The Megyn Kelly Show - Trump's Iran Decision Approaches, Kamala's Strange New Accent, and The Key Vance Factor, with Rich Lowry and Charles C.W. Cooke | Ep. 1300

Episode Date: April 21, 2026

Megyn Kelly is joined by Rich Lowry and Charles Cooke of National Review to discuss Trump’s chaos strategy on display as Iran ceasefire reaches an end, the possibility that bombing may start again, VP JD Vance not actually leaving America to go to the negotiations, Trump’s rhetoric and action in Iran, what America’s best outcome possible would be at this point, the key factor that will show whether VP JD Vance will be the 2028 nominee and president, what the polls say on the GOP side now, Kamala Harris unveiling a strange new accent in front of a black leadership summit, her latest ridiculous word salad, how smug journalists plan to boycott President Trump’s appearance at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Jake Tapper's performative anti-Trump pocket square on Colbert, and more.   Cooke- https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke Lowry- https://www.nationalreview.com   Supersure Insurance: Simplify your business insurance and get a free coverage report at https://Supersure.com/Megyn Herald Group: Learn more at https://GuardYourCard.com Shopify: Launch your dream business with Shopify. Sign up for your $1/month trial at https://Shopify.com/megynand start selling today! Relief Factor: Try the 3-Week QuickStart for just $19.95 at https://ReliefFactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF.     Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKelly Twitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShow Instagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShow Facebook: 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 Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at New East. Hey, everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show. So much news to get to today. The Democrats frontrunner for the presidential nomination in 2028, Kamala Harris, fingers crossed, is speaking out again and revealing yet another accent. She's so great. May she never leave us. Plus, all eyes on Pakistan at this hour on the question of whether Iran is. is even going to show up to the latest round of negotiations before the ceasefire with the U.S. ends tonight at 7.50 p.m. Eastern time. The AP reporting this morning that the Iranians are expected to travel to Islamabad for the talks with the American delegation led by Vice President J.D. Vance. But the latest official word from Pakistan's information minister is far less optimistic.

He's saying that the Iranians have not confirmed that they will attend the summit And CNN, just as we came to air, reported that J.D. Vance is still in D.C. has not left. That the status of talks is unclear. Reporting that a few hours ago, everyone felt the Iranians were coming, even though they were suggesting maybe, maybe not. And then there was an incident with the U.S. Marines boarding a tanker truck in the Indian Ocean. And now it seems less likely than it did this morning. So we don't know. We have no idea. We will wait and find out, and as soon as we find out, we will let you find out too. This morning on CNBC, President Trump, at first, sounding optimistic that there will be a deal.

Watch. Well, as I said two days ago, when they said they won't send them, I said they'll be sending them. They have no choice but to send them. What I think is that we're going to end up with a great deal. I think they have no choice. We've taken out their Navy. We've taken out their Air Force. We've taken out their leaders, frankly, which does complicate things in one way.

but these leaders are much more rational. It is regime change, no matter what you want to call it, which is not something I said I was going to do, but I've done it, indirectly maybe, but I've done it. And I think we're in a very strong negotiating position to do what other presidents should have done during a 47-year period. We have 47 years where these bloodthirsty people

have been killing a lot of soldiers, a lot of our soldiers, and a lot of other people. But the president also saying, He does not want to extend the ceasefire, even if progress is being made in the negotiations, and he fully expects to begin bombing Iran again. Watch. You're saying that you need at least a prospects for a signed deal today and tomorrow, or else you would resume bombing Iran. Well, I expect to be bombing because I think that's a better attitude to go in with,

but we're ready to go. I mean, the military is raring to go. They are absolutely incredible. I mean, he keeps doing this. He ratchets up the rhetoric every time we're at the end of a ceasefire or demanding, you know, that they respond to us in some way and Trump escalates the rhetoric. And that Wall Street Journal article the other day made really clear why he was doing that and really kind of exposed how it's a tactic.

And he admitted that it was a tactic to AIDS, who then, spoke to the Wall Street Journal. And this also talked about this article about how he is trying to seem unstable and wanted to be as unstable and insulting as possible, believing it could bring the Iranians to the table. That post about a whole civilization will die. He saw it as a way to spur negotiations in a war the president was desperately ready to end. Axios reporting today that Trump is bored of this war and wants it over. Whatever. You know, maybe it wasn't the best thing to start if you didn't have the patience to actually see it through. That's what his supporters of the war might say. I mean, those of us who have been against it from the beginning would like to

see it wrapped up, whether it's out of boredom or not. It's really too bad that the, you know, cost of American lives isn't the motivator. It's that Trump has moved on to other things. because he has the attention span of a gnat. We don't know whether they're showing up. We don't know whether we should believe our president when he says this is happening and this is happening because we know he's manipulating them and us with virtually every statement. Truth does not seem to be relevant. It's really all just tactics.

And he doesn't really give a damn that the American people are being dragged along on these tactical misdirections. So I have no idea what to tell you. I don't know what's true. I don't know whether the Iranians will show up. I don't know whether we really will start bombing. I don't know whether he's so desperate to get a deal that he will give it all away and there'll be no more bombing. Really don't know. We'll find out tonight over into tomorrow and we'll update you then. There was more, he said, on CNBC, which we're going to go over and here now to help me break all of it down, are our friends, Rich Lowry, editor and chief of National Review and Charles C.W. Cook, senior writer for National Review and host of the Charles C.W. Cook podcast. You can find all of their work by becoming an NR Plus subscriber today. Here's a question for you. How many brokers does it take to ensure your business? If you're like most business owners, the answer is too many.

Multiple policies, multiple applications, and no clear view of how it all fits together. And when questions come up, it's not easy to get the clarity you need at all. No one's there for you. But super sure changes that. A one-stop shop for all of your business insurance. backed by a team that works with you year-round, not just at renewal. You are not a burden to them. They will take care of you. They want you to be happy. And if you've ever stared at a policy wondering what it actually covers, SuperShure has a fine print fax tool that translates the legal jargon into plain English so you know what's covered and what's not.

It's not some shell game that they seem to be enjoying playing at your expense. Right now, you can go to supershure.com and get a full report on your current policies with no obligation. Find out if you're overinsured, underinsured, or somewhere in between. Go to supershore.com, one superagency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place. Imagine it. Go to supershore.com slash Megan today. That's supershore.com slash Megan paid for by SuperShore Insurance Agency LLC, a licensed insurance agency. Guys, welcome back. So no one knows, Rich. Nobody knows. Even Trump doesn't know. We have no idea whether the Iranians are showing up, whether the ceasefire is going to end and we really will bomb tonight. It does seem that Trump is desperate to get a deal now. He definitely does want to bring it to a close. That all the reporting supports that. No one's reporting anything other than that. And when you see his poll approval numbers on the overall job he's doing and then on the Iran war, you have every reason to believe that, that he actually does want to bring it to a quick end now, which the Iranians know. Correct. Which is a problem for us.

Yeah, so we don't know. If the inside players don't know, and if Trump himself doesn't know, there's no way for anyone else to know. My guess is that we get an extension of the ceasefire and somewhere along the line here, a JCPOA-like deal. I think it'd be JCPOA plus, probably a little bit better. But I think that's where things, it'll be in the same family as a JCPOA. But look, this whole thing, Megan, it's so Trump.

It's just characteristically Trump. Now, the stakes are bigger. It's more consequential. But you can go back to any episode during Trump's rise and his ascendancy. You can go way back to insulting Rosie O'Donnell. And is he going to show up for the Iowa debate or not? You know, he enjoys his Iowa-He did that. He doesn't mind them at least.

He loves being at the focus of attention, everyone guessing, wondering what's going to happen. It's just that this is a war. rather than the other controversies we've seen over the last 10 years. To me, there's something very different about this one. And I take your point, because I was obviously there for the Rosie O'Donnell moment at the first debate in 15.

And then he did threaten to skip Iowa if yours truly was a moderator. And we spent the whole day out there, Brett, Chris and I and our team. Yeah, wondering whether he meant it, you know, whether he would or would not show up. He said he was going to be hosting a military fundraiser instead. And we waited to the last minute looking at the doors like,

will he come, will he come? He did not come. He hosted a military fundraiser. And then there was a question about whether he ever gave the military the money. My own feeling, Charlie, is that this one's different in that there's just, I think there's a lot of frustration with President Trump right now. Obviously, the left hates him. But you've got 80% of independence who are against this war, who I don't think are enjoying his little parlor games. I'm like, I'm going to bomb them to out of civilization. The bombing's going to start. We're going to bomb bridges and threatening some civilian infrastructure over and over.

And I think there's a growing, I don't think, I know, from the polls, there's a growing portion of Republicans who are sick of this too, who are sick of him and who are pissed off about the war. I just don't think it's playing the way his normal, too cute by half routine plays. Well, I agree with both of you in Saffaris. I don't think that this is different for Trump. I agree with all the criticisms you laid out, Megan, at the beginning, but I don't think they're new.

I think you could apply them to anything Trump has done, really, in 11 years. But I agree with you that this is perhaps playing differently and perhaps should play differently because this is a war and not something inconsequential, not to downplay the importance of debate. I think they're a key part of our system around elections, but it matters a lot less whether you show up to a debate than whether a serviceman dies. I mean, I think there are a couple things going on to substantiate that.

One is that we are quite late on now in Trump's presidency. If you view it as a two-term presidency back-to-back, we would start to be talking about him being a lame duck, people becoming exhausted with him. But he didn't serve back to... He's served with a four-year gap. So we're now in year 11 of Trump, and people are just tired of it. And I think with this one, the gap between the stakes and his behavior is just difficult

to wipe away. I mean, I have always thought it was amazing that he behaves the way he does in the White House. This has been a constant refrain of mine. I'll never be president because I moved here from another country. I don't want to be for the record. I can't be. But if I was somehow... We should be so lucky. But if I was somehow parachuted into the presidency, though, I think I would feel the weight of all those portraits on the wall looking at me, and I'd behave. But Trump doesn't. But people can say,

and I think this is reasonable, well, okay, but, you know, I get what I want out of him. And it's more important that I get good policy or the other person loses. But with this one, yeah, it's it's it just seems worse somehow now i should say um i actually think that the policy here hasn't all been bad on iran i'm not intrinsically opposed to it although i have a lot of criticisms as to how it's been done but uh yeah the real estate act probably uh rubs people the wrong way when it's a war that's right i think the thing is rich and i'm chief among them i'm very quick to overlook Trump's ethical problems, you know, his loose talk, his weird tweets. I don't really care about any of that, as you guys know, you know, how long have we been doing this show together,

you know, five years now? I don't get, I don't obsess over that stuff. It's just for me personally, and I know for a lot of people who I listen to on the right, that's almost exclusively where my news comes from, it's just hitting differently. They're over it. It's like, you know what? Like, you were, Epstein, who can't? about Epstein, and people were very angry with that. It was, well, you did. You hired all these people for your administration who said it was going to be a huge deal, and they were going to get to the bottom of it over the FBI. You had Pam Bondi, Oliver Fox News, saying, oh, I've got the file on my desk, wait until you see what I've seen. Then you thought you were going to get rid of

that story with a two-page memo from DOJ FBI and then mock anybody who thought it was still a story because of you and your lieutenants, like, not cute and started to lose some goodwill. July. And now here we are with him breaking, I mean, one of the top three promises he made that got him elected by a large segment of the populace, right? I mean, there were obviously more hawkish Republicans who wanted him to be more aggressive on Iran. But there was a huge number of supporters who definitely believed him that there wouldn't be another war and certainly not one in the Middle East and feel deeply betrayed by this. And I don't think his little flippant, you know, act is hitting them the right way, and I think it's in part, that feels disrespectful and the

refusal to have sold the war to us at the beginning. And then when he came out and gave that one speech from the White House, it was so meandering. It added no new information. It didn't move the needle at all. Another thing they talked about in the Wall Street Journal piece, about how Susie Wiles thought that might help him. It didn't. There was nothing to say, and he didn't say anything. And people are left feeling like, what is this? Like we're we're starting a Middle East war here. We don't know where it's going to land. We could go nuclear, could go away tonight, which we don't know, you know, six, one way, half a dozen. And he doesn't show us the respect of having a sober conversation about it. Yeah, well, we talked about that at the outset. This is one of my points of skepticism about the war was that there was no effort to sell the American people on it to make a case for it. And if you did make a case for it, then you get an iterative argument where people poke holes in your son. and ask questions, what's going to happen in the straight? Right? And then you can say, well, don't worry about the straight. We're going to take care of it.

And then people say, well, how are you going to take care of it? We'll get minesweepers, we'll get the Europeans involved, you know, whatever the plan is, but would have forced more planning. So I think the problem is that the case wasn't made to the public. There wasn't adequate planning. And there wasn't enough thought around what might happen to the straight, in part because Trump was overly optimistic about it. And that just brings me back to the point I made at the outset. This thing is characteristics. Trump from beginning to end, whether you're favorite or you're against it. It's been audacious. He's been erratic in the course of it. It's been overly optimistic. All that's just Trump. And he promised not to, you know, launch forever wars, but he's been very consistent over decades. He hates the Iranian regime. He's talked about bombing it. Talked about taking Karg Island,

what, like 30 years ago. So, and I think there's a chance at this. How are we supposed to glean from that sound bite 30 years ago, Rich, that he was going to bomb Iran? Well, he said he was so clear, Megan, forever that Iran couldn't get a nuclear weapon. So personally, I wasn't shocked that he did this. And I think it could still land in a good place. If we get a JCPO-like, JCPO-A-like deal, that's better than the JCPOA. And on top of that, you have the economic devastation that's been wreaked on this regime. and some potential.

I was skeptical of regime change from the air, from the outset, as we talked about at the beginning of the war. But there's some chance this regime could fall six, 12 months from now. But anyway, I think it would be a net plus for American national security. If the straits open, if they stop enriching for some period of time, which is more than we got from the JCPOA, and they're going to have to spend years rebuilding their military aspirating. Wait, what's more than we got from the JCPOA on enrichment?

What's that? What did you say is more than we got from the JCPOA? If they actually cease for some period of time, that would be better than the JCPOA. But then also later on top of that is a devastation that's been wreaked on their missile program, on their military apparatus, on their petrochemical industry, on their economy generally. So that's why I think it would be a net plus to American national security. That's where we end up. And I kind of think it is.

This is a dangerous regime. It's founded on anti-Americanism, has American blood on its health. hands. And if you've bought five years, whatever it is, I think that's net plus. I obviously, we disagree. I mean, we lost 16 soldiers. We've had hundreds more wounded. We've alienated our allies in the region who are now talking about not letting us have a base in places like the UAE. The military bases don't look good to them anymore because it just makes them a target. Iran can't hit us. So they're hitting all of our friends. There's been devastation there. They're not going to make the investments that they said they're going to make in the

United States. They're going to rebuild their own countries that just got bombed as a result of our war that we didn't consult with any bit about. And Iran now realizes it has this huge tool that it can use against us and the world, which is control of the Strait of Hormuz. And they can get it even Trump marveled just by dropping a drone. It's so easy for them, which they've never done before. This was not a problem. This seems to be our number one goal now in bringing this thing to an end. To regain control of the strait, you know, the Western world, which is something we had. before we launched the war. So it's just, I totally disagree with you. I just think the costs have been enormous and they're not worth the gains. And now the irony that we're talking about, oh, maybe we'll

wind up with a deal that's like kind of as good as or maybe slightly better than the Obama, JCPOA, which Trump eviscerated on his first term saying it was the worst deal ever. And now, let's face it, he's begging to have that deal back so he can save face and make it look at. And make it look like this is a win, the very deal he said was horrible and that evaporated because of him. Yeah, but the key difference though, like Obama didn't bomb Iran and devastate the economy, then cut a deal, right? After that deal, Iranian power around the region was waxing rather than waning. And we're going to be in a situation where I think its power will not be the same for a very long time. And that's an upside. Okay. The problem we have, though, is if it goes the other,

way and we don't get a good deal. And now what you have is Iran is more empowered than ever. Now it's emerging as one of the four global powers because it can exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz and hijack the world economy and effectively bring a president to his knees because Trump is the one in there begging right now for a deal, not Iran. They're like, we don't care. Go ahead and hit yet another one of our ships, which you already sunk to the bottom of the ocean. That's never been our source of power. Go ahead and hit another one of our airplanes. Go ahead and drop bombs on another military target, all of which you've eviscerated already. We don't care. We see you are suffering, you, President Trump, and that's a win for us.

The longer we can make this economic pain go on, and we can take way more than you can. We're basically suicide bombers over here. We will 100 percent throw our offspring and ourselves on the grenade as long as we can take some of you down. That's how they all. are. And the one they're looking at is President Trump and his political fortunes. That's what they're trying to ramp up the pressure on. And that piece of their strategy is working because they are, whatever you want to say about them, tough MFers. Yeah, they're religious fanatics, right? So it's a little bit trying to make this exaggeration, a little bit trying to negotiate with Camer Rouge or the shiny path. So there is a game of chicken there, de facto control the straight

and our blockade, which the blockade just held for. seven months or something, you would have a good chance of just the Iranian state totally running out of cash. But we can't do that so long as they control the straight, right? Because they exact pain on us. So my guess, again, is that ultimately we'll get a deal. This would be a big setback for Iran. If you're starting from blank slate a piece of paper and doing this over again, you wouldn't do it exactly this way. You would do more planning in advance. But again, I think it'll end up being a net plus. I hope you're right. I hope you're right. I'm not one of those crazies who's rooting against us as a result of my opposition. I still want us to win. I want Iran to fail. I want only good things for the United States and certainly for our troops. It's just a question of how and whether the likelihood, what the likelihood is. This just in, Vice President Vance is headed to the White House right now, which last I checked is not in Islamabad. We don't. We don't know whether he's going, you guys.

U.S. media accompanying J.D. Vance were earlier instructed to be ready for departure at 9 a.m. Washington time. But there's been no update since. And then there was an update from Lucas Tomlinson of Fox News that the vice president is now headed to the White House. That's not great. Again, we don't know whether he'll wind up going or not. And if he doesn't go, it's not happening. he's, you know, he's the lynchpin. Charles, did you see the Wall Street Journal piece over the weekend on, you know,

President Trump and the alleged fears that have been gripping him as this thing spins it closer and closer to Quagmire? It was titled, Behind Trump's Public Rivado on the War, he grapples with his own fears. I haven't read it, but it's been relayed to me by so many people that I feel as if I have. Okay, all right. because in this piece, it basically, it reveals a lot, including that Trump was so erratic around the capture of that second pilot that they had to keep him out of the room as they got the minute-by-minute updates. They believed his impatience would not be helpful. They talk about how he's been losing his focus over and over, that he does not want a ground invasion.

He has fears over that. He has fears of becoming Jimmy Carter. that he does want to seem unstable, which I actually believe. I don't believe the people who are like, it's time that he'd be 25th Amendment did. I don't agree with that. I think Trump is, he's not being responsible in his rhetoric. You don't threaten to wipe out a civilization of, you know, civilian population. But I never thought he did it because he really wanted to do that and that he was truly crazy. I did think it was a negotiation tactic. And it does talk about how he remarked to his advisors, how impressive the military was,

seeming in awe of the scale of the bombs. He had done little to sell the American public on the war. He knew that. And he's been frustrated that he's not getting the same kind of praise as the military is. None of this reflects well. And the journal, as we know, Charles, is owned by Rupert Murdoch,

who we learned from other reporting, is one of the main people who talked Trump into this war. He was very, very pro, not just Rupert personally, but Rupert personally, but top people from Fox, including General Jack Keene, my old pal Mark Tison, and others. So it's interesting that such a piece should come from the journal. Your thoughts?

Well, this brings me back to one of my longstanding theories about Trump, which is that he is and will always be a real estate developer. And this is a good thing sometimes, but in the context of the presidency, it can be a real problem for a couple of reasons. First, because Trump does seem to believe that he can bend reality to his words, which when you're dealing with the sandbox,

which contracts often are, can be true in business if you go in and you make your demands, even if you're wild, it can work out, but is much less likely to work in constitutional politics and in global politics, as well. And I do think there is some extent here to which Trump has thought that if he just says what he would like to happen, then it would happen. And that's not really how reality works. The second reason is that when you are dealing in real estate, especially in a place in New York,

especially in the 70s and the 80s, then saying anything that comes into your head or being wild can help. You go into a closed room, you talk to people who are probably a little bit surprised, maybe intimidated by you, and you say crazy stuff and you get what you want. And we know that this is one of the reasons that Donald Trump is so rich. But when you're the president, your words matter. So even if you say something that works, you've still said it. I thought this back in his first term when he would praise Kim Jong-un. Yeah, that seems to have worked. But the president of the United States should not be praising a dictator. Likewise here, sure, maybe it works to say you will wipe out a civilization. I did love that he subsequently wrote, God bless the Iranian people,

so they're the same message he was going to wipe out the civilization and bless them. But he shouldn't have said that. That's not a thing, even in the context of a great debate. That is not a thing that an American president can say. There are rules. And so when I watch him here, I see somebody who is applying a skill set that is different to that which is expected of the presidency. Now, sometimes that's actually quite refreshing. I'm not somebody who always dislikes this in Trump. I do think sometimes you need a guy who comes to Washington and just sort of says, but that's nonsense.

The way you're doing it is stupid and shakes everything up. And there have been some advantages to having him in our politics as well as downsides. But it's just not going to work here. You do need to build a coalition. You do need to set out your aims. You do need to talk in a way that is appropriate for the presidency. And I just haven't seen that from the beginning, which is what I always describe as the original sin as this adventure in Iran, which I'm not intrinsically opposed to.

And another thing that plays a role here, Megan, clearly, is the success of the Venezuelan operation, I think inclined him to think that this could be easy, short, and very successful. as well. I analogize it a little bit to our success in the initial phase of the Afghan war, just taking Kabul and toppling the Taliban, made us George W. Bush think, well, we can do the same thing in Baghdad, which was a more difficult proposition. Now, both Afghanistan and Iraq involved extensive ground operations, obviously in a way. We had guys in the ground in Venezuela briefly in Iran as well, but we're not talking about that here. But I think the same thing was at play. I got this incredibly proficient military. We just grabbed this guy, dead of night, we can do anything we want. And again, this plays into just Trump's inherent optimism.

Like his critics very often, they focus on the American carnage Trump, you know, that phrase from the first inaugural, he's so apocalyptic and so negative. Now, it can obviously, there's an aspect to him, but I think the more pervasive one is just an overwhelming optimism. I talked to him about this once during the law affair campaign, you know, before the 2024 primaries, when they're trying to throw him in jail. I was like, do you ever lose sleep at night? He's like, no, I just figure, I assume everything is going to work out. And if it doesn't work out, I'll change course and find some other way out of it. And that's work for him, his entire adult life.

And he's applying that here as well for better or worse. Yes. You know, it's a very interesting point that the skill set that he has rhetorically is just, it's mismatched to the moment. And it has served him and us well many times. and even the, you know, unpredictability of taking out Soleimani, which I thought was great. I mean, that guy actually does have American blood on his hands without question. And maybe it even could have been used here as well if we had just taken out the Ayatollah.

You know, that would have been fraught for sure. You're taking out the leader of Shiite Islam. My counterfact, by the way, runs in the opposite direction. If I get to have a do over again, maybe what you do, you don't take the Ayatoll out, make it clear you're not going to try to kill the regime. Instead, you're doing another 12-day war, you know, for two. weeks or for three weeks that would perhaps keep the Iranians from going up the escalation ladder and closing the straight. And then you degrade a lot of stuff. And then you can, you know, close the book at your discretion and go away and focus on other stuff, which I think Trump ultimately would want

to do. But once you make it clear, this is an existential war for the regime, there's no incentive for it not to take the most extreme steps it can in retaliation. Yeah. And they're enjoying playing it out. Like, they, they can take a lot of pain. You know, it's like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. How many times do they waterboard that guy? Like, he didn't care. And that's, that's the mentality of a lot of these, like, religious zealots in the Middle East. They don't care about themselves, their pain, their loss of life, the loss of life of their children in the way we do. I mean, they'll exact retribution against you for, for, you know, taking it or risking it. But, they'll expend their child's life in order to advance the regime.

That's what we're dealing with. So it's like it's, that's why it's like, just don't start it. Just don't start something like this. Then you don't risk the escalatory ladder where the next thing you know, they've discovered this thing with the Strait of Hormuz, which has changed the world economy, which is turning our friends against us. Already we're seeing discussions in Europe about jet fuel over the summer

and flights being canceled, like things like that that will drive those poll numbers down even more, Charles. Well, or do it, but build the case. We can win this. This is not like a war game scenario where we're looking at a potential conflict with China, and there are some outcomes where you say we would lose. We can win this. We are infinitely more powerful than them.

But, and I'm not criticizing this, we're not prepared to do, what it would take because the public doesn't want that. We could, we'd lose a lot of people, but we could win this. And if, if we had been invaded here and the reaction of the public was different, we would fight back and we would win and we would lose people and then we would move on. So it's not that we're in this situation because we're weak. We're in this situation because, as you say, we have a desire to stay alive and see our fellow citizens stay alive. And the regime does not. Now, I don't think he would have been able to build a coalition in the way that George

W. Bush did after 9-11. I agree. But if Trump had made the case and over a sustained period of time said what he now says, look, this has been a thorn in our side for 46 years. They've killed a lot of our servicemen. They are built atop an ideology that hates us. His slogan is death to America. They are building nuclear weapons. And once they have those nuclear weapons, then they will become like North Korea essentially immune from our influence. We have to do something about this. If he had built that case, told people it would cost American lives, told people that it would lead to increase gas

prices, and told people that there was a risk of trouble in the Straits of Hormuz. And I think we probably have had a better plan for the Strait of Hormuz if he had done this as a result, as Rich points out. We might be looking at a different calculation. At that point, the escalation you're describing is baked in. because again, it's not for a lack of technical ability. We could open the Strait of Hormuz. We could own the Strait of Hormuz if we wanted.

I mean, we could go and invade Britain tomorrow when we would win, when we would own that country if we wanted. We just don't want to do that. And we don't want to go all out here either. And so I think the big problem for him was that he didn't ever make that case. He did it in the middle of the night. And then, as we were talking about earlier, Rich is absolutely right. Trump actually has been in a right.

for a very long time. But it is also true that if you ask the average voter, who isn't familiar with all of that, what they thought he was campaigning on in 2016, 2020 and 2024. It was no new wars in the Middle East. That's the vibe. That's the tone that they heard. And the juxtaposition between those two things just makes this impossible. So I think he set himself up to be placed into this problem where they can escalate in ways that that we are not able, but not willing to counter. Yep, totally agree. You're right. The average person doesn't realize, oh, there was an exception to the promise he made.

I mean, I could play you a soundbite that would keep us here for four minutes of Trump saying, no new wars, no new wars, no new wars in the Middle East. These wars in the Middle East keep you bog down, they cost billions of dollars. It's money we could be spending on, you know, are people here at home, they get distracted, they never end well. It's quagmire. I mean, we've got the soundbite. Like, there was no, like, but.

I might launch one against Iran. And by the way, you know, the intelligence was Tulsi Gabbard testified to this a couple weeks before we started the war that Iran was not close to having a nuclear weapon. That our strikes against the three sites with Iranian or with the nuclear facilities had been very effective. As Trump said, they'd been basically obliterated and that they were not close to getting a nuke. And that was one of the reasons why he knew people weren't going to buy it because he'd done those June strikes and we kind of bought what he sold then. And if you bought what he sold then, you were not going to buy that they were close to a nuclear weapon six months later. Here is something Glenn Greenwald pointed out online. It was a good point. He writes, if he asked 15 people who are MAGA followers, what the Iran war

aim was, you will hear 15 different answers because Trump gave a different goal every day. Here's what he said was his main goal on the day the war started. And he's got a Washington Post headline, Trump, colon, freedom for Iran is goal of major. military operation. And I remember that, too. That was the initial goal. Freedom. They were going to be free. We were going to do regime change. And now he keeps saying that we've done regime change, which we clearly haven't. That's a lie, too. And it's so transparent. Honestly, it's one thing for Trump to be like, you know, the economy's hot. It's the hottest it's ever been. And you're like, okay, that's puffery. He wants people to feel good. The better they feel, the more they spend.

But like, this is serious stuff. Don't tell me there's been regime change because three guys named Abdul are gone and three guys named Muhammad are now in. That's basically how it is. The only difference, as far as I can tell, is that the three new guys seem more radical than the three old guys and there's no fatwa against a nuclear weapon. We found one sort of nice guy we can talk to who's the Speaker of the Parliament. But he's not actually in control. You know, you've got the IRGC calling the shots. They seem to be really wanting to queer all deals on ceasefires.

And then you've got, I don't know, whoever's still in there. The Ayatollah's incapacitated son, who may or may not be still alive or in a coma. We have no idea. But he and the people around him are definitely more radical than the dead Ayatola, according to all the reports. So it's yet another thing we just don't know about. And here's the latest on the numbers. This just came out yesterday via NBC.

one-third of Americans approve of this war. One-third. You've got two-thirds of the country who are against this. And the only people who are in the approved category are Republicans. Seventy-four percent of Republicans approve one-quarter of the Republican Party disapproves. But the share of Republicans who disapprove of the war is higher than the share who disapprove of his job overall. So there's a healthy amount of Republicans. who can still, like me, say, I don't disapprove of Trump. I have not abandoned Trump like some of my friends have. But I strongly disapprove of this choice. And he's really trying to start a fight with me and others. And I just refuse. I'm not going there. He enjoys it too much and it's pointless.

But I still approve of his general approach to his domestic agenda. I really would love for him to get back to it. NBC reports that 13% of self-described supporters of the MAGA movement now say they disapprove of Trump's handling of the war, which is interesting that he's lost 13% of like the core core MAGA. I mean, which I did not think was movable in any way. Anyway, he sees that. And while Trump may tell you he feels so great about the MAGA numbers, 80% of independence, 82% disapprove of this war.

82. It's not a fringe. like the majority, the two-thirds of the country wants this to stop. That's why, Rich, Trump wants it to stop. He's listened to Lindsay Graham and Mark Levin and Netanyahu and Tieson and Keen and all of the much more hawkish people who are in his ear. But that NBC poll and the Reuters-P poll that came out today and the AP poll and the Pupil and all the polls that have come out now that all repeat this number, two-thirds disapprove.

he sees that too. He's not immune to that by any stretch. Yeah, well, again, as we've repeated over and over again, he didn't build a case for it publicly prior to the launching of the war and the war wasn't popular at the outset. So usual political physics say it goes, support goes down for a war over time rather than growing unless they're really unusual circumstances or you're winning a smashing victory. And this so far has been fairly inconclusive. On the regime change thing, it's absurd. They're saying that the regime has changed. Again, key aspect of Trump's character. He thinks he can bend reality to his words. Benefits to this. Downsides. Benefits, it can often get him through obstacles that you would think

are going to stop them. Downsides is just, it's detached from reality. So that's what we're seeing here. I think regime changed, despite that Washington Post headline, it was something obviously he mentioned in that white-headed initial statement about the war. You know, we hope the Iranian people will will rise up after the shooting stops. But there are a lot of other objectives that have been consistent from the beginning, whether it's further degrading their nuclear program or their missile program that have been consistent. And I think we're succeeding on, but I never thought you could change the regime from the air, unless you got exceptionally lucky.

Then you'd not have any control over what would come next. Now, I think there are signs the regime is fracturing. This is one reason we don't really know whether we can believe what's coming from the Iranian side. And there's a chance that fracture grows or, you know, as I mentioned earlier, that discontent rises six months, 12 months from now. But to underline a point you're making earlier, Megan, this is a regime that just a couple months ago slaughtered tens of thousands of people in the streets. We don't know what the actual number is. So obviously, they do not have the best interest of the Iranian people at heart. So if you're going to lose some bridges, it's not going to affect them, right?

If you're willing to kill your own people and the cause of your regime's own survival, it's not as though infrastructure projects are going to move you as well. So this, again, goes to something we've all been saying here. These guys, the Iranian regime, they're not real estate developers. They don't have rational calculus the same way we do. They have an entirely different worldview. This just in that Steve Wickoff and Jared Kushner are also still in the U.S. U.S. The plane that was supposed to take them this morning from Miami to Europe and to Pakistan

did not leave until several minutes ago and is now instead making its way to Washington, D.C. So they're heading to see Trump, as is the vice president, and no one is going to Islamabad right now, at least. Doesn't mean it won't happen later today because the Iranians are still saying, we're not coming. We're not going to be there. They're mad because because we have continued our blockade of the Iranian ports in the Strait of Hormuz. And they want us to remove that. And Trump, I understand why. He's like, that's my pressure point on you.

I'm not removing that boot off of your neck until we cut a deal. And they're like, we're not even going to talk about a deal until you move your foot. So that's where we are right now, waiting for something. Here's one other thing he told Joe Kernan of CNBC. Charles, to your point about the president's, rhetoric and does it does it work when we're on the subject of war here's stop four and when it's over and it will end when it's over you know they want it to be over immediately and i just looked at a little chart world war one four years and three months world war two six years korean war three

years vietnam 19 years iraq eight years i'm five months okay five months i would have won vietnam very quickly. If I were president, I would have won Iraq in the same amount of time that we won because essentially we've won here.

I mean, people can play games. The Democrats can say, well, we should have done better, no matter what, if I did it in one week, they should have said,

they'd say, we should have done better. Look at Venezuela. I took it over in 45 minutes. It was basically a 45 minute. By the way, a very strong military country. And we took it over

in a day, but let's be nice. We basically took it over in 45 minutes. We took it over during the attack in 45 minutes. So he would have won Vietnam very quickly had he been president. It would have been won. It would have been quick. Charles, thoughts?

Yeah, we didn't go to Vietnam, did he. He is ridiculous when he talks like this. He does it on the economy as well. And I think, to your earlier question, I think this is the sort of thing that is starting to annoy people. The reason that he was re-elected was that people believed that the economy would be considerably better under him. And it's not. Now, I don't think that that is necessarily his fault. I think actually we look far too much to our presidents and to Washington, D.C. in general, for economic outcomes.

Economics doesn't really work like that. But Trump does talk like that. Both parties do, but Trump is particularly prognatious when he does it. He says, I alone can fix. He says that we're entering a new gold. age and so forth. And he's doing the same thing here. And I hear under confidence in his words. I hear a certain fear. Perhaps this relates to the Wall Street Journal because I didn't read, that Trump knows that from the average person's point of view, again, and I will distinguish

this from my own view, which is not against this action per se. And I think the Iranian regime is a real problem. But I think from the average person's point of view, again, and I think from the average, person's point of view who rationally does not follow politics in the way that we do, but is by no means ignorant. The United States was trundling along, and then all of a sudden, we went into Iran, and now gas prices are 25 plus percent higher. That's how they see it. And whether we have won or lost or whatever games the Democrats are supposed to play, and they are playing games, of course, it's politics. The public is going to need to be persuaded that there is more to it than that.

But they're not being. It's just not good enough to go in in the middle of the night, give a two-minute speech in the middle of the night at Mar-a-Lago in a Trump had, and then to say, well, we won. When people are looking at gas prices and they're looking at an economy that not because of this, but in general, is not particularly different than it was at the end of the Biden administration. I just think people find that tiresome because it doesn't pay the bills.

And Trump should understand that. And look, if he was the sort of person who, like me, says, well, look, presidents don't run the economy. These things are very complicated. Policy changes take years to kick in and so forth. That would be one thing. But he's not, Megan. We all know he's not.

He thinks that things are wonderful and perfect when he's president, and they're awful when he's not. and he said it right there. I mean, I'm pleased he didn't go back to World War II and say that unlike that feckless Eisenhower fellow, he'd had it done in 1942. But it's just quite boring outside of campaigning. And there's just going to come a point 11 years in

at which people say, even when he's right, oh, could you give it a rest? Yeah. You know, Rich, I've been wondering whether Trump thinks his Trump card is this new guy who is in confirmation hearings today to become the new chairman of the Fed, right? That he calls Jerome Powell too late,

too late because he won't lower interest rates and Trump really thinks that's the key to unleashing the economy, that it worked to his advantage in his first term, and he's been begging Powell to do it and Powell won't do it because we still have inflation from Joe Biden. And if you lower interest rates,

it tends to drive up inflation. But Trump really believes that it will unleash his economy if he can get interest. rates lower a bit on borrowing, you know, homes and so on. And this guy's going to get confirmed. He seemed pretty milk-toast today at his confirmation hearings. I haven't heard any rumblings of he's not going to get confirmed. And Powell's term ends in May, I think, right? It's like next month. It's very soon. And so I've been wondering whether Trump thinks that's, again, his Trump card on

the economy. Like, I'm taking a beating on these gas prices, but I'm going to have a guy who is much more amenable to my opinions in charge of interest rates just in time for the months leading up to the midterms. Yeah, he's probably thinking that. This is another aspect in which he's a real estate developer. Real estate developers always want low interest rates. And this is something Trump's been consistent on in the last 10 years. He always wants interest rates lower no matter what. And I think Warsh may agree with him here in the short term, but he is a real pro. Kevin Warsh. He's going to be there for 10 years. He's not a lack. And it wouldn't shock me if by the end of Trump's term here, he hates Kevin Warsh too because he hasn't done his bidding.

But I think a lot of, in terms of the midterms, a lot of the economic factors are kind of baked in the cake. The gas prices have not helped, obviously. But it's hard to see huge changes before then. They're changing people's attitudes one way or the other about the economy, and they're dissatisfied about the economy. And this is the key thing. this is what's hurting Trump most, right? Is that his strength forever has been successful business guy, knows how to make the economy grow,

did it in the first term, especially if you put the last COVID year aside, which people weren't inclined to do in 2020, but we're inclined to do in retrospect, and his numbers on the economy are the worst they've ever been. So that's what's driving the midterms. That's what accounts for his approval rating being down. It's been going down for a year now.

I think the approval disapproved crossed in May of last year. He had about a 47% approval and has been down steadily since, but it's overwhelmingly driven by the economy. Now it's in the 30s. Now it's in 30s. Well, if you go to the average, about 40. Yeah, the RCP average. But, yeah, we don't normally see it in the 30s.

Like, that's surprising. A year ago, according to the NBC News poll, he was at 45% approved, 55% disapproved. Now he's at 37% approve. and 63% disapproved. There was another poll that just hit today that had similar numbers. They're all starting to come back right around there, you know, high 30s, which is, that's not great, not great at all.

Okay, we're going to come back and turn the page and talk about the latest poll that just dropped on Kamala Harris and the other top Democrat contenders and the GOP side and ask you guys what you think. And plus, we've got some amazing Kamala sound. Amazing. Stand by. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet. And now they're messing with your credit card. They say your credit card

and the security it offers are under attack and that Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastrored. stores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks, with weaker security and fewer protections. Find out more at guard your card.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card. It's an NR day here at the MK show. Go ahead and sign up

for NR at national review.com. You can get all of their content without the annoying ads and you can get the audio version of their articles. It is a great way. Oftentimes, guys, I am starting my day, putting the makeup on, and I just press play on NR article after NR article, and it makes life so much easier. It makes news consumption so much easier. And your AI is very good. Not everybody's AI reader is good, but the one on NR.com is. So thank you for that.

Okay. There is a new poll out just now from Echelon, likely voters, and it looks at both the Democratic field and the Republican field for 2008. I'm going to start with a Republican. field, even though this is because we're adults, so we're good at delayed gratification, because the Kamala Harris sound that I have queued up for you guys is the greatest thing you will see or hear all day. It's a gift from me to you.

We have the best sound bites. But delayed gratification. Let's start with GOP since we just got off of Trump and Iran. They are showing Vance at 42 percent and Rubio at 14, which is quite a drop down. Rubio had been higher in an earlier poll we had seen. Trump Jr. That's Don Trump Jr. at 10%. And Ron DeSantis at 8% Charlie, that's you and your wife and your friends.

There you go. The 8% there. So Vance, obviously, the heavy favorite given the name recognition and given his current role. But there's been a lot of debate within Republican circles rich about whether this whole thing could think, I don't think it could make J.D. Vance. I don't know. If he comes back from the Middle East with some huge win, they capitulation.

they folded, they gave up everything. Maybe, but that's not realistic. So, like, this does seem fraught. And we discussed on the show last week, I think, it feels a little like making Kamala Harris the borders are. You know, like, thanks so much for the assignment. You know, like, is there anything else I could do instead of this thing? So how do you see this playing out for him?

And also just zooming out to what's happening in the Republican Party right now, you know, with the more hawkish neocon group here and then the more isolationist group and the proxy fight over J.D. versus Marco, et cetera. So how do you see it all playing out there? So I don't think anyone's blaming J.D. Vance, if the negotiations fail in Islamabad, assuming there's another round, which I think there will be eventually. I think the main political risk to him of the war is somehow getting separated from Donald Trump. And that hasn't happened yet, right? Because he's going to Islamabad. And J.D. has every incentive to keep that from happening. If you believe all the reporting in the big New York Times piece on Trump's decision to go to war, J.D. apparently is the only guy actually told Trump's his opinion, which I think speaks well of it. I don't support this, sir. But if you decide to do it, I'll be with you. And all indications are he has been a loyal soldier and Trump appreciates it. So the big X factor in terms of 2028 is just Trump for J.D. If Trump decides he doesn't like him anymore, Trump decides. just to screw him for the sake of it, that would be very bad. But I'm doubtful that Marco Rubio will actually run. He's at this incredibly prominent place in American politics and American government. He's doing things that he believes in deeply. We knocked off Maduro. Maybe we're coming around to Cuba when the Iran thing is over. And we're really going to believe that he's

going to give all that up, give up the eighth floor of the State Department, which is an awesome space give up an effect, an Air Force One that has on his own, his own version, knockoff version of Air Force One, going, being greeted as a head of state in foreign countries to start driving in a rented car from Pizza Ranch restaurant to Pizza Ranch Restaurant in Iowa. Sounds amazing. Probably be upward, you know, an underdog campaign against JD Vance. Maybe, but I'm kind of doubtful. Refresh my memory on that, Rich.

I guess I haven't really paid any attention in the past elections as to who in the administration decides they are going to run for the nomination and whether they have to leave their post. So is that, I mean, is it typically like if you're in the administration and you want to run for the primary nomination, you got to leave what, like a year and a half prior to the end of the president's term? Yeah. I don't know what the general rule of thumb is, but I think it's especially fraud if you're the Secretary of State.

And Secretary of State is like a serious job. And supposedly has other jobs, too, like National Security Advisor. National Security Advisor, too. So you just have to say, I'm giving up the gig of a lifetime for what could be long shots probably exaggerating it. But, you know, not a certain, you know, clear path to the nomination. And a nomination that, you know, any nomination is worth having because in the abstracts, about a 50% chance of winning. But, you know, you could have a president of 40% approval in 2028. It could be very difficult for Republicans.

And he's still young. So I don't know, maybe he does it. But, again, I'm just a little doubtful. JD's got another factor to worry about here, Charlie, which is, you know, as the president's fortunes go, so go your fortunes if you're the VP. You know, it's not like he's an outsider. It's everything Trump has done, he's going to be asked to explain and defend. And he's going to be in that Kamala Harris position of like, on the view. Is there anything you would have done differently?

And President Trump is watching. And if you answer that wrong, you lose the most important door. endorsement you need, but if you say there's nothing, you turn off an electorate that may be only approving of him by, you know, whatever, some small margin. I think it's a problem on both sides of the coin. The reason J.D. Vance is polling at 40% or so, I imagine, is because people know who he is. And the reason that people know who he is is is because he's the vice president to Trump. And so if Trump is unpopular, then he will be the vice president to the unpopular Trump.

And that will be a problem. But as you say, if he tries to separate himself from Trump, it will sound silly and unpersuasive. Also, Trump will go after him. And then his fortunes will fall in that lane as well. The reason that Marco Rubio is lower is fewer people know who he is. He's less closely associated with Trump. Now, if you are looking at

28, that's probably a problem. And if Rubio did run, he might have some of the same problems. But that's probably good news for him if he thinks he might run later on, that he's not so closely associated because by that point he would be able to stand up and say, well, I think Trump got some things right. And here are the things that I think he got wrong. So I do see this as a big problem for J.D. Vance. This is, of course, why it is extremely rare for vice presidents to win.

subsequent elections. The last one who did it was George H. W. Bush. Reagan was very popular, and Michael Dukakis was not. And Joe Biden did it, but not immediately on the back end of the That's true. That's true. Sorry, I meant directly. Yeah, I meant directly. And, you know, if you go back in American history, it sort of mostly happens when the president dies, as happened with Franklin Roosevelt and then with Harry Truman. So this is just just not a normal path. Even Al Gore could not parley Clinton's relative popularity into a win in 2000. Well, I say that not because of Al Gore, but because of Bill Clinton. That political science, that gifted for aitor.

No, I meant because of Bill Clinton. Like even in 2000, I should have said it the other way around. Even Bill Clinton could not push Al Gore into the presidency in the year 2000. I think it's quite clear that if Bill Clinton had been able to run for a third term, in 2000. He'd have had a really good shot, but it just doesn't seem to happen. And so you're looking at intrinsic headwinds and then the last thing I'd say is those headwinds are made worse by by Trump being such a monumental figure, somebody who has dominated the last, at that point it will have been 13 years of our politics, someone who has an almost cult-like following. So J.D. Vance is going to rise and full on the basis of Trump. To your point, Charlie, and I share this with you,

whether it's Trump or not Trump, I don't think most people want to be thinking about the president this much. You know, you, you want a small executive branch. I agree with you on that. And when Trump is in there, you just, you devote so much time thinking about him because he needs the press coverage. It's his oxygen. So he does all the stuff to get covered. And the press needs to sell papers and get clicks. So they run, you know, like dogs after the liver snaps. And it's just, it's nonstop, which Trump loves. But I don't think is necessarily good for our country and certainly not good for his

would-be successor. If you have a populace, it's like, I need a break. I need a back. Like, I need somebody super boring who's not going to require any of my attention. And that leads me to the Democrats, Rich. Because J.D. Vance or Marco who made. whoever it is, maybe it's DeSantis, Charlie, they are going to have the gift of a terrible Democrat nominee. I mean, truly, like, who scares us over on Team Blue? Like, the only people who

I think the three of us would like who are like, you know, that person would be very effective, we'll never get through the Democrat primary. And so we're kind of in a good position, too, because even if our candidate is weakened, thanks to, you know, Trump being so controversial, there's such a mess over there. And let me tell you something, Rich, right now, guess who's leading? I'll tell you who's leading. Kamala Harris is at the top of the field in the latest poll that I just referenced, echelon, at 22%.

Now, that's a lot lower than the one we read yesterday, where she was at, like, 42%. And next was Gavin Newsom, who was in the 20s. So these polls are all over the board. But this one does show her leading at 22. This one shows Newsom right behind her at 21. Buttigieg is third at 12. AOC is fourth at 10. Josh Shapiro, fifth at five.

Corey Booker, who definitely is hetero and very happily married. It comes in after Josh Shapiro at four. Mark Kelly of Arizona, Senator, is next at three. And J.B. Pritzker is last at 3%. Well, I guess tied for last. with Mark Kelly. So it's, according to this poll right now, between Harris and Newsom, and Harris, she's feeling good, you guys. She's starting to feel like a little swagger a few months out. You know, Trump's not doing that great in the polls. She's like, how you like me now?

So she goes to this like women, women of color seminar yesterday, and she's back to dispensing all sorts of wisdom. Let me just show you how she kicked it off. She really wanted people to have a good morning here in SOT 7. Good morning, good morning, good morning, everyone. Good morning. God is good. All right, good morning, good morning. Well, welcome back to Power Rising.

It's so Hillary. It's so Hillary Clinton, Mike. It's uncanny. She's so alienating, Charlie. I just can't believe that I have had to spend so much of my adult life with Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. You know, I am hoping. I'm hoping that the reason that she's leading in the polls is a combination of name recognition,

which obviously she should be. And also, I think Democrats who wish she'd won, and so they feel like they're answering the question, who'd you wish had won the 2024 election? And so they say Kamala Harris, because if they nominate her again, first off, she'd actually probably have a chance, if the Republicans really do sink to the 30s,

But second, I just can't go through it again, Megan. I've been a bona fidey Kamala Harris hater now. You can. We can do it. We can do it together. What, 2014? I mean, if you go back and you read my diatribs against her, they go back 12 years. That, I'd forgotten that.

I'd forgotten that she starts off there sounding as if she's drunk. She always sounds as if she's drunk. Totally. Then she panders. then she panders with the preacher stuff and then the laugh. I mean, there's a little clip and it's everything that it's wrong with her and she's at 40%. What have I done to deserve this? All right. Hold her fire because we got a lot to get through here so you can't just give it all up on the first answer.

Rich, don't think I didn't save some glory for you. I've got multiple sound bites here. Here she is with, I don't know if this is a new accent, but it's kind of a new accent and she tries it out a couple times in SOT 8. What gives me hope, Leah, is that we're going to win the midterms. It's going to be difficult and to say, I'm going to get mine also. And so don't count on me. She's a black woman who does a fake black woman accent. I don't know.

You know, if you do fake accents. And here you thought I gave all the goodness to Charlie, but no, Rich Lowry. She's going to win. Yeah. So if you do fake accents, almost by definition, you're bad. bad politician. And we were talking about, you know, Trump's upsides, downsides in the first segment. But one upside is that you can never get him to do a fake accent. You know, he's, he's always himself, even when he's reading a script that he's not particularly into or believes,

you know, he kind of signals that. He went to McDonald's in a suit and tie. Trump won't change for anyone. He goes to McDonald's. He's wearing a suit and tie, and that's how he just presents himself. Well, and she, the reason she's doing that, Rich is because she was at the power rising summit. And this is how they describe it. A convening of black women harnessing their collective wisdom to create an actionable agenda. Absolutely nothing.

Nothingness there. But black women is the piece you need to hear. Yeah. Totally unburned by the thing. So she's got to go like full black accent, black scent, and like we're going to win. Can we hear it one more time? Let's play it one more time, Sadi. What gives me hope?

is that we're going to win the midterms. It's going to be difficult and to say, I'm going to get mine also. And so don't count on me. Yeah. There's a little more here. Stand by. It's not 11.

Watch. It's been a bit controversial, but one of the things I've been saying is this. As I have reflected on what has been going on, I've come to the realization that part of the issue is part of the frailty, I think, of human nature for some, is they are purely transactional people. They're not pretending to be grounded in morals or values or principles.

They're not pretending. They're literally not pretending. They're in it for what they can get out of it. Their mantra is, I'm going to get mine. I think it's okay for us. us to be a bit transactional too. And to say, I'm going to get mine also. And so don't count on me to be a voter and be the backbone of the Democratic Party. They should count on the fact we're going to expect and they're going to have to know

when they start counting on the vote. It's because they better produce if they win. Honestly, I picture somebody like Professor Carol Swain looking at this like, how dare you imitate me in this way, right? How dare you pander to me with these fake, bizarre street accents as though that represents the black experience. But what she was saying there, Rich, is substantively interesting because she's playing the black woman card to a group of black women,

which telegraphs pretty strongly to me, she is going to run. She's basically saying, don't let them take your vote for granted. We matter and we should get ours. Yes. So she's definitely running. What else is she going to do?

It's incredibly condescending the act there. It's kind of notable that she called out other people for not pretending to have a core, where she does pretend to have a core, but it's just pretending, right? This is a completely hollow figure. And then also it's a bit rich lambasting the Democratic establishment for not delivering when she was a senator herself and at the center. of Democratic politics for a very, very long time. So I got to believe. And they made her the nominee. Yeah. So I got to now it was handed to her. She didn't win it. But I got to believe that this is name ID

that has her at the top of the polls. If not, it's very, it's very depressing as an American. But they're in the same position, Rich, as you and I talked about that night that Joe Biden went down in that debate, June of 24. And you came on. It was late at night. We were all stunned that he had fallen apart and he was not able to spit out sentences. And we said that night, he's done. But we talked about it that night, the very thing that would go on to haunt the Democrats for the entire remainder of the race, which was how are they going to replace the white guy with anyone other than the black woman who is next in line? And they couldn't. So they went with her. And now who's the number two on this list? Another white, straight Christian dude.

is this Democrat party going to, I know they won't, they won't win, but are they really going to do that? Because who's the most important voting block of Team Blue? Yeah, I think what's different this time is it's not just a Democratic establishment that is soaked in identity politics, scared of its base. It's going to be actual Democratic voters making the decision. And, you know, we saw in 2020, Biden is not great statesmen. He was a reduced state even then. but that was a rational choice compared to the other alternatives. And parties tend, not always, but tend to make rational choices.

So she's going to have to go out and win this this time on the merits. And that's a much harder proposition, obviously, than just making 100 phone calls or whatever she did after Biden dropped out. All right. Part of the fun of this woman, Charles, is analyzing the way she speaks. You know, and I've said before about her that in another life, my, my, uh, partner was Polish, and he spoke fluent Polish. And the Polish language is very beautiful. And it does this thing where they say the thing three times. Like, oh, you're so brilliant, you're so smart, you have so much knowledge. It's like, that's the custom in speaking Polish

is to say the thing three times, not one time. And I think she's got some Polish in her. I like only she doesn't and she only speaks English. Because she's so repetitive. And she inserts so, many phrases in her sentences that are unnecessary, and it's, I think, a nervous tick to buy time because she can't think quickly enough on, like, how I'm going to land this sentence. But here is a little flavor of that in SOT 9. Recognizing that at some point this administration will be termed out, and there's going to be a whole lot of debris. And I would caution us against talking about rebuilding.

with any sense of nostalgia about how things were. Because even before, they weren't working so well for a lot of folks. And so we're going to have to be clear eye. We're not going to go back to just trying to bring back the status quo. The thing that you worked well in and made you comfortable. We've got to upend some of this stuff to actually get this work done, including again, health care, child care, what we need to do around housing. There has to be a vision that is about what we do when we're in power, because it's one thing to know how to fight the

power. It's another thing to be in power and own that power. And I know everybody in this room knows what it means to be in power and empowered. Anyway, that's how I've been thinking. That's how she's been thinking, Charles. I think that's a threat, actually. She just talked about housing, you know, typical policy. But I think when they say we're not, if we win, we're not just going back to the status quo. I think that means they have learned from how Trump's wielded power and they're going to double down on it. We had this astonishing statement from James Carville the other day. As soon as they get in, Puerto Rico's a state, D.C. is a state and the Supreme Court has 15 justices. Now, I'm not sure they're going to be able to do all that,

but I think that's where they're headed. That's what the tendency is. So on the repetitive, point, I think she thinks that what she's doing is eloquence. She reminds me of someone who thinks they can sing but can't, and they do all the little moves. I think she thinks that she is profound. I find her excruciating to watch as a result, but I really truly believe that she thinks she's an orator, and so the pauses and the certain... for the words are beneficial to the audience because she is saying something that is so important and she the accent thing annoys me it's odd I obviously have an English accent Americans often like English accent so I was in a barbecue place in South Carolina

in 2024 and this African-American lady came out and she's she just loved my accent and I said to her no I love your accent I live in the South, I love Southern African-American accents. I just think they sound fantastic. I love listening to African-Americans in the South talk. Whatever it is about my accent that Americans like, I like about their accent. So what annoys me about Kamala Harris is that she's doing an impression and a bad one. You know, if somebody actually spoke like that, I'd want to listen to them all day. Rich and I half joke about this. I actually, although she, although she's putting it on two at one level. I actually quite like listening to

Jasper Crocket. I actually quite like listening. She's like your girlfriend. I know. I know she is. I think she's pretty too. But I really do it. When you need people who really truly come from southern black areas, I love listening to them talk. But Kamala Harris's impression is bad and it's condescending that she's trying to do it. But it's not a problem about, one of the few things that is not a problem about Kamala Harris. She just doesn't have that accent. That's not where she's from. Like, it's not her family background.

She's from California. She just picked up a different vocal background. It's not a problem with me. I don't sound like a southern person either. But, like, it would be really condescending if I started doing it badly. Do you ever try to fake American accent, Charlie? No, because I'm, this is exactly my point, because I'm not American. Try it. Give it a try.

I'm not doing it. I'm just not of that. So, you know, it's not a, it's not a good or bad thing to have different accents, but she, don't you think that the point I'm driving at is because it's a bad impression and it's condescending, don't you think that that just sums up in one clip? The problem with Kamala Harris is that she wants to be someone, she's not. She wants to be an orator and talk like Martin Luther King, but she can't do it. She wants to talk like the ladies at that, that, event, but she can't do it. She's a person doing an impression of what she wishes she were. And it's why she lost and it's why people don't like her. Whereas Trump, there's so many things wrong with her. We have talked about them all. I've spent 11 years writing them down every opportunity that I've had. But the thing I love about Trump is he goes to McDonald's and he wears a suit. He doesn't ever take that off. He just doesn't ever stop being Trump. And that's such a problem in lots of circumstances because he really should rise to the occasion, but it's also why people like him.

Starting something new, especially a business, is hard. So much work goes into something that you are not entirely sure will work out, and it can be hard to make that leap of faith. But it helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side to help you. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the U.S. from household names like Mattel and all. birds to businesses just starting out. With hundreds of templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style. It's packed with great AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product images. Plus,

Shopify provides world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns, all with 24-7 award-winning support. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at Shopify.com slash Megan. Go to Shopify.com slash M-E-G-Y-N. That's shop, I-F-Y dot com slash Megan. When it comes to supplements, there are two things that matter most. It has to work, and it has to be something you can trust. Both are absolutely essential. And this is why I want to tell you about Relief Factor. Relief Factor has been endorsed by hosts for over a decade. That's more than 10 years of trusted voices helping people get out. of pain naturally. For many people dealing with inflammation and mobility issues, especially after

injuries, it's been life-changing, better movement, less stiffness, and a noticeable improvement in daily comfort. Now Relief Factor offers a quick start option, and they actually lose money on this first offer. They do that so that you can try it yourself and see how much it can improve your life. Relief Factor was created by a Vietnam combat vet who became a doctor to help people heal, drug-free. What began as relief for his own patients, became something he wanted to share with everyone. Try their three-week quick start for just 1995. Go to Relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief. Let's see if you're next in getting out of pain. 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, Maureen Callahan, Emily Jashinsky, 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 Sirius XM app. Guys, something very exciting is happening. We'll turn the page from Kamala, sad as that is.

This weekend, and that is the White House Correspondence dinner. Yes, I know you're sad that you're not going this year. Like me. Actually, no, I was invited by a few. different people and said no to everybody because I don't have to do that anymore. Thank God in my new role. But Jake Tapper is going and he's very excited to go and he has a message for this administration, which he previewed last night on Stephen Colbert. Watch. I like the pocket square. Thank you. Oh, yeah. So this is a special freedom of the press and freedom of speech

pocket square. Yeah, and we're, I'm going to be, you know, Saturday nights the White House Correspondence dinner. I did not know. And there are a bunch of us that are going to be wearing these. These are from the reporters committee for the free press. And, uh, because there might be some guests there that are unfamiliar with, uh, oh, this is the first time. This is the first time that the president is going to be attending, right? Now that you say so, yes. By the way, I brought you one. Oh, that's a little bit. So isn't that nice, Rich? They're going to stand up and speak truth to power. make sure Trump knows how important freedom of the press and freedom of speech are in America. CNN.

Yeah, I'm not into pin wearing. This is very reminiscent of what we talked about this a month or two ago. Was it the Grammys or something? Everyone was wearing pins. They didn't quite know what the pins were, but the pins stood for some sort of social justice cause. This is pointless and annoying. And that dinner has been pointless and annoying for a very long time.

Back in the day, I don't know, 20, 25 years ago, of enjoyable, but then it got celebrified, and journalists shouldn't consider themselves working journalists as celebrities and have the same mores, but this is very incestuous and annoying event. The worst part about it, Charlie, is not even the actual event, the White House correspondent's dinner. It's all the events around the dinner where, like, this magazine wants you to show up and, like, be photographed at their party and that.

you know, sort of kingmaker wants you to show up at his or her party and, you know, you got to go kiss the ring at all these parties to try to prove that you're somebody special in Washington. Meanwhile, you're supposed to be a shoe leather, scrappy, hates everyone reporter. That's what a good DC reporter is like. They don't want to rub elbows with any of these people. They want to bring all of them down no matter which party they're in. They're looking for the latest scandal, not for the latest. free cocktail and red carpet opportunity. And it's yet another reason to avoid this thing,

but it goes on. Yeah, well, I wasn't invited, so I have to slum it here on the beach with my family. But I do think the most annoying part, as you say, is that this only goes in one direction. There's nothing particularly offensive about that pocket square. First Amendment is crucially important. And sometimes Donald Trump isn't good on free speech. It's just that that moment there only seems to happen when a Republicans president. That laughter slash clapping from the audience on Stephen Colbert's show with a journalist who's being smug, they didn't do that when, for example,

Twitter and Facebook shut down the New York Post story into the Hunter Biden laptop. They didn't do that when abortion covering journalism. covering journalists were being targeted in California. It's just so one-sided. So it's not that Jake Tapper is completely wrong there. It's great to shout at all administrations and all government officials about the First Amendment. It just becomes so annoying when it only happens in limited circumstances. And I think all the people who are clapping in that probably don't know that. They probably think that they're entirely virtuous and that their opponents are entirely evil.

What about under Joe Biden when James O'Keefe, who's he is a journalist. He's a muckraker when he got the FBI raiding his home early in the morning because Joe Biden was upset that he got his hands on Ashley Biden's diary and was considering publishing it. What about when James Rosen was basically frozen out of asking another question for months in the White House press briefing room because he had the nerve to ask about Joe Biden's health and its deterioration? And by the way, it wasn't just him. All of the press corps understood they'd be punished by this White House, the Biden White House, if they inquired about Joe Biden's health. I don't remember his little pocket square back then. It's only when it's Trump. And Rich, to that point, the New York Post reports today that a group of over 250 journalists implored members of the Beltway Press Corps to, quote, forcefully demonstrate opposition to President Trump at the White House correspondent's dinner on Saturday.

prominent veteran journalists such as former CBS news anchor, Dan Rather, you knew that was coming, infamous for erroneous reporting on President George W. Bush's military service, correct? And former ABC news anchor Sam Donaldson both signed the missive. So now we're getting journalism lessons from Dan Rather again, who left this business in shame. The letter aired a litany of grievances against Trump, such as his defamation suits against various outlets, which he's winning. ABC settled that case because George Stephanopoulos said 16 times Trump had been found liable for rape when it wasn't true. That's not some speak truth to power moment. ABC ought to be ashamed of itself. Anyway, okay, his defamation suits against various outlets, against favoritism toward conservative media. Oh, like that wasn't a thing toward liberal media when we had Obama or Biden in there.

And FCC communications chair Brendan Carr's offensive tactics. Another complaint was Trump's decision to pardon the January 6th Capitol rioters, which the letter claims sends a message that attacks on the press will be forgiven. What? This is so absurd. Your thoughts on the pocket square and the unified messaging led by Dan Rather, Rich. Yeah, so they're supposed to be forcibly demonstrating their opposition to Donald Trump. They do it every single day. It pervades all their work.

They don't need to do anything at this dinner to reinforce the. point. And look, the press, you know, it's oppositional or should be by nature. But as Charlie points out, it just goes one way, right? Joe Biden would have been such a wonderful figure of mockery on every late night show, right? Very bad for the country that he was in his debilitated state. But there was something kind of funny about it. But Stephen Colbert would never do it. And this is another problem with this dinner, not the most important thing. It's all people inside the bubble, in good graces in the bubble, not even realizing they're in the bubble. So there's no conflict.

There's never anything interesting. And all the mockery and disdain just goes in one direction. Can I just add something to that? Well, and Charlie says, I object to the pocket square because they only do it, you know, to the one side agreed. But the other problem is it does nothing. It's an empty, meaningless virtue signal, right? It's like it's worse than nothing because it's meant to make them look somehow above board. and like they really care about these issues, Charlie.

When, you know, Tapper's infamous for completely blowing it on the Biden mental health story, as did all of CNN. They did not care about freedom of the press to do honest reporting until they saw that Biden was imploding. And then they found, you know, their spine, shall I say. So their little pocket square isn't going to change anything. They need to look inward for that. Go ahead. Well, I was going to bolster Riches' point.

and also that echo is what you just said, which is that they are aware of it. They just think that there is a greater purpose to serve. If you go back and you watch Saturday Night Live from 2019 when Joe Biden was running in the Democratic primary and losing at the beginning, I think he was played by Woody Harrelson, and he's an idiot. He's a senile idiot who doesn't know where he is. That's the joke. Likewise, Kamala Harris is this sort of vain, insecure, mumbling fool who's constantly taking pictures of herself and looking at the camera. Well, once Joe Biden had won the nomination

for the Democratic Party, they stopped the sketch. They didn't keep doing it throughout his presidency, even though it was far more relevant by 2023 than it had been in. In 2019, likewise, you know, obviously I write about politics, so I get all of these unsolicited and frankly unwanted emails from people trying to share opposition research on people they dislike. And in 2019, I got email after email after email from the left about Joe Biden saying Joe Biden was a racist. Joe Biden defended segregation, Joe Biden opposed busing and so forth. That all disappeared as well. And that's what makes this particularly annoying.

It's not that the criticisms of Trump that you mentioned from that letter are wrong. in every case. And I think some of what Brendan Carr has been doing is bad. It's that the indignation stops the second it doesn't serve the broader political purpose. The mockery stops the second it doesn't serve the broader political purpose. But then when it's somebody on the side they dislike, it instantly goes up to 11, and we're all supposed to clap it as coming from a good place. But it doesn't come from a good place.

It comes from a very cynical place in almost every case. To me, it's amazing how they're pretending that the press corps, the White House press corps and beyond, is what it was 20 years ago. Like, this is all such a farce. This is a lie. You know, I've mentioned this to the audience before, but when I first got in news, it was 2003, and I got a part-time job at WJLA in Washington. And I was so excited. It was so thrilling to me. I was still practicing law. And I got this job one day. a week doing, I said I'd work for free, but he did pay me. And I loved it so much. And then he invited me to the radio and television correspondence dinner, which is sort of a wider spread invitation list. And you don't have to work at the White House in order to get invited to that. And it's the dinner featured in broadcast news, which is one of my favorite movies. I love that movie. And I love the William Hurt scene as he's the new anchor in Washington.

And he goes up to Holly Hunter and says, it's incredible who's here. And she says, who and he says, me. That's how I felt. You know, I went. It was so exciting. It was my new business news and I was taking one step out of the law and I was thrilled to be doing it. And I looked around as Sam Donaldson was one of the people I saw. And he was so respected at the time at ABC. Saw Supreme Court justice is there. It was like, oh my gosh, this is amazing. They call it nerd prom, you know. And the press back in 2003, Rich, still did have some respect. It really did. It wasn't yet totally fractured. And I remember thinking about my next move, you know, after they made me an offer to that ABC affiliate.

And at the time, I was like, all right, if I'm good enough to be full-time here, maybe I'm good enough to be full-time someplace better than here. And I talked to somebody at MSNBC and at Fox. Like, I absolutely would have gone to MSNBC. I had absolutely no qualms about that. It was very different back then. It was like trying to be nonpartisan. I didn't even know that Fox was partisan. and I was so clueless about news.

But things were just starting to change. And now in 23 years' time, the news business is a shadow of its former self. Yeah, absolutely. And similar experience in print, local newspaper in the Washington, D.C. area, and the guy who's a proprietor and the editor, former Washington Post reporter,

and he was a cramagin, right? You didn't have an ideology. He just wanted to know the facts, wanted you to get them right, and wanted stories. That was it. And as media has become, you know, professionalized and, you know, these people imagine themselves as their great tribunes of justice. It's a different, totally different attitude than when we started out.

And it's discredited the news, right? Because it's no longer just the facts that we're driving an agenda. We're driving the agenda because the agenda is deeply just. And we're going to support a narratives that we're going to support a narrative that reads. reinforce the agenda. So that that's been like a 20-year process is a very bad one. Trump accelerated it because they even thought they were more just and they had to be even more open with their agendas and their narratives. And now we've had this spluttering. So certainly the broadcast outlets and all that will never, never be the same. I mean, I've talked about this before, but I, and I'm very grateful

for my time of Fox News, very grateful. It made my whole career. But I do think sort of cable news accelerated the deterioration in the following way. It had been not openly partisan, and the whole media leaned left, but not as openly and perhaps not quite as severely as it does now. And Fox came around as the antidote to that left-wing bias and leaned in. And then the others realized that was a very successful business model. They were cleaning the clocks of CNN and eventually MS. And then they leaned into their partisanship openly and more obviously. and things just got progressively polarized. The broadcast media became more and more irrelevant.

And then they started to lean into their bias more openly. And it's not that it's Fox's fault, but it's like the Fox antidote to what was indeed left-wing bias wound up, I think, making the problem, yes, exposed, but also kind of worse in some ways. Or maybe it was just a trajectory of the news business was on either way. But the fact that Dan Rather is leading this charge is, I mean, because in those early days at Fox where I got hired in August of 2004. One of the very first stories they put me on was that 60 Minutes 2 piece they were doing on George W. Bush where they had faked

papers around his National Guard Service. And Dan Rather was leading the charge and it led to his exit from CBS. And so now he wants to be our moral better. Here's what Trump posted in March, Charlie, when he said he was going to attend because he hasn't been attending these things as president. The White House Correspondents Association has asked me very nicely to be the honoree at this year's dinner, a long and story tradition since it began in 1924 under then-President Calvin Coolidge. In honor of our nation's 250th birthday and the fact that these correspondents now admit that I am truly one of the greatest presidents in the history of our country, the goat, according to many, it will be my honor to accept their invitation and work to make it the greatest, hottest, and most spectacular dinner of any kind ever.

I just have a feeling that's not how it's going to go down. I think he's going to walk into open hostility from the little pocket square people. But your thoughts? Well, I don't think that they're going to uniformly affirm that he's the greatest of all time in the White House. I agree, but that is classic Trump. And I actually in this context like Trump when he does that. Because I think... Same.

Yeah, well, I think it has a tendency to puncture the bubble. And the bubble in this instance is a ridiculous one. So I like Trump when he's like this. The White House dinner that he's going to is, in my view, pointless. I was, of course, joking. I would much rather stay on the beach with my family. But he is hostile to them, they're hostile to him. And in that sense, they both get what they want, right?

I mean, this is, it's a pantomime. It's a Punch and Judy show. They want to play that role. They want to channel Watergate. They think that that's who they are. and then Trump thinks he's the greatest president who's ever existed. And then the audience sort of watches it as a drama. And I think this might make this one more interesting than the average.

It's amazing, though, right? That Trump can't resist the pull of these people, right? He should be so much bigger than this dinner. He doesn't need to go to this dinner. He shouldn't go to this dinner, in my view. But he can't help calling these people, caring about what they write, what they say, you know, working behind the scenes. So he's such a media creature through and through.

as always. Now, we've never had a woman as the guest of honor because we've never had a female president. And that is because we are a nation of sex as pigs. Back to Kamala Harris before we go. I've got to play SOT 13 and listen to the repetition too. I do believe America is can be and will be ready for a woman to be pressing United States. And I strongly believe, you know, I'm mentor as we all do, a lot of people. And one of the things I will say to our young people, and I know we have many here, is don't ever let someone's limited ability to see your capacity to be a limitation on your ambition for yourself. That's their limitation, not ours. So again, part of it is I just try to not let other people's problems be my problem in terms of. in terms of believing and knowing and acting on who can do what. And that's where I land on that.

Believing and acting and knowing and also is, can be and will be. She's basically everyone's a bunch of sexist. That's really what she wants you to know, Charlie. How do you plead? Well, and I love the end of it, which was straight from Forrest Gump, where she just exits by saying, and that's where I land on that. I'm just going to start using that.

If I'm not really sure where I'm going with an answer, I'm just going to say, maybe when we're doing the podcast, Rich, you know, when you don't know when I'm going to finish or not, when I'm unclear, I can just say, and that's where I land on that. This is my new favorite Kamala Harrisism I've ever heard. You are looking for a way of understanding

whether Charlie's pausing or done with his points on the editors, Rich. This could be it. You're pro-Magma. I don't even think you could do it. Asserting the pause from the end. It's funny. I guess on this show, I don't care. I'll just step on poor Charlie, but on the editors, it's a gentleman's show.

You are much more polite than I am. Guys, a pleasure to see you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much for being here. Talk soon. Yeah. All right.

So I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether you think Trump should go to the White House Correspondence dinner. Does he do them this honor? And how do you think it'll go? You can email me, Megan. at megankelly.com. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.