentioned men. And so there's absolutely

no reason to accept even people cross-dressing, which can be offensive in a society. There's absolutely no reason why you should have to hire somebody who is cross-dressing simply because a woman can wear a skirt so a man can wear a skirt. No, we live in a society. Our society has traditions and norms. And if you're in business, you want those traditions and norms to be upheld, but far beyond that, if you're dealing with the actual physical differences that come up and are so important in sports, you know, you have to deal with them. And I'm somebody who I love NFL football, and I watch these guys run into each other in ways that would break my bones. I can only, I can't even think of what would happen if they ran into a female. And so if you follow this to

its absolute logical conclusion, you simply have dead bodies lying off over a hundred yard field. You know, it's insane. It is insane. And the fact that we can be talked out of reality, by a college professor's theory or a movement that basically backs it up by screaming at people is insane on its face. And to see, the U.S. Supreme Court have to go along with it. I mean, the conservative just being polite and trying to maintain decorum. They don't believe this. They do not believe you can call a he or she or that a man can become a woman.

There's just no way. But we all had to engage in this false bullshit today because that's what you do with the U.S. Supreme Court. It was not fun to listen to in that way. Okay, let's keep going. There's so much news, and I don't have you for that much long, for that, for a long time. I want to hit Minnesota, where there is new video today revealing, I think, I don't know who this is. There are reports that it's Renee Good's partner or wife, but I don't think it actually is. I think it's somebody else who videotaped the whole thing from behind the confrontation. But would you listen to the question, this person shouted at the cops after Renee Good was shot after she,

accelerated her car into an officer, SOT 51. Why did you have real bullets in? Yeah, yeah. Well, I mean, I think that tells you everything you need to know. It's a game. It's theater to them. Everything in this has been theater. When you have the mayor basically deciding the case after looking at one of the many,

many videos that are very difficult to interpret, when you have the governor of the state come out and say that he's going to call out the National Guard, essentially to fight with federal forces, which is a declaration of civil war. It's all fun in games and it's all make-believe. And it's absolutely, it's really disturbing. I mean, this is a conversation that I feel was interrupted after Charlie Kirk was murdered. The revelation of just how violent, how lawless, how destructive the left is in this country while claiming that the right is all those things. There are obviously always going to be bad guys on both sides, but that's not the issue. The issue is this is a movement that is anti the founding of this country, that believes it has

the right to commit acts of violence, that will talk you out of its burning down a city. They'll tell you that that's not an act of violence because it's an act against property, as if property were not an extension of the people who build it in the place that holds their hopes and dreams and lives. I just think, you know, this is a reality that I don't feel the right has gotten its head around. I mean, I am all for, as you know, you and I have talked about this, I am all for dispelling and intellectually browbeating the Jew-aiders and the conspiracy theorists among us.

But we have got to bring the right together. I mean, when I say this, this left is so violent and so lawless and so dangerous. And we defeated them. We defeated them in the last election, not just because of the great candidacy of Donald Trump, but because a phalanx of rebel media. that included Megan Kelly and Ben Shapiro and the Babylon Bee and even guys who were not that political like Joe Rogan and even people on the left like Bill Maher, who at least believe in freedom. These people have got to stick together and stop squabbling among themselves because the threat we face is so incredibly high. I will say for the record, one's attempt to forge, you know, reconciliation in this lane can go completely unrewarded and it can wind up being futile.

same. I, well, listen, I agree. And especially on social media where people forget that they're talking to actual other human beings and use kinds of language against each other that is completely uncalled for. You know, I think in the battle of ideas, that is one thing. And the battle of ideas is serious. And I think we should all take it seriously. But in the absolute personal attacks that I see on the right, I think they're not taking the left as seriously as they should. And they're not remembering. Right. That's the enemy. That's the enemy. That's right. What's happening in Minnesota proves that better than anything. Like, it's, and it's not just like the crazy loons leftists who are like crying on camera,

who are kind of funny. It's the ones who are actually out there. They're threatening to kill us. They're loading their guns. They're doing videos of it. And they're saying they're going to take out, yes, ice agents, which is bad enough, but also MAGA, like literally threatening us, which they just did with Charlie. They celebrated the murder by Luigi Mangione of the, that guy wasn't MAGA. But like, they're, they're finally.

with political violence. That's like what I've been trying to say all along, Andrew, is like, we do have defined enemies and we must ban together in defeating them because it's like they're, it's at a crescendo right now. It's almost at like a genuinely frightening crescendo on the left. And they're pointing to us saying we're the ones crescendoing it. That's right. That's right. They can pick out the outsiders among us and make believe that they're the same as the insiders among us, the AOCs and the mayor of the city of New York, who is really one, I think, one of the worst people in the country. And really has to be, they have to be battled. And, and you know, we forget so quickly, and this is partly the media does this, even to people on the right,

we forget so quickly what happened under the Biden administration, the parents protesting pornography, homosexual pornography in their elementary schools who were threatened with investigation by the FBI as terrorists. The people who went to Latin Mass were threatened by the FBI. The people knocked off social media for their opinions, including the president of the United States. You know, were banned and silence. We came this close to losing our First Amendment under the Biden regime, and it really was close. And we got to remember the power that we have amassed by being a fearless rebel media that speaks its mind and that allows people in. You know, when I mentioned Bill Maher, I mentioned him on purpose because I always have respected him, even though I disagree with him 85% of the time.

I've always respected the fact that he'll bring on Anne Coulter, that he'll talk to Ben. And, you know, he'll talk to anybody, basically, because he believes in the founding. I think that's the battle we're in. It's not between left and right. It's between those who believe in the founding of this country and why we wrote the laws the way we did and why we set up the Constitution the way we did. And the people who don't believe it. They just believe, oh, it was a bunch of white guys who hated black people and they own slaves. And that's evil.

And let's knock down their statues and build statues of George Floyd instead. I mean, those people are not just crazy. They are freaking dangerous and they're close. You know, they not only dominate one of our major. two parties. They are absolutely in control of one of our major two parties, which was not always the case, but they also dominate our huge

swaths of our press. And, you know, I think that even some of the press that I would call right leaning, they don't understand it. They do not understand. Oh, listen, let me play you a little sampling. Okay, this is Democrats and media, but I repeat myself, but just take it.

Here's a little flavor of how they've been talking about the Minnesota case, SOT 53. That ICE agent murdered a woman in Minneapolis. This officer not only needs to be fired and suspended, but based on the video, he needs to be charged with murder. I'm mad. I'm pissed off. This looks like murder. Ice has gone rogue. That officer needs to be arrested and prosecuted. When I look at that video, I see murder.

I will not be fucking gaslight lit by these people. Jonathan Ross murdered. Okay, here's one more. SOT 52. This is the newly reformed CBS News, the reporter Nicole Saganja. DHS this weekend released a video showing the minutes leading up to the murder of Renee Good. She and others are heard honking car horns. Trump administration officials have claimed she intended to ram ICE agents before she was shot.

Well, there's only two options, Andrew. It's either stupidity or intentional malfeasance. Well, it's intentional. It's intentional malfeasance. Listen, even though you guys were talking about language when you were talking about the Supreme Court. And even the language they use when they say you have a right to protest in this country, absolutely. If you want to stand off on the sidelines with a sign saying if you're really, really nice, you get to break our immigration laws. Go right ahead. But these people are throwing things at federal law enforcement officers who are actually doing what they're hired to do.

It's not like they're breaking the law. It's not like they're being abusive. they're actually doing what they're supposed to do, which is enforce federal law. And people are debating whether the wheels were turned quite toward the agent when she tried to run him over. And I'm saying, well, he could have jumped out of the way or, you know, he should shoot to wound like an episode of the Lone Ranger television program from my 1950s. You know, it's like it's nonsense. I mean, the main thing you want in this situation is that law enforcement goes home safe. That's the main thing I want.

I want to know that law enforcement can enforce our laws and go home to their family. without being injured. And if you're out there injuring them, you know, listen, I am not somebody at all who is celebrating the death of Renee Good. You know, that's not at all what I'm doing. I'm just saying, you know, when you do that to a law enforcement officer, you're risking your life. And it's not his fault if you lose it. That is the only thing. And it's terribly sad and it's terribly bad, but it's not the fault of the officer at all. And that's the general. I agree. It's sad. She made the decisions she made that day. That's what I'm sad about and that her children are paying the price for it. No one wants to see a child suffer, but they are suffering right now because

their mother's really terrible judgment. I did want to show you a little bit of the flavor of the lunacy, speaking of like, this is the enemy. Let's run these thoughts. There's Adam Minneapolis with the protesters yesterday. Start with 59. If they're going to murder us while calling us fucking bitches, then I think they need to be bigger fucking bitches. Fuck ice. So the world is on fire And things are Horrendous right now And I'm not going to pretend otherwise

I want to be clear where I stand Fuck ice If they come to my town I will be in the streets Defending my community Don't look away from this It is so important That we keep paying attention

Hey if you're a nice agent This might be a good time To kiss your spouse and kids goodbye Because you know what You might not be coming home tomorrow Wow Gladly and your family will be.

We need to show up in big numbers, especially white people who are U.S. citizens and who speak English. Because white people, white people have a greater responsibility. Okay, I'm just got one more for you, Andrew, then I'll give you the floor. Speaking of the white people duty, Joy Reid felt the need to weigh in.

Here she is in. This woman was part of a group of people who they trained to try to be ICE interrupters. And what they try to do is observe what ICE is doing, film them and try to use their white privilege, to be honest. They're mainly white people. Which is what we ask. Which is what we ask them to do, right?

Because black people, like, we can't get on, we can't put our bodies on the line because cops will shoot us. And so the presumption had been, particularly a white woman. Because remember, part of the rationale for doing this with ICE is to save white women. Christine white women from being ravaged by, you know, criminal brown men. Great. So white women have been taking the lead in being the ones to step. Wow.

Great. Is there some problem with having white women get saved from rapes, Joy? Anyway, you get the flavor, right? You get the flavor. Absolutely. And this race thing, I mean, it's the same with every social movement in America. It starts out with a perfectly reasonable ask. You know, can we please, you know, not ban black people from using the same bathrooms

as white people? And it ends up being taken over by the left and being turned into the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be. Civil rights is now in this country. a racist movement. It didn't start out that way. They promised us it wasn't going to become that way, but that is what it's become. And the other day, Donald Trump said, because of civil rights laws, white people are being mistreated. And everybody said, oh, how shocking what a terrible thing. He's right. He's absolutely right because the left takes over every social movement.

And the reason, look, the reason is we're blind in one eye, because of our media's corruption and because of our academy's corruption and because of Hollywood's corruption, we see everything through the left-wing perspective, every single thing, and it affects even right-wing people's thinking. They don't understand how dangerous the left is. And when you're talking, that's just pure racism. It's pure racism that they're talking. They're spewing this hatefulness. And I'm as against racism now, against white people, as I was when it was against black people. There's absolutely no difference in my mind. Either it's right to judge people by the color of their skin, or it's wrong. And I say it's wrong. And I say that on biblical principles, but I say it also on just immoral principles. It's wrong

to judge people by the color of their skin, but that's whatever color it is. And I keep hearing this word white used as a pejorative. If you can do that, then you can use black as a pejorative too. And they've constructed, I know all the theories. I've read, unfortunately, for me, all the theories for my sins by which they construct a fabric of lies that makes it allowable to be racist against white people when it's not allowable to be racist against black people. It's a total grift. It's not good thinking, it's not reasonable thinking, and the press just goes along and the Democrats just go along. And it really is a shame. And it's something that is just, it's a frightening moment because Donald Trump is not as popular as I wish he was. I mean, he's done, he's done, he's doing a great

job, but he talks a lot. He says a lot of things that they can pin on him. And he's not that popular. And he is, he's raised a good point many times about the economy, which is, like, I can't fix it overnight. Yes, it's been a year, but the economy is like an aircraft carrier. Like, that thing turns very slowly. And he has been trying. He has been trying. But I think Trump believes he's entitled to a little bit more grace in actually, you know, seeing the results translate into people's pocketbooks. And I agree with him on that. Like, he's rolled back regulations. He's gotten so much investment by corporate America and the corporate world into the United States. He's pressured companies into keeping their manufacturing companies here.

He's using the tariffs or trying to in a way that he thinks is actually going to ultimately bring down costs. You know, it's up for debate, but you can't say he's not trying. And so I think, like, he's right that he deserves a little bit more time. And I think those approval numbers will go up

once people start to feel the relief of the economic pain they're under. There's a bunch to get to still. I really want to talk to you about Scott Adams. I'm devastated. It's so sure. Yeah. devastating. But wait, I just want to do one news item before we get to Scott, which is the Clintons. Bill Clinton, is it Bill and Hillary were supposed to show up today? At least Bill was supposed to show up today and testify before the House Oversight Committee on Epstein. You know, they're doing this big probe into what really happened and what they're learning in these documents. And Hillary's supposed to show up tomorrow. So we'll see if she shows up. But listen to Representative James Comer.

today. So that's 75. This is the amount of preparation that went into this deposition today. These were the questions that we were prepared to ask. We've communicated with President Clinton's legal team for months now, giving them opportunity after opportunity to come in, to give us a date, and they continue to delay, delay, delay to the point where we had no idea whether they're going to show up today or not. I think it's very disappointing.

as a result of Bill Clinton not showing up for his lawful subpoena, which again was voted on it unanimously by the committee in a bipartisan manner. Okay, so she's supposed to show up tomorrow and she says she won't. And now they are defying a government subpoena. They are risking being held in contempt of Congress, which is what sent our pal, Steve Bannon, to jail, which is what sent Peter Navarro to jail. So good luck with that. They were scheduled to appear for these close to. George depositions today and tomorrow. In a letter, attorneys for the Clinton say they won't be complying, writing president and secretary Clinton have already provided the limited info they

possess about Epstein and Galane Maxwell to the committee. They did so proactively and voluntarily, and despite the fact that the subpoenas are invalid and legally unenforceable. Why? Untethered to a valid legislative purpose unwarranted because they do not seek pertinent information and an unprecedented infringement on the separation of powers. Okay. The attorneys call the episode nothing more than a ploy to attempt to embarrass political rivals as President Trump has directed. Wow. So they're not going, Andrew. And you tell me whether their next trip should be to Rikers. Absolutely. They should at least be given house arrest in Steve Bannon's house. I think that would be an even harsher punishment. You know, it is, it is this thing that they do with the law, though. They talk about the rule of law, the rule of law, the rule of law, until it's them, until it has to do with, you know, attacking an ICE Asian.

or denying a subpoena or anything else they want to do. The stuff that Jack Smith, have I got his right, first name right, is Jack Smith, right? The guy went after, the prosecutor went after Trump. The thing he's been saying to Congress behind closed doors, his interpretation of the law, which was essentially erased the First Amendment, this is, it is a really interesting mindset that the people who vote for Democrats aren't sitting back and saying, well, wait a minute. you know, I actually was in, I'm in favor of the rule of law. I was in favor of them taking away Steve Bannon. So why shouldn't I be in favor of them taking away Bill Clinton? It's funny that

they don't say that because even I say that from time to time when a right winger goes astray, I say, you know, hey, if it's sauce for the gander, sauce for the goose. But they don't. It just absolutely stops at the Republicans door. The rule of law just is only for Republicans. It's the way they think. Yeah. No. So I look forward to watching what happens next. And I really do hope that there's, because, you know, what's happened in the past, like Merrick Garland got found in contempt of Congress. Yes. But surprise, surprise, there was no prosecution because he was the attorney general who would

have to do the prosecuting. But things have changed. And right now, Pam Bondi is the attorney general. And I don't like their chances if they thumb their nose at this Congress over at DOJ. I think this DOJ is dying to do something to enforce the wheels of justice against people like the Clintons. And this may be just the excuse they need to do it. Okay, let's keep going.

If your credit card balance is freaking you out after all the holiday spending, I mean, right? I have something that can save you money right now. You could cut your cell phone bill in half by switching to Pure Talk's saver plan. Just $20 a month for unlimited talk, text, and three gigs of high-speed data on Pure Talks Superfast Nationwide 5G network. And as a veteran-led company that cares about giving back to those who serve, if you are active or former military or a first responder, you're going to save an additional 20% every single

month. That's awesome. The easiest way to free up cash flow is to reduce your monthly recurring bills. Start by cutting overpriced wireless and consider switching to PureTalk. Go to PureTalk.com slash Kelly and make the switch today in as little as 10 minutes. Again, talk, text, and data for just $20 a month. That's PureTalk.com slash Kelly, and you will save an additional 50% off your first month, Pure Talk, America's Wireless Company. Before the cameras, before the ceremony, before history is made, every detail is chosen. From Amazon, MGM Studios comes Melania. This new film takes you inside the 20 days leading up to the 2025 presidential inauguration through the eyes of the first lady herself, where

fashion is not just style, it's strategy. Witness the image defining decisions made behind closed doors, a celebration of duty and glamour. Melania, only in theaters, January 30th. I can't wait to see that. Hey, everyone, it's me, Megan Kelly. I've got some exciting news. I now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly channel, and it is where you will hear the truth, unfiltered, with no agenda, and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Callahan, Emily DeShish. Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more.

It's bold, no BS news. Only on the Megan Kelly Channel, SiriusXM 11, and on the SiriusXM app. I was in the Supreme Court all the morning and did not know that Scott died. He had just said the other day, he had just said on his show that when you deteriorate markedly from month to month, you should have months left to live. that when it happens week to week, you should have weeks, and when it happens day to day, you probably have just days. And a couple days later, he died.

And he said he thought he had months. He said he thought he had months left, so it happened quickly. And his ex-wife, Shelley Miles Adams, went on his feed today and delivered the following message, SOT 71. Everyone. Unfortunately, this isn't good news. of course he waited till just before the show started but he's not with us right anymore

he has a final message that he wanted to say many of my Christian friends have asked me to find Jesus before I go I'm not a believer but I have to admit the risk-reward calculation for doing so looks so attractive to me so here I go I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and look forward to spending an eternity with him

the part about me not being a believer should be quickly resolved if I wake up in heaven a great line what a great nice classic Scott Adams offbeat out of left field and beautiful and you know it's it's Pascal's wager it's a it's

got a long tradition. You know, Pascal was a great mathematician who converted to Christianity. He said, it only makes sense that you're risking eternity. It only makes sense to believe because you don't lose anything by believing, but you could gain eternity,

and it's worth the wager. And so that was what Scott was saying. You know, he was, listen, it's funny, I used to listen to Scott all the time, and I had him on my show very early on when he started talking about political things

and just really liked him. If he would ask me, do I agree with like 50% of what I, what he said, I probably would have said no, but who cares? You know, I mean, he was a creative, original guy, full of goodwill, almost always gracious, which I really appreciate in this atmosphere. I mean, he was always gracious to the people. He attacked. He would always tell people he was a far leftist. I didn't really see a lot of evidence of that, but he claimed it all the time. But a big Trump supporter, the press, of course, the New York Times, and one of the pettiest, meanest little headlines I've ever seen.

said he was a popular cartoonist until his racist remarks caused him to be canceled. He never made racist remarks. He said that a poll showing that more than half of black people didn't like white people. He said, you might want to avoid people on the basis of that because they're hostile. That's not a racist remark. That's about hostility and about the way people feel. And just the wickedness of the left in these moments is a little hard to take. But the memory of Scott Adams is a beautiful.

one. I mean, you know, the Jews say may his memory be a blessing. I think it will be a blessing. He was just a guy who came with these ideas that sometimes you just sit and blink and have to think about him all day long because you weren't sure where he was coming from. And yet they were really helpful to people. His advice, it's kind of like Jordan Peterson. I frequently disagree with Jordan Peterson. His advice is always great. Scott's advice was always great. And again, always delivered with this kind of whimsical, hilarious, deadpan, gracious way of being. He was a voice that made the Internet better, which is not an easy thing to do. And I'm really going to miss him.

I really think it's a sad day and happened way too soon at this point. You know, sometimes... Oh, 68 years old. And I felt like he deserved more time. You know, when he announced casually that he had metastatic prostate cancer and that had spread to his bones right after Joe Biden's announcement came out. He said, you know, not for nothing. He goes, I have that too.

And I don't have very long to live. It was like, what? Everyone was shocked. And it happened too fast. You know, I just felt like we were owed more time, which of course is not how these things work. Can I point out one thing that he said that I thought was important? He said that when he started talking, supporting Trump, he lost his friends. He lost a lot of his work.

He lost almost all of his speaking engagements. So he was making like 50 to 100 grand per speaking and engagement. And he said, and I may have lost my health, which at least is an indication that it was a tremendous stressor to him. It was something that really got under his skin. And I know people who have gotten very, very ill with fatal diseases, with potentially fatal diseases after going through stress like this. And I think it is just a sad statement about our society that a guy of that much graciousness, wit, humor, and wild, you know, helpful ideas should feel that maybe his health was compromised by the way he was treated by our intellectual chattering classes.

He was brilliant. And he was the original Trump whisperer when nobody thought Trump could win. I mean, early on in the 15-16 campaign, he said he's going to win. And it was because he was an expert in persuasion. He was a hypnotist. And he had learned, it's the same thing as persuasion. And he had learned the way people who have. high persuasion skills sound. And he saw Trump doing it from the beginning. And he used to do a lot of

shows analyzing. It was a very interesting thing to listen to. And so that's why he predicted it when very few did. I know some did, but very few did. He saw it coming. And I mean, everything he, I watched his show from time to time. It wasn't like a regular thing for me. But every time I tuned in, I learned something. Scott would make an interesting, quick prediction about something. And I'd be like, oh, my God, that's so obviously right. Why didn't I think of that? He just had a different way into every story. And he was very accurate in his ability to size people up, stories up,

take something, be like, that's not going to happen. That is going to happen. I believe that. I don't believe that. And you're like, yeah, same, same as soon as you hear him say it. I do want to talk about the controversy because I'm disgusted. People Magazine. Didn't I tell you,

my friends in the audience, didn't I just say yesterday, People Magazine is a tabloid magazine? They're the new Gawker. They're disgusting. Stop buying People magazine. They're gross. They come out with the headline, Scott Adams, disgraced Dilbert creator, guys at 68. This is so disgusting.

The Boston Globe, Scott Adams, Dilbert creator, who veered into racist far-right commentary, dies. That's their headline to sum up this man's life. New York Times. Breaking news. Scott Adams, whose comic strip Dilbert, was a sensation until he made racist comments on his podcast has died at 68. And by the way, I'll get to the juxtaposition of the New York Times on Qasam Soleimani when he died versus what they're saying about Scott Adams. But I do want to start with the People Magazine piece.

I'm telling you, stop buying People Magazine. Stop going to their website online. Don't support these people. They are far left. They hate conservatives, and they've gone totally tabloid. Matt Walsh posts the name of the writer who attacks Scott Adams. It's Victoria Edel, E-D-E-L. He writes, this is the monstrosity who wrote the vile article.

Scott Adams was a great man, loved and mourned by millions. This person is a nobody loved by no one. The world won't even notice when this person dies. Now they took down her name and exchanged it for staff. staff at people because they don't want to take, you know, the responsibility for it. And hold on. There was one more, you know, this is from Matt. I'm trying to find it.

It's mixed in. I can't find it. It's in the midst of all my Supreme Court messages. My phone is a mess. My team is going to help me with it. But in the meantime, I want to read you this because there is a final message from Scott. If you're reading this, things did not, what Andrew has to go? All right.

I'll let you go, Andrew. I'll just finish it up with the audience. but thank you. Thank you so much for being here. It's great to see you, Megan. Thanks a lot. It's always great to see you. Bye-bye. To be continued. All right, so this is from Scott for the audience. If you're reading this, things did not go well for me. What a sweet opening line. I have a few things to say before I go. My body failed before my brain. I am of sound mind as I write this January 1st, 2026. If you wonder about any of my choices for my estate or anything else, please know I'm free of any coercion or inappropriate influence of any sort, I promise. Next, many of my Christian friends

have asked me to find Jesus before I go. I'm not a believer, but I have to admit the risk-reward calculation for doing so it looks so attractive. So here I go. You heard his ex-wife read some of this. I accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I look forward to spending an eternity with him. The part about me not being a believer should be quickly resolved if I wake up in heaven. I won't need any more convincing than that, and I hope I'm still qualified for entry. With your permission, I'd like to explain something about my life. For the first part of my life, I was focused on making myself a worthy husband and parent as a way to find meaning. That worked, but marriages don't always last forever, and mine eventually ended in a highly amicable way.

I'm grateful for those years, and the people I came to call my family. Once the marriage unwound, I needed a new focus, a new meaning, and so I donated myself. to the world, literally speaking the words out loud in my otherwise silent home. From that point on, I look for ways I could add the most to people's lives one way or another. That marked the start of my evolution, from Dilbert cartoonist to an author of what I hoped would be useful books. Boy, was he ever. By then, I believed I had amassed enough life lessons that I could start passing them on. I continued making Dilbert comics, of course. As luck would have it, I'm a good writer. My first book, in the useful genre was how to fail at almost everything and still win big. That book turned out to be a huge success, often imitated, and influencing a wide variety of people. I still hear every day how much that book changed lives. My plan to be useful was working.

Damn bye. Next page. I followed up with my book, Win Bigley, that trained an army of citizens how to be more persuasive, which they correctly saw as a minor superpower. I know that book changed lives because I hear it off. often. You'll probably never know the impact the book had on the world, but I know, and it pleases me while giving me a sense of meaning that is impossible to describe. My next book, Loser Think, tried to teach people how to think better, especially if they were displaying their thinking on social media. That one didn't put much of a dent in the universe, but I tried. Finally, my book, Refram Your Brain. He came on and promoted that with all of us, taught readers how to program their own thoughts to make their personal and professional lives better. I was surprised and delighted at how much positive impact that book is having. I also started podcasting

a live show called Coffee with Scott Adams, dedicated to helping people think about the world and their lives in a more productive way. I didn't plan it this way, but it ended up helping lots of lonely people find a community that made them feel less lonely. Again, that had great meaning for me. I had an amazing life. I gave it everything I had. If you got any benefits from my work, I'm asking you to pay it forward as best you can. That is a legacy I want. Be useful. And please know, I loved you all to the end. Scott Adams. Wow. It's a beautiful message. Gosh, he did so well. He did so well right to the end with his messaging for all of us and giving himself when he was so sick and in hospice care, which he announced last week. Why do the bad ones hang on forever and the good

ones go so quickly. Like, I don't know, you just hear like someone terrible has something happen to them. And like, then they linger for another 20 years. Scott Adams announces six months ago that he's got metastatic prostate cancer and he's gone in what felt like a heartbeat. I loved, love, love, love listening to Scott. I learned from Scott a lot. I found so many useful nuggets in the lessons that he brought. And he was one of my teachers. And I'm really going to miss him. I'm very sad for him. I'm sad for his family. And I'm sad for the right. You know, like we keep losing people. And it hurts. It hurts like the movement, the pushback against the lunatic left. We need people like Scott, like with genuine wisdom to give. Gone too soon at 68. And those, quote,

eulogies offered by the mainstream, do not do him justice. How dare they take this one moment he had a couple of years ago. And you guys remember, remember he came on here to talk about the controversy. We were his first interview after he did that show talking about the poll on black people, not wanting to live near white people and him saying, you know, me either then. And it was like, it was classic Scott because it was a little tongue in the cheek and it was sort of part social experiment. And he came on to explain all that to us. Steve, can you find the episode number just in case people want to go back and listen to it? Well, no, I don't want to play it now.

I don't want to get back into it. But we'll find the episode number for you because we talk about that and a bunch with him. So he wasn't. But like to take that one moment, like that one controversy and make it his usually. his obituary and in the headline no less, after all the good he's done in the world, episode 638, thank you, 638, is just immoral. It's immoral. Like, why can't there be a bigger pull among the media to just, when you're eulogizing someone, just try to stick to their best moments and bury the stuff you find controversial, if you must put it in his obit, down by the

bottom. How dare you put that into his head, the headline? And I just think it's, like, they would never do this to their side or to their heroes or even to like villains. I mentioned the thing about Soleimani. Stand by and I'm going to read it to you here. This is what they did to Scott Adams versus to Soleimani, a terrorist. Okay. Drew Holden found this online. Scott Adams, audacious creator of the Dilbert comic strip, dies at 68. His chronicle of a corporate cubicle dweller was widely distributed until racist comments on his podcast led newspapers to cut their ties with him. Here's Qasim Soleimani.

Kassim Soleim Soleim, master of Iran's intrigue, built a Shiite axis of power in the Mideast. The commander helped direct wars in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. and became the face of Iran's efforts to build a regional block of Shiite power. How about all of the stuff about his terrorism and the Americans he killed? He killed Americans. That didn't make it into the headline or the subhead. But Scott Adams' comments, which again, they weren't actually racist. You have to go back and listen to the episode.

But in the New York Times world, they were. It's just wrong. You know, I shudder to think what they'll do to me when hopefully many, many decades from now, I pass. But I also don't really give a shit because they don't define me. And they don't define Scott. And the people who loved Scott and the people who love all of us listening to this show right now know who we are. Right?

They don't believe this bullshit. Like being in the public eye, they will tear you limb from limb, even in death. And all you can hope is that the people who did know you, who listen to you in Scott's case, listen to your show, and maybe occasionally actually got something out of it, knowing their hearts who you were. I'm disgusted by People Magazine. I spit on People Magazine. I'm disgusted with the New York Times as I am every day. And the Boston Globe, too, shame on you for joining in on this. I'll miss him. And I know millions of Americans will miss him. And I know people listening in this show right now feel

the same. So thank you all for being not just truth tellers, but people who see through the bullshit. And I believe that people listening to the show have been trained now that when you see anyone in the right wing getting piled on, and Scott may have called himself a leftist, but he was right wing. He was a right wing savant, okay? Whatever his positions were on various issues to issues, that's a different story. But like, he was ours. He was. By the end of his life, he was. By the end of his life, was ours. And it's perfectly fitting that he converted to Christianity right before he passed. That you have to take it all with so many grains of salt. You have to take it out with like one of those huge salt mountains that you see in the wintertime before they go to salt the roads.

You know, because they lie. They lie, lie, lie about people like Scott and it's deeply immoral to do it in the man's obit. Anyway, what a show. Gosh, thank you all for listening. We've got another barn burner for you tomorrow where I'll be back in Connecticut. And we will have Emily Jashinsky. There's going to be a lot to go over. I can see it breaking on my phone right now. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show.

No BS, no agenda, and no fear.