The Tucker Carlson Show - Tucker Carlson LIVE: The End of Free Speech

Episode Date: September 25, 2025

Tucker Carlson goes live with journalist Michael Shellenberger to expose the latest attacks on the First Amendment and your God-given rights. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

During the Volvo Fall Experience event, discover exceptional offers and thoughtful design that leaves plenty of room for autumn adventures. And see for yourself how Volvo's legendary safety brings peace of mind to every crisp morning commute. This September, lease a 2026 X-E-90 plug-in hybrid from $599 bi-weekly at 3.99% during the Volvo Fall Experience event. Conditions apply, visit your local Volvo retailer

or go to explorevolvo.com. Hey, it's Tucker Carlson. Charlie Kirk was assassinated two weeks to go today in an event that clearly is going to change American history, changed a lot of people inside. And there was a moment in the first week where you thought to yourself, this is going to have effects. A lot of them would be bad, but some of them are probably going to be good because Charlie's life was itself so good. Charlie Kirk spent his life above all trying to live the Christian gospel and trying to live the principle. of free speech, which is to say he talked and he also listened. He was most famous for traveling from college campus to college campus and asking people who disagreed with him to confront him. Ask me anything, he said. And he sat there patiently as they did. And they often attacked him. They almost always expressed views he found repugnant. And almost always he took those views seriously and answered the questions put to him as crisply and honestly as he could. That's what he spent his life doing. And in fact, he was assassinated while doing that.

So if there's any lesson from Charlie Kirk's life, well, the first lesson would probably be sincere Christians tend to be really decent people. Maybe we should have more of them. But the more secular temporal lesson is that free speech is a virtue. It is, in fact, the foundation of this country, not only its laws, but its culture, and that we should protect it. And maybe if we seek to honor Charlie Kirk, we should emulate it. Maybe we should begin by asking our politicians to do what Charlie Kirk. spent his life doing, which is to answer the question. Just calmly answer the question. We'll ask you anything, and then you go ahead and answer it to the best of your ability. Like, for example,

who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline? What happened all the money we sent to Ukraine? Why haven't you released all the JFK files, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, all the questions on your mind that slowly drive you crazy because no one will address them. One of us ask them directly to our leaders, and they get to answer. Nothing. Nothing would honor Charlie Kirk's memory more than that. That is free speech in action. But nothing like that happened. Instead, the only real conversation we've had about free speech has been about Jimmy Kimmel, who is hardly a champion of free speech.

In fact, just the opposite. He's a nasty little censor. Talentless, a person who has many times on camera over the years, chuckled and applauded as other people, his political enemies have been silenced, a guy who has so little influenced American society and so little audience. He was on his way out anyway. has the job only as a result of some kind of weird political affirmative action where people who agree with studio heads get to have late night jobs. He is hardly the person who should be taking

up the cause of free speech or become a symbol of it because, of course, he's the symbol of censorship and has been for most of his career. And the other thing that we saw, maybe even more distressing than that, was politicians turn not only against free speech, but actively and openly announced efforts to censor the American population and use the memory of Charlie Kirk to do it as their justification. There are many examples we could pick. Here's a particularly raw one. This is from Congressman Moskowitz, just in the House of Representatives, eight days after Charlie Kirk died. Here it is. It's crazy what's going on on the social media platforms. There are so many conspiracy theories on what's going on with Charlie Kirk. Israel assassinated him, right?

There are conspiracy theories about your personal social life all day. It is totally rampant. Big names on the right. Candace Owens, right, talking about how the, what's been released as far as the dialogue between the perpetrator and his roommate is manufactured by the FBI, manufactured by the administration. It is totally rampant, allowing foreign governments to just perpetrate these platforms, all of these bots, all of the time to weaponize Americans. And so if we want to do something, then we should talk about Section 230. We should talk about how we're going to make sure that we don't let foreign governments poison our children's mind. And so I will work with you on that, director. I'll work with you on 2.30 any day.

So there is the congressman talking to the FBI director, and there's a lot there and we'll unpack it. But the most telling line came right in the middle, and he turns to the FBI director. He says, they're criticizing your personal life. They're airing conspiracy theories about your personal life. Now, speaking for myself, I have literally no idea what the congressman was talking about. I haven't seen that. Doubtless it exists. Their conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories about everybody and everybody's personal life. If you're in public, people are theorizing about you on the internet. kind of the nature of the internet and kind of the nature of having authority.

But you'll notice that the congressman thinks this will be a compelling argument for the FBI director. He basically just says, they're criticizing you and me, and they're not allowed to do that. He's not even pretending that the purpose of censoring speech, and that's what he's saying, we need to censor the speech, that the purpose of that would be protect to any vulnerable group, vulnerable groups. No. They're criticizing us. They can't do that. And then, of course, he goes on to blame unseen foreign actors.

And by the way, that's something that I think most Americans would get behind, but that the congressman is not behind at all. If we want to take the influence of foreign nations out of our politics, most Americans would applaud. And that would start with not taking money from their lobbies. That would be a welcome change. But the idea that we need to censor what you say because the people who run everything don't want to be called out

or have their personalized misdescribed to the subject of conspiracy theory, well, that's not really reform as much as it's just kind of classic old-fashioned tyranny, isn't it? Shut up! We have guns you don't, and we're going to make you. And how are we going to make you? That's the question. So you may remember that last week, the Attorney General came out right after Charlie Kirk's death

and said there is a distinction between speech, constitutionally protected, famously in the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and something called hate speech, a category that doesn't, strictly speaking, exist under the law, but which a lot of people seem to believe exist. And hate speech is never defined, like most of the most powerful words that we use to punish people, terrorism, for example, racism. It's never actually defined. What is that exactly? We don't know other than it's speech that people in charge hate, and therefore it should be banned.

And most people who understand the American story, who understand our government, who understand our culture, who care about continuing all of those things, reacted with outrage when the Attorney General said that. You can't pass a law that will strip from us our God-given right to say what we think is true. She addressed it in such a ham-handed way that was obvious to everybody exactly what she was talking about,

and they reacted. We did too. But in real life, that will not happen. There will not be, I can say confidently, in my lifetime, a law in the Congress that says, explicitly. Any American who says something our leaders don't like, anybody who traffics in a conspiracy theory about our personal lives will be shut down, find, imprisoned. An open, transparent censorship law will not pass through the House of Representatives or the United

Senate. United States Senate will not be signed by the president. Why? Because it's just too obvious. So instead, because censorship is coming if these people can help it, instead they will invoke something called Section 230. And you're going to hear a lot more about this without question. It's never again explained very well. And the reason it's not explained is because they don't want you know exactly what they're doing. So let me just give the Cliff Notes version of what Section 230 is. Section 230 is a Section 230 within the 1996 Communications Decency Act. And it is the piece of legislation often credited for creating the Internet. It's the framework that Congress came up with at the dawn of the internet, to put parameters around what this is, to protect companies as they

grew, to set laws around this new technology. And one of the laws that they made, Section 230, shields internet providers, platforms from lawsuits. It gives them legal liability from lawsuits on the basis of slander, obscenity, things that are on. their platforms that they didn't create. In other words, it creates a distinction between a publisher, like a newspaper, a magazine, a television network, and a platform, Google, Facebook, X. And the distinction allows the platforms to let other people post whatever they want without getting sued for it. They cannot be held liable. These big companies cannot be held liable for slander, hate speech, anything really on their platforms. And as a result of this law, those platforms have

come to dominate news and information globally. In fact, when we talk about censorship, nobody's talking about censoring the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC News, because nobody cares. All meaningful information and all meaningful social movements are influenced by social media. So if you want to get people whipped into a frenzy, if you want to change your government, for example, you're not going to take out an ad in the New York Times. Of course not. You're going to get something going on the social media platforms. So they are huge. They are completely dominant information flows almost exclusively on them, and all of this is possible because of Section 230. Now, there's been a pretty vigorous debate for the last 20 years over whether this is a good idea, and there are

arguments against it. One of them is, why would Google get a liability exemption when I don't have one? You run a business, you're just an American citizen, you can be sued at any time under our famously loose and destructive tort laws, and you can go to business, you can be bankrupt, you can be destroyed. They can do to you what they did, Alex Jones, for example. The FBI can join up with some activist group and take your business away, wreck your life. So why should these big tech companies be exempt? Now, that's a real argument. Similar to the argument about the pharma companies. Why should vaccine makers get a shield from lawsuits?

If I make playground equipment, I'm vulnerable. If I make the COVID-vax, I'm not. That's a principled argument. But what's interesting about the 230 debate is that both parties have been on both sides of it at various times. The Republicans for years were mad at the big platforms because they were censoring conservatives, which they were. And so they often muttered about revoking 230 shield protection, unless they opened their platforms to all points of view. In other words, they wanted to use Section 230 to end censorship.

There's no reason you should get a special carve out from the U.S. government from the Congress if you don't treat people equally. If there's not fairness and neutrality in the way you allow opinions to be broadcast on your platform, that seemed like a fairly reasonable position. But things have changed. Now you're seeing Republicans invoke Section 230

pick up the cudgel that they hold over these huge tech companies and say, unless you censor, we will revoke section 230. And by the way, they are following in the footsteps of the leftward edge of the Democratic Party in doing this. In 2020, Beto O'Rourke of Texas ran one of his many doomed campaigns for office. This is one I think for president. And he said, unless they get hate speech off the platforms, we're going to revoke Section 230 and put these people out of business. By the way, the threat is enough.

That was the hope. If we threaten them, that we don't have to do the censoring. We'll make Google, Facebook, meta, and X do the censoring for us. That was the idea. Then no one can accuse us of violating the First Amendment or being for speech codes. We'll make someone else do it. He lost. But then Joe Biden, that same year, 2020 said, actually, yes, we should use this threat to force,

the big tech platforms to censor in ways that we like. And by the way, they did. They did throughout the Biden presidency, Facebook, then Twitter, Google, all censored opinions the Biden administration didn't like. And they did this ultimately because they feared having their legal protection revoked. That's why they did that. That's what got them to act. And Republicans, the sensible ones, looked at this and said, this is completely wrong.

It's totally immoral. It's illegal for the U.S. government to be imposing censorship on its citizens. It's against the Constitution of the United States. And it's against, more important, natural law. These are not rights we were given by the Biden administration. These are rights we were born with. And when you take them away from us, you are the criminal. And they made that point.

All of a sudden, you are seeing Republicans take the position that Beto-Rourke and Joe Biden took just five years ago. Here, for example, and this will come as no surprise to you, You will not be shocked to hear this. Here is Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina running for re-election, making exactly the same case that Beto Rourke made. Watch. Section 230 needs to be repealed.

If you're mad at social media companies that radicalize our nation, you should be mad. Senator. And the bill that will allow you to sue these people. They're immune from lawsuit. Oh, it should be repealed. Everyone thinks, I'm very careful online. And you probably are going to your way to avoid. sketchy websites and obvious scammers, you're not giving money to Nigerian princes. Good for you.

But is that enough? No, it's not. Big tech, invasive advertisers, even politicians can track what you do online from standard browsing and they get rich from it and they control you with the information that they glean. And this whole ugly process begins with data brokers. Should be illegal, it's not. These digital predators track everything that you do online. Every click, every scroll, every search. Then they search what you're doing, collect it, sell it to the highest bidder who exploits it for profit and control. Again, it should all be illegal, but it's not. So in the meantime, ExpressVPN can help you fight back. ExpressVPN reroutes your online traffic everything through secure encrypted

service and that makes it impossible for data brokers to track you. It's super easy to use. It's rated number one by CNET and the verge. It can work on up to eight devices simultaneously. It's protection for everyone in your house. We use ExpressVPN. It's chained our company. You should use to secure an extra four months for free when you use our links. Scan the QR code on the screen or go to ExpressVPN.com slash Tucker and you get four extra months of ExpressVPN.com slash Tucker. Now, it's not clear from that clip exactly why Lindsay Graham is calling for the repeal of Section 230. Why is he threatening the tech platforms? And by the way, the pretext always changes. They'll tell you, well, we're against child sex trafficking, as if anyone is for it. We're against

terrorism, a term once again they never define and don't have to. We're against drugs. We're against foreign influence. We're against bigotry. Whatever. They will always give you an excuse and that excuse will make them sound like the virtuous party, like the good guys. We're here to save the vulnerable. But that's never the real reason. Censorship always in everywhere is imposed with the intent and always has the effect of shielding the powerful. They're the ones who don't want to be exposed. Free speech, by contrast, and this is the reason it's in our Bill of Rights, is the one great power that the powerless have, especially in a world where your vote may or may not matter.

All you have is your voice. All you have is your opinion, and that's infuriating to Lindsay Graham's donors. And make no mistake, when he's calling for invoking Section 230 and taking it away, threatening the big platforms, he's doing that on behalf of his donors who feel criticized by random accounts on the internet. And they hate it because the people in charge always hate to be called out. Censorship has one goal, and that's to preserve secrecy. And secrecy has one purpose, and that's to abet wrongdoing.

so people who are doing nothing wrong are transparent people who are committing evil hide and censorship allows them to hide it's literally that simple and those people are the most powerful people in the country so who's encouraging this the donors whoever they are but there are lots of lobby groups all of them on the left pushing the republican-led congress to get behind censorship initiatives using the cover of the Section 230 debate to get it done, to pressure the tech companies into making you shut up into taking your opinions off the internet, using algorithms designed to censor you

without even a human being entering into the equation. No person will decide that your opinion is offensive and pull it off. The computer will decide that. It will be aided by the massive exponential growth in computing power that is at the very center of tech right now. AI. That is the goal to make certain that opinions that are disruptive to the people in charge never see the light of day.

What's amazing and what's especially infuriating is that many in the Republican Party, the party that controls all branches of government right now, are completely for this, strongly for it. Where did they get this idea? Is this a betrayal? Oh, it's a betrayal. How profound a betrayal? Listen to Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska, a former Air Force general, describe who he's been talking to about censorship. And I appreciate Jonathan Greenblal what hit him and his ADL stands for.

I know you've made us better with your feedback and ideas or recommendations, and it's been a trick to get to know you. We want to be in a country that makes clear that anti-Sellantism or any kind of racism is repugnant, unacceptable, now loud in my space, And we just, with a zero tolerance sport. So we need to hold these companies accountable and work with them to take it up to airway. It's hard to believe that's a real clip.

We actually checked. Is that real? Congressman Don Bacon of Nebraska, a great and sensible state with tons of normal people, a former Air Force general. Is he really colluding with Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL to take away your right to say what you think?

Oh, you bet. That's exactly. what he's doing. And make no mistake. The ADL is not an anti-defamation organization. The ADL practices defamation and slander and bullying and not in service of protecting a marginalized group, but in accruing power and by forwarding its goals, which are ideological. And if you don't believe that, go in the ADL's website and take a look at what the ADL considers hate speech. Hate speech, another one of those terms, never quite defined, but the ADL has actually taken the time to define it. What do they consider hate speech?

Well, among other things, complaining about drag queen story hour is hate speech, according to the ADL. Huh. Not being enthusiastic about the COVID Vax. That's hate speech, and it's dangerous. Noticing that the American population has changed completely in the past 30 years, thanks to immigration, that's dangerous hate speech. You should be punished for that. for noticing it in your country that you were born in. No noticing.

You can't notice that it looks completely different because of decisions that someone who never consulted you made without your knowledge. Shut up, says the ADL. You only don't have the right to speak. We're going to scream at you and call you a Nazi and imply that you are the dangerous one, the people who opened up the borders to 50 million foreigners.

But you're the dangerous one. Sure. You know what else is hate speech, by the way? reading the Gospels of Matthew or Mark or Luke or John. The gospel itself, Christianity itself is hate speech. I know that because three nights ago, I recounted the Christian story in its essence over like five minutes and was immediately denounced by the ADL as someone who was dangerous and inspiring murder. But I'm the only one.

The ADL has actively attacked the Christian gospel for years, has gotten behind a definition of hate speech. that includes the Christian story. That's not an exaggeration. That's not a fervid conspiracy theory. That's a fact, and you can look it up. So this is the guy, that's the guy, Jonathan Greenblatt, of the most aggressively left-wing, Democratic-aligned,

but much more important than that, lunatic, anti-human, anti-American group, the ADL, completely corrupt, he's consulting that guy to decide how much speech you should have because there are ugly opinions on the internet? Yeah, that's your Republican Party. Was he denounced by his fellow Republicans in the House?

Was he denounced by the Speaker of the House? Speaker Johnson? No, he wasn't. They barely even noticed because they have the same views. Not all of them, but an awful lot of them. It's unbelievable and it's counterproductive. Because once again, censorship is never enacted to help the powerless. It is always in everywhere an effort to shield the powerful, always. And in fact, it has a counterproductive effect on the people it is supposedly designed to help.

How would you feel about any person you're not allowed to criticize? Would that make you like the person more? No. It would make you resentful and suspicious. And it would give you the well-deserved opinion that this is not an egalitarian society in which we're all citizens. It's a hierarchical, society in which the government has decided some people have more rights than others. So if you find out you're not allowed to criticize someone else, maybe the first question you might ask is, well, then why are people allowed to criticize me? And the answer is because some people have more power in our society or being used to pit different groups against each other or who knows what's going on.

But none of it is consistent with the core promise of this country, which is we're all citizens under our government and we're all equal before our God who made us. It says that. But increasingly, that's not the country we live in. We live in a country or some people have more rights than others. And that's exactly the kind of message you would send if you wanted to foment a revolution against your government because it enrages people and it divides them from each other.

Oh, we have to protect this group. What does everyone else think of that? They secretly don't like the group. You're not ending bigotry by enacting censorship. You're creating it, Dumbo. and this is specifically aimed at Congressman Bacon, who was somehow an Air Force general. He can't be dumb.

But he's obviously not very thoughtful because this is very obvious. People don't like other people who get special treatment. Were you never a child? Do you never learn that? Who knows what the purpose here? It doesn't even matter. It is happening right before us,

the people who are elected to protect us, who say there are our friends, are selling us out. And you can theorize as to why. And by the way, all of that theorizing is itself unhealthy. Where do conspiracy theories come from? Where do you think they come from? They come from living in a country where the government will never explain anything

and lies constantly. So the next time you see someone in power complain about malicious conspiracy theories, stop him in mid-sentence and say, they exist because of you. If you would just tell the truth, if you would live like Charlie Kirk and answer the question, question, politely, reasonably, fully, there wouldn't be a vacuum into which lunatics would

rush. We would have a plausible answer to basic questions, like, what the hell is going on? But because you haven't provided that, what do you think is going to happen? People are going to have some pretty far out explanations. And maybe some of them are true, by the way. We don't know. Your behavior is so suspicious because you can't answer. Any question straight. Any. And you're spending your time talking to Jonathan Greenblatt. One of the darkest, most corrupt people in our society, truly a divisive figure.

Speaking of divisive, how many Americans have made fellow Americans hate each other more consistently over the years than Jonathan Greenblatt? Very, very few. Very few. And you're talking to him? So if this sounds like a paranoid rant, like, oh, that could never happen. Well, you should know that it is happening right now in the state of California. The state of California, like two weeks ago, 10 days ago, eight days ago, something like that,

has passed a law in the state legislature, both chambers of the state legislature. It awaits a signature from Gavin Newsom that would ban hate speech on the Internet in California. Hate speech. Now, how do they define hate speech? I actually have the definition. I actually wrote it down because I was so shocked by it that this is happening. The state of California, if Gavin Newsom signs this law and he hasn't until October 13th to do it, people will be fine if the censors determine that speech constitutes, and we're quoting now,

violence, intimidation, or coercion, what's intimidation or coercion? Right. Or coercion based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration status, or other protected characteristics. sticks. Obviously, white Christian men are not covered under that. And so the society becomes ever more hierarchical with a Brahman class and untouchables at the bottom. The opposite of the country, all of us over 50 grew up in that had an egalitarian spirit where some were rich, some were poor, some were smart, some were dumb, some were good jobs, others were unemployed, but all of us were considered equal under the law and equal in the eyes of God. And that concept

is the basis of a stable society, any stable society, and it was the basis of stability in this country. And laws like this and the attitudes that give birth to them to laws like this have made it wildly unstable. Wobbly, it's so unstable. So as of October 13th, that could become law. Now, that's a censorship law. Now, they'll say, no, no, no, we're actually getting the platforms to censor.

Well, right, you're getting someone else to do the job for you, but if you hire a hitman and he carries out the hit, you're the murderer. He participated in it, but you hired him. And that's exactly what's going on here. The state of California under Gavin Newsom is about to, we think, censor the opinions of Americans. Not to protect anybody, but to shield themselves from criticism so they can continue to do what they want to do in secret. Jonathan Greenblatt, the head of the ADL, applauds this.

And in case you're not familiar with Jonathan Greenblatt, and in case you want a sense of what he's like and what he considers hate speech, let's just go right to the tape so you know that we're not exaggerating. This is Jonathan Greenblatt of ADL. When you look at the prevalence of anti-vaxxer accounts that have been amplified and spread

across Facebook. They don't show up on your network, but they show up every day to billions of people because Facebook profits from amplifying these voices, which are literally killing people. And freedom to express your opinion isn't the freedom to incite violence. But for Facebook, it is, and that needs to change. That's all. It's simple. There's nothing wrong with keeping all of us safe from violent white supremacist or hateful people. So criticizing the COVID-vax is tantamount to murder. There's never been, I mean, obviously, that's prima facie insane. It's untrue.

It's a deranged perspective. But more than anything, you're seeing who Jonathan Greenblatt really is. He is a faithful Praetorian Guard for the people in charge. This is not someone who's ever challenged actual power, not once in his life. That's who he works for. That's who he takes money from. that's what hate speech looks like anybody in charge can make you shut up when you criticize them or stand in the way of their aims so in case you don't think this can come to the united

states one final clip and it's a sad one and it comes from the u.k now the u.k obviously the country they gave birth two hours a cousin a country so similar to ours and so close six hours by playing overnight, that we don't really think of it as fully foreign. It's not like going to Malaysia or Burundi or even France. It's an English-speaking country whose customs are recognizable, whose government and common law form the basis of our government and our law. Everything about England seems like home, but three degrees off. And yet the UK has become a police state. And if you don't believe that, if you think that's just hyperbole designed to whip you into a frenzy, here's a stat

that we checked, and it's hard to believe this is true, but this is true. 2003, so like a year and a half ago. How many people do you think were arrested in the United Kingdom for speech violations arrested by the police handcuffed and brought to jail in 2023? A couple dozen, you know, the ones you see on X, the ones Fox News talks about. how many people in that year were arrested for saying things the government didn't want them to say? What's your guess? Is it more than 12,000? Because that's the answer, more than 12,000. Wow, that seems like a lot. Is that a lot? I mean, it's kind of hard to know, right? Okay. Well,

let's compare it to the number, the widely agreed upon number, from the most totalitarian country in the world. A country so lacking in basic freedom, a country run by a madman, a country that's so evil, we're literally at war with that country right now, just on principle, because we so disapprove of how they treat their people. And that country, of course, is Russia under fighting for Putin. So if the UK handcuffed 12,000 more than 12,000 people in one year for saying things the government didn't like, how many were arrested in Russia, a country with twice the population of the UK? Oh, we happen to have the number.

So to restate, more than 12,000 people arrested in the United Kingdom, England, in one year for speech code violations, 3,300 arrested in Russia, a country with twice the population. So that tells you, you don't think totalitarianism can come to the Anglosphere? Oh, it already has. We haven't even touched on Australia, New Zealand, Canada, in some ways even worse. But what does it look like? What is the face of hate crime prosecution? What does it actually look like when a citizen is arrested for saying something the government doesn't like? This video is not from China.

It's from the United Kingdom. This is a British veteran being arrested for offending the government. Watch. The British Hampshire Police would realize how ridiculous this is. What did it need to come to this? Tell us why you've escalated it to this level? Because I don't understand. I posted something that he posted.

You come to arrest me, you don't arrest him. Why has it come to this? Why am I in cuffs? Because there's something he shared, then I shared. Because someone has been caused, obviously, anxiety based upon your social media page. That's why you've been arrested. Oh, yes. The velvet wrap jackboot of British fascism.

You're being arrested because someone has been caused anxiety by your views. Notice that someone has never identified, and of course, the answer is someone in power. Someone in the government or someone who funds the government, someone close to the government, someone was a lot more power than you, didn't like what you were saying, felt anxious about what you were saying. And so unfortunately, we're going to have to handcuff you and bring you to jail. Ho-ho-ho-ho-ho. That happened this year. That's from January.

And it happens every single day. More than 12,000 people arrested every single year for criticizing their government in the UK. our closest ally with whom we share intelligence on every level. British intelligence, I know everyone's spun up about Mossad, very close to Mossad, we're closer to British intelligence. That's the country we're partnering with to spy on our respective populations. Yeah. So it's really, really simple.

If a government, if your government is willing to arrest you for saying things that they don't like, If your government is arresting you for criticizing them, one way or another, you need a new government. If there is any justification for revolution, it's that. That's unacceptable. That's tyranny. A government that does that is not a legitimate government. It has absolutely no right to do that. And it should be stopped from doing that immediately.

That's the red line right there. So the First Amendment is the one truly distinctive thing that makes America America. it makes this country great. You are a citizen. That means you can speak openly and honestly without fear about what you actually believe. The government doesn't own you.

You own the government. That's the premise. And for 250 years, we've lived it. We hope to keep living it. Our sponsor, Pure Talk, understands how important this, has how central it is. So if you want to support brands that defend freedom and American values,

we recommend switching your wireless service to Pure Talk, which is way cheaper and uses the same towers the other guys use. it's the best. We know what you're thinking. Of course, giving business to companies that share your value sounds nice, but at the end of the day,

you don't want to spend more for the privilege of buying products from a company that loves America. Well, you don't have to. Pure Talks plan started at just $25 a month, $25 for the same 5G coverage the other companies provide, literally the same cell towers.

And you support a business that believes in this country and creates jobs here in this country. If you're interested, visit puretalk.com slash Tucker to switch to our wireless company than when we use Pure Talk. Right now, you save an additional 50% off your first month. Again, puretalk.com slash Tucker. Michael Schellenberger is one of the great reporters in the United States, a friend of ours, and someone who as a former liberal has probably thought about speech for more years and with more

clarity than probably anyone I know. And so we're so grateful to have him on to assess the state of free speech in the United States two weeks. after Charlie Kirk's assassination. Mike, thanks very much for coming on. Are you worried? I'm very worried. I mean, I think what's maybe under said recently is that assassination is the ultimate form of censorship.

And it comes from the same place. I think that's what everybody senses about it, is that there had been efforts to censor, and they had, I think, censored Charlie Kirk, obviously. I mean, the Twitter files, we just discovered that he was on a blacklist. There was obviously huge attempts to keep him out of universities. He had already had many death threats, which is not a direct form of government censorship,

but these are societal demands that he be silenced. And then at a global institutional level, yeah, it's a very disturbing trend that we're seeing. I mean, I think there's two things happening. There's both an organic kind of demand from powerful people like the kind that you were describing, where a politician just really, you know, I think it was the Moskowitz, where you just kind of can't stand something and they just wanna see something taken down

and you'll see that from groups and politicians. And then there's more of an inorganic demand for censorship, which we've labeled the censorship industrial complex. You can call it the censorship industry. And that is in place in the European Union, in Britain, in Brazil, California would like to have that. Basically all the Five Eyes countries, are pursuing that. And their strategy, I think, is pretty clear at this point, is to encircle the United States and to make our tech platforms censor along the lines that they would like to so that they can achieve censorship through the back door. And this has always been their strategy because they know that the First Amendment is a major obstacle for them, since it requires that the people have really radical levels of free speech that no country has ever come close to. And as you said, based on this

idea of natural rights that we are granted by our creator, not given to us by the government. The speech comes before the government. The speech is how we constitute our government. Whereas in Europe and everywhere else, the government had gradually let people say certain things. You have to petition the king. Oh, King, can we criticize you for sleeping with Ann Boylan?

And the king would decide whether that would be okay or not. And that's how it would occur. And the creators of this amazing country, and as you work on free speech, I've only worked on now for really two and a half years i'm a new newbie to the issue but one of the things you just really appreciate it's really how radical and powerful and strong that commitment to the first amendment was it's not just hype you might just think is that just patriotic hype from americans it's not when you read the history of free speech over 2,500 years going back to socrates who was put to

death for things that he said also an act of censorship um then you realize just how radical the first and how beautiful it the first amendment is because it's the Americans that created our country said we don't want to have a country. We don't have a government if we can't have full free speech with some very narrow exceptions. And so the exceptions now they sort of say, well, the internet changed everything. That's what you hear from. That's what I hear from my progressive friends, heard it on Martha's Vineyard of all places. It's all changed with the internet. It's too dangerous to allow this high level of free speech. We have to change things. Well, Tucker, to put in context how crazy that is. Our Supreme

court has ruled not once but twice that nazis can march through neighborhoods not only of jewish americans but of holocaust survivors and that the line where you the the line that gets crossed between speech and actual violence is when i say go kill that person there or go light that house and how it's when the speech becomes part of the action you know or coordinating an assassination or something of course language in that context has to be illegal because it's part of uh it's part of breaking the law but marching through a neighborhood with most vile ideology is something that the supreme court has twice upheld well now we're supposed to believe that some racist comments on a on a facebook post or as you said it's really political it's really about stifling the conversation around

migration, gender, climate. I mean, it's actually been less on race, a huge amount on trans issues. I mean, we just saw a British gentleman at Grand Linnem, a famous television comedy writer, get arrested when he landed in Britain for having urged biological women to defend themselves from biological males that come into their bathrooms. So it is a very serious threat, Tucker. I think that the thing to keep our eye on is they've been trying to basically get governments to empower a mostly secret group of so-called NGOs that would be financed by the government and who would be telling the social media companies what to take down. In some places, they're more subtle with it than in others.

That's the big threat. The Trump administration has done some great things to defund that. It was all going to work through NSF and then Congress would have to bless it. And that was the way that they were going to do it. So the Trump administration has done a great job. defunding that and also holding a strong line on both Europe and Brazil, putting, you know, demanding that free speech protections be there. But obviously, you know, we see some backsliding and some behaviors over the last

couple of weeks that were lamentable, certainly the Attorney General's comments, which she then later kind of went back on and said she didn't mean what she had said. And then obviously, or maybe not obviously, but a dust up over the FCC chair. and his comments around Jimmy Kimmel, which I got to say, as the days go by and you look in retrospect, it just seems absurd. I mean, you had Democrats trying to create this elaborate censorship system, and then you had some bad mouthing of Jimmy Kimmel. It wasn't really, it wasn't great. I think it was inappropriate. But I think there was a lot of other complicating factors, too. And there was economic concerns around Jimmy Kimmel and just

sort of this demand that, you know, that he have to be carried. on every television station, I think in retrospect, we won't look back on as not a great moment. I don't think the Trump administration covered itself in glory over the last couple of weeks on that, but on the European side of holding strong on free speech and also in standing up to Brazil, I do give the Trump administration credit. All it did was save Jimmy Kimmel. I mean, Jimmy Kimmel is on his way out. Nobody watches that.

It's crap. I mean, it has no effect on American society. It's just misdurbatory. It's really, he's playing for an audience of one. himself and um this kind of allowed him to pose as a free speech defender i got to say i'm the ticot thing i think i sort of missed that i don't know why i wasn't paying attention i should have been but ticot was banned by the congress uh forced to sell was chinese own company by dance own ticot and the argument in the congress was well we can't have foreign ownership of you know

a critical service like social media in this country and so it has to be owned um at least 51% by Americans. Okay, I just, I don't know why I missed the significance of this. Then it turns out, and they said this openly, it had nothing to do with China. And members of Congress said this. I'm a lot of Republicans. I'm voting to shut down TikTok because people are starting to like Hamas when they watch it.

Now, I'm not endorsing Hamas, obviously. I'm not pro-Hamas at all. But Americans have a right to like anything they want and to come to their own conclusions about, some foreign conflict or even domestic conflict, any conclusion they want, because they're not slaves. So is it okay for the Congress to decide I don't like the effects, the radicalization of this one social media platform? So I'm going to shut it down? I mean, is that allowed? Can they do that? Well, this gets to, let me, let me come to it by addressing one of the things that

you, I thought rightly discussed in your monologue, which is this very wonky but important issue of this law called Section 230 and the nature of these platforms that we have. And I think it's helpful to think of these platforms at this point as utilities. They're monopoly utilities. You could say there's some competition between Instagram and TikTok and X, and there's truth to that, but there's often situations in monopoly environments where there's some competition, but they really do operate, I think, functionally as monopolies. and they're already regulated monopolies by Section 230.

They're already saying to them, you're a different category of business. You're not liable. If you take down illegal content, you're not, you can't be sued for having had that content on your website. It still requires them to take it down. I think my view, and I've published a couple of white papers on it, I've testified on it, hasn't exactly caught fire my proposal. I've got a lot of views like that, too. Yeah, but I think, like, I think that, you know, I mean, look, one thing you have to understand of these big tech companies, they're so powerful. There's, I was shocked when I learned that, like,

Facebook has a different lobbyist for House Republicans than for House Democrats and a separate lobbyist for Senate Republicans, Senate Democrats. I mean, these guys really put a lot of money into having that control over Congress. So that's a little bit like the utilities power at the state level, the electric utilities power at the state level. So it's a regulated. environment but I do think public interest voices like yourself and Joe Rogan and others out there carrying this message is really important because I think what's in the public interest is that we actually do keep 230 but make it contingent on allowing all adult users to filter our own content our own legal content so in

other words all the child exploitation stuff obviously still being policed as we do now all of the copyright violation all that stuff still being polices is now but when you would go into social media platform you'd have a chance to basically decide what you wanted to see and what you didn't want to see and there was even some talk among uh republicans who i respect but i disagree on this issue that were upset that the the video of charlie kirk being assassinated was on x i mean it was quite shocking i have to agree with that but i don't think the solution is to necessarily take it down but you could certainly create your own filter that i want to filter out any scenes of people being physically harmed.

You could have a lot of different filters. You could have the Tucker Carlson filter. You could have the Greta Tunberg filter. But the users would be able to do that. And then, of course, the platforms like X already does can feed you their own platform, a separate stream. I think Elon has gotten pretty close to that at X, not as close as I would love to see it,

but we're so grateful because, I mean, the impact that he's had has been so enormous in terms of ending this censorship fact-checking mafia, Mark Zuckerberg at Meta earlier this year decided he was going to copy the Elon Musk model of crowdsourcing, which is what the spirit of the First Amendment is. We crowdsource truth with the First Amendment. And then we just saw Google yesterday in a letter to Chairman Jim Jordan in the House so that they would move to something more like that.

So those are good directions. But for me, that should be the only issue of Section 230 reform is to actually expand. and the speech that's allowed, not restricted. What they want to do is they want to basically give the deep state, for lack of a better word, DHS, NSF, DOD, the power to kind of choose the people that will decide what the truth is as these NGOs who would then get NSF money,

which is public money, National Science Foundation money, and that they would then get special access to the data. I mean, this was their whole vision and they were close to achieving it. We only really discovered it with the Twitter files. That's their whole. to be able to control it that way, they're set back in the United States, but they are moving for sure in that direction in Europe, Britain, Brazil, and certainly California would like to do the

same. I hope that if Gavin does sign that atrocious legislation that you were describing, Tucker, I hope that the Supreme Court, or that the courts strike it down, they struck down the last California censorship initiative, which was aiming at banning AI, you know, parodies. And that got struck down by a judge in a very eloquent decision. But that's kind of where we're at and why I think you're special on this is so important because we're on a knife's edge. On the one hand, I think we're making some good progress

here in the United States in exposing the censorship and shutting and defunding it. But I think worldwide, the trends are in the wrong direction. And on college campuses with young people, unfortunately, we've seen an increase of support among censorship, really every generation from baby boomers to Gen Xers to millennials to Zoomers that we see support for censorship going up.

And it's exactly like what you were saying. It's about protecting feelings. It's this, you know, to use a bit of jargon, it's this expressive individualism, which is that my feelings are like the most important thing in the world and that my feelings are hurt, then somebody has to pay a price. That sadly is the ideology.

And that's why I think the censorship is in this broader, you know, cultural decline, you know, where it's like the intolerance and the entitlement that people feel are these big forces that have been, I think, driving those demands for censorship. I think everything you've said is absolutely true. I think it may even be more insidious than that, however. I think that there are decent people who've had their best impulses hijacked by totalitarians and used against them.

In other words, I think there are good people, Americans, mostly women, to be totally blunt about it, who are like, oh, we can't be mean to this or that group. Well, I think that's a good impulse, by the way. We shouldn't be mean to any group. And the weaker they are, the more careful we should be about being mean to them because you don't want to be a bully, right? Like, that's a good impulse. But that impulse is hijacked by the censors who are acting on their own behalf, not on behalf of whatever marginalized group they claim they're acting on behalf of. They don't care about those groups, obviously.

The lives of black people in inner cities did not improve after the George Floyd riots, obviously. But they hijack that and they say, if you care about the weakest among us, you will get on board with censorship. I think that's really clever and insidious and evil, but effective. Yeah, I think that's right. I think it's a manipulation. You know, it just shows how emotional the culture has gotten, you know, that you can appeal to those feelings. I mean, Tucker, it's so easy to show how much of an abuse of power you can get with these hate speech laws. I mean, it's worth considering, for example, you'll get people that will be like, oh, well, are you defending the right?

of people to like call for genocide you kind of go oh my god well no i mean that's horrible i don't want people to call for genocide so you kind of go so we'll carve that out but then you kind of go well wait a second so the same people that are saying that to you are the ones that point out as soon as you talk about the american experiment of the 17th and 18th and 19th centuries that the that the european settlers committed a genocide to create the united states of america so how hard would it be to criticize somebody that say praised America, praised the Western expansion, praised the West opening up, and the European settlers, frankly, taken over this land from indigenous people, someone could say that's defending genocide. So you see how easy, it quickly it comes. I'll give you another example,

Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which is one of these deeply sinister. I mean, they would not return any phone calls or whatever, and they personally smeared me and a lot of others. Wait, wait, wait, can I ask you to, as Stubbsu, the Center for Strategic Dialogue didn't want any dialogue? Yeah, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue refused to have dialogue. I'm not surprised. Creepy, creepy group close to British intelligence. I mean, it's just like, I mean, close to I'm being generous, you know, like clearly an intermediary with deep state British organizations that is very interested in censoring Americans. And we see this dynamic a lot where they, you know, the Brits, you know, pick.

on Americans, the British groups pick on Americans because the U.S. intelligence community can't directly go after Americans, so they get their British allies to do it. And this is a group that labeled, along with the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which is equally sinister organization, very connected to the Labor Party of Britain, they label criticism of George Soros as anti-Semitic. And Tucker, I'm not saying criticism of George Soros and even notice seeing that he's Jewish. It wasn't even that. It wasn't like they said the Jewish philanthropist, George Soros. They'd be like, just criticizing George Soros was anti-Semitic. That's how crazy it is and got

that. And you know, you look at the number of institutions that I'm putting this. It's the European Union. It's NATO. It's the United Nations. It's Germany, France, Britain. United States is really powerful. And I think that the president did a good job pushing back against those types of people around the world. But it is important to remember that the European economy is bigger than the United States economy. And certainly when you go and kind of look at a world with this incredible economic power of China and the gravity it exercises and all these other countries in the world, including Europe, including Brazil. I mean, it was notable that when Trump punished Brazil with tariffs for its censorship and banning their their opposition party leader

and the leading presidential candidate of Bolsonaro, that China made up the difference in the loss of trade. So you sort of start to see the world, you know, and particularly get this kind of organic, you know, decline of real belief and support in free speech with a kind of global move towards this censorship industrial complex system of censorship by proxy. It is disturbing because they can exercise economic power over our platforms. And, you know, I mean, I think Elon has shown good reason that we can, you know, basically trust what he's done. I think he's made great decisions for the most part since he's taken over the platform. But, you know, if anything were to happen to Elon,

I mean, these companies, Mark Zuckerberg, Google, Sundar Pishai, they've shown themselves to be quite cowardly. Facebook was worried about the lack of help from the Biden administration. It was enough to get Facebook to censor because they were worried about not having enough help from the Biden administration to retrieve their very valuable user data from Europe, which their laws require. And that's why they agreed to do censorship that even their own social scientists within Facebook said would backfire because they were like, look, if you go censor mothers sharing information about the COVID vaccine side effects, it will make mothers more nervous.

That's what the internal people at Facebook said. And the Facebook execs were like, we better just give the Biden administration what they want. Otherwise, they're not going to help us with our data in Europe. So it doesn't, I mean, it's not hard to imagine, you know, the power that's. these states can exercise on these platforms. And I don't think that that threat has gone away. It doesn't seem like a good system if one, you know, South African-born, naturalized American is the only thing standing between us and tyranny. I mean, I really think that the media wouldn't be, I mean, I work in the media, my whole life I've worked in the media.

Elon Musk did this. Elon Musk did all this. And he did it because I think, as he says, because he believes in it. Whatever the cause, he did it. He opened up everything. Yeah. So, but that, which I will never stop being grateful for, obviously. However, that's a pretty thin thread, kind of holding your civilization aloft, no? Yeah. I mean, I, the things I really worry about are those numbers, you know? I mean, you've had, you know, just those numbers of young people that, I mean, the number of young people, the number of college students, the share of college students that said that violence may sometimes be necessary to stop a campus speaker was under 20% in the year 2020. It's 34% right now.

That means one third of college students think that violence might be necessary to stop a campus speaker. That is, I mean, that's pathological. I don't know that there's another word, but that's bonkers crazy, scary behavior. And so, you know, remember George Orwell, he was, you know, a leftist, wrote 1984 because he had read James Burnham, who's this very famous, you know, former Trotskyy who becomes a conservative and writes, you know, this book about the managerial state, which is basically about how this totalitarianism would kind of emerge out of the society and out of the state in these very specific, safest, you know, harm reduction demands that that you would sort of get a whole kind of state of busy body

you know nanny state people that wanted to police the speech i mean that was his prediction in nineteen whatever that was 1947 i think or you know when 1984 came out that is was so brilliant i mean it's terrifying brilliantly pressing it because that's what i worry about and i think you know i saw the obviously very moved by all the charlie kirk what's the response to the charlie kirk assassin and the desire to go into universities i think we need to figure out how to move that number down so that people really do be the young people become and the everybody becomes more comfortable with yeah i mean look i mean charlie really was um inspiring in the way that he would go into places and of course the science said prove me wrong he was saying look i'm open to debate is exactly

he i mean it's so i don't know ironic is not the right word it's so powerful that the person that was assassinated was the person doing what we need the most of. The person that was killed was the person who was doing what we need to see much, much more of at the high schools and the colleges, which is getting people very comfortable with having difficult conversations

and with having conversations with people whose values you don't share and who believe things that you find reprehensible. And that is at the heart of it. And I don't know, I mean, it's sort of what's terrifying is that, you know, those numbers of intolerance kept increasing over the last 10 years. I hope that we've hit an inflection point.

I will say, Tucker, one number that did change that I felt some heart in was that Pew had found that the share of Democrats that thought the government should be involved in censoring misinformation online had risen from 40% in 2018 to 70% in 2023. They did the study the same question earlier this year, and it's now declined to 50%. So I do feel like there is a chance at which the, I mean, it's still terrible, but like the, the sense in which that trance has broken, you know, that hypnotic, we have to fight misinformation that just bonkers anti-American, un-American impulse. It feels like it was broken, but I still think there's a lot of that, you know, cultural work that we need to do to really educating kids because I just don't think free speech is intuitive. I mean, you go to a playground and you see little kids playing and they just are yelling, shut up, shut up.

other all the time it's our natural instinct you hear something you don't like you want to shut them up and the alternative to listen to somebody and actively disagree with them and maybe think about how to respond or just figure out if you agree or disagree it take it's like a muscle it just takes practice and I think we have to teach the kids you know both the K through 12 and the college students how to do that and that doing that is a core value that will be rewarded in life and we should be celebrating rather than the opposite which is this desire to silence and shut down.

Are you concerned that technological advances that were in the middle of, really, will be harnessed to affect censorship without people even knowing it? I mean, you did the Twitter files with Mataibi and found what I don't think anyone knew that there was this vast censorship program at Twitter. But most users had the sense that, you know,

it's a liberal website, whatever, they're taking the conservatives off, but had no idea about the specifics. until you brought them to light. Does AI increase the power of the platforms to take information off the site without anyone even knowing it's been taken off? Yeah, I mean, just to answer that question, I'll preface it by saying, of course, I watched very closely your interview with Sam Altman, where you asked, I think, some very important questions, which is what is the moral framework with which his AI will follow? That is the right

question and of course it remains an ever-present question it's not like it'll it will never go away ultimately these decisions about what gets censored and what the AI censors for us are made by people and so you look at the worst episodes of censorship over the last you know five to 10 years you can find the people that were demanding the censorship you can find the groups they created to demand it you know that it was it was human decisions and that in fact at the company level in the Twitter files, there was a huge amount of debate around, I mean, not enough, a huge amount of debate around de-platforming the president of the United States, like removing the account of the president of the United States, which is so insane. It was a big deal, obviously, it was talked

about, and then, of course, you could see it. Same thing with the Hunter Biden laptop where the FBI ran a deception operation against the social media platforms illegally and an illegal conspiracy that included spreading disinformation about the laptop. That was obviously a very elaborate thing that a lot of people could see and were getting kind of glimpses into. There was also just the humdrum or the ordinary kind of de-amplification. So you remember Twitter famously said, oh, we don't shadow ban. That was the language that people had used.

Well, of course they did. They called it something different. It was called like, you know, do not amplify lists, for example, like a kind of blacklist that they ran or a trends blacklist don't let them show up on the trends thing so there's just all a million dials of course uh as you know tucker to like kind of turn these things up and down yeah the i i can help but sometimes you know like they wanted to go after a q anonon conspiracy at one point i reported this in my twitter files on the decision to de-platform trump and there was something around like the crackin which i guess is like a giant like squid in the

ocean i think it's uh you know they were like the crackin was somehow tied into qanon conspiracy theories And they wanted to censor that, which is also insane. Like they wanted to literally stop people from talking about Cracken, like on Twitter. And then somebody figured out that the Seattle, I think hockey team is the Crackin and that all these tweets around hockey were getting like swept up in it. So it's like, you know, it's like I worry about it. But ultimately it's not a bunch of censors in like the Philippines or even, I think, Palo Alto, like the worst forms of censorship are being decided at the executive level.

But as I said, my view is that if you have, section 230 which is what gives you the power to be a monopoly it's like literally like the pat like the permit to operate as a functional natural monopoly i think that that you should have to give the user the adult user complete control over all legal content and you can censor the illegal content and i do think we should there's a whole separate thing on kids you know which i think is complicated because they're using the kids right now in australia they're literally using the kids in Australia to create digital identifications as a way to censorship, which I think we should be alarmed about.

But nonetheless, as a father who's seen the impact of social media on adolescents, I do worry about it. But I do think, like, if you're going to have Section 230, that should be the agreement. Yeah. And thank you for describing it as using the kids, because it is the most obviously, transparently cynical attempt to censor political speech by using the suffering of children about whom they care nothing, obviously. There's no demonstrated care for kids. Like, how are the schools?

You know, they don't care. Right. And any pretext will do. I mean, the terrorism thing was huge, as you know, under the Bush administration. It was terrorism. What is that exactly? Can you define it for me? No, they can't.

I'm wondering, though, what's the recourse? So these are decisions you just described that are being made at, like, the highest level of global society. I mean, the richest man in the world. world decided to restore free speech to the United States. The president of the United States helped him. Federal judges rule on these things. But let's say we have a different president and there's no Elon or his commitment changes and there's a different Supreme Court.

Like, where's the power to fight back against this? Can you imagine a kind of civil disobedience that people could use to regain their speech? I'm trying to think through what that would look like. Well, look, at the top of my list is that we are in something called the NATO organization, and it has a treaty that requires that we only have as members free democracies. We only are going to defend countries that allow free speech and that allow candidates, people to choose the candidates of their choice. currently that is absolutely under attack in Europe Romania has already prevented as you interviewed the Romania has prevented their presidential frontrunner now France is about to ban their presidential frontrunner Marine Le Pen in a completely trumped up charge that the

prime minister that the last prime minister was already guilty of and still came into office Germany there's I just interviewed a mayoral candidate who was banned for like made up reasons because he liked Lord of the Rings. I'm not even kidding. And he went to a book fair where there are some people that the intelligence services didn't like people. And that was like the basis of the election council preventing them from running. And then they have these elaborate censorship industrial complexes. We're part of NATO. Everybody knows that we're the main event. We subsidize it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Like you, Tucker, I'm willing to die for free speech and democracy. Like I'm with Seneca.

Like the Spartan slave boy in the great Seneca passage, I would rather die, you know, a free man than live as a slave. And so we are willing to die for freedom. And I think we all care a lot about Western civilization in Europe, but not if they're going to, I don't want to defend, I'm not going to, I don't want to put my life on the line to defend authoritarian censorial autocracies like France, Germany, and Romania and potentially Britain. So I think the president has, you know, been pretty strong on it. You know, they're still negotiating this right now. But I just think that the public, certainly MAGA, but whatever leftists are still in favor of free speech out there, including, as you mentioned, I think a lot of the pro-Palestinian folks that felt, you know, felt censored on TikTok and elsewhere, and have been censored in other

ways, that we should all make very clear that we don't want to be a part of a military treaty that has us risking our lives for illiberal autocracies like that's got to be at the top of the list same thing with Brazil it's like you know okay I think people Americans need to know we should pay more for orange juice if it means protecting our freedom of speech that like our freedom of speech it's not like a small thing it's like the main event it's like the reason why America is the greatest country that's ever existed and certainly the greatest country in the world still despite all of our And the country that everybody wants to live in, it's because of the First Amendment of free speech. So it just has to be an absolute non-negotiable.

So I said, this is the number one issue. If you don't have free speech, you don't have anything. You don't have democracy. You don't have your dignity. You don't have, you don't have, you don't have, you don't have, you don't have, infrastructure can't work. It's just everything depends on free speech. And so it's just got to be an absolute issue for the administration in these, in these negotiations. And yeah, I mean, I think civil disobedience, um, is.

If we see, you know, when things get to that level, it's always, should always be an option, particularly for defending something as essential and sacred as the First Amendment. Do you have any guesses or theories as to what happened to Great Britain, which of all countries is the closest two hours as the deepest historical ties and is now arresting more than 12,000 people a year for saying things the government doesn't like? that it really it's hard for me even to digest that but I'm also confused by it like how how did that happen yeah I mean look you had Christopher Caldwell on the other week and I thought he did an incredible job explaining what's happened to Europe but I mean I think we're I think it's fair to say that we're at the end of an 80 year cycle that began in 1945 with the end of World War II and the United States had the role of being the you know really the the main, you know, the country that was at the center of this new empire.

I mean, you can call it the American Empire, whatever you're going to call it. And we were trying to prevent another war in Europe. And we pushed out an ideology that you might call, R.R. Reno calls the open society ideology. And at first it made sense when you're denazifying Germany and you're, you know, whatever they did with Japan, moderating Japan, and you're trying to kind of usher in a liberal democratic Western order, made sense for a few decades, probably didn't make sense after 1990, and it went too far. And it obviously, we decimated our industries by exporting them to China and, you know, created, you know, with the help of George Soros, created this elaborate NGO sector that basically

pushed two things at the same time. Because I think the only way you can understand the censorship and the demand for totalitarian censorship in the kind of mental space is to just also understand the total disorder that they're creating in the physical world you know from like as you're saying the unchecked mass migration the collapse of borders people in boats you know people with 14 you know criminal prosecutions and still let out on the street street despite their schizophrenia to commit murder against refugees I mean that disorder is I think I don't think it's a coincidence that that those two things are unleashed by the same people

at the same time I mean Soros Foundation one censorship they all also want disorder and anarchy and lawlessness, you know, at the street level, at the city level. So I think that, you know, as that, you know, the contradictions of their own, you know, ideology of just sort of, you know, the guilt around the past and the construction of these singularities of evil that were, you know,

the Holocaust, slavery, indigenous genocide, those became new religious, the new original sins for this new woke religion. And, you know, it's fun, because it was interesting you look everyone looks at me everyone's seen the data you know that really the the border the migration and the illegal migration of the United States really wasn't nearly is out of control but you know before Trump he campaigned on in 2016 but it really gets out of control as a kind of

reaction by Biden yeah and the blob elites after 2020 Europe's a slightly different story but you know I think it's just what it looks like there's just this woke religion has just absolutely displaced the older story that we had of Western civilization, which is that Christianity gave way to the Enlightenment, the Enlightenment secularized a whole bunch of Christian values, including the idea that we're all born with dignity and rights. And we just, that old story just got replaced by this really ugly story, which is that humans are a cancer on the earth, that Western civilization is just genocidal and, you know,

it's just the opposite of really what it's been historically, which is a massively liberating phenomenon and we got stuck in this awful story got taught in the schools it got taught in the universities and it's just that beautiful open society vision from 1946 just became it's complete totalitarian opposite and i think britain really exemplifies that and it's worth knowing by the way too because i think you've done such a good job here tucker point out the left and right origins of this certainly like what we call the foreign policy established on the blob they were behind the online safety act in Britain that passed in 2023 it was the conservative government that that got it done but it was the same foreign policy blob that was behind our censorship industrial complex and

that was clearly emerged out of this effort to govern the american empire and then was reacting to this just massive populist unrest to you know out-of-control migration policies energy policies that were aimed at crane scarcity and high prices the trans madness were literally I mean, that is just one where, I mean, if you really want to like, it's like a David Cronenberg movie, you know, it's like, it's these atrocities, these physical atrocities that you're then not allowed to talk about, like that you're then, if you actually deny, if you actually, I mean, they wanted censorship on all of it. We had at Twitter, they censored Megan Murphy for saying, but a man is not a woman. Like, that's what she said. And they like deep platformed her. I mean, you talk about like a terrifying scenario. We're a scenario where it's like these hideous medical experience. are being conducted on the bodies of adolescence and mentally ill people, and they were then trying to censor people talking about it, and demanding that you believe that it's possible to change your sex. I mean, that's just how you kind of go, that's how far gone we've got as a civilization. You know, it's that we convinced ourselves that you could perform, you know, biological alchemy, and then we wanted to silence and suppress anybody who told the truth about it. So, you know, I, it's, there's, I think there's a black pill moment, where one could say that we're pretty far gone, you know, if you're already at this place. But I do think, you know, thanks to, you know,

what you're saying to the opening of the platform, to the success of people like you and Joe Rogan and the creation of this alternative media universe, I do think we have a chance to remake that case, not just for free speech, but really for this amazing, you know, tiny moment in history where like actually everybody that's a citizen of a country got to be free.

And that's a beautiful, wonderful thing. And anybody that's ever traveled outside the United States, I think, can see that and appreciate it. It's the greatest thing that we have. And the reason we have it is because we've reminded ourselves generationally, because we've told the story of it, that this is the greatest thing that we have. And I can't think of a greater tragedy, a more perverse tragedy than the assassination of Charlie Kirk being leveraged by people in order to construct a world that he hated and fought against for his entire short. life. To use Charlie's assassination as a pretext for censorship? I mean, the mind struggles even to understand that, but that's how brazen people are. So I hate to ask you this, but you've thought so deeply about it. Maybe you have an answer. I don't. What's the motive for all this? Like, why would

you want to conduct hideous medical experiments on children? It doesn't benefit you. It doesn't benefit them. Like, what is this, actually? Yeah, I mean, you know, as you as you probably remember in one of my my last book on the homeless crisis I put a lot of emphasis on this desire from the left to be compassionate and to think of ourselves as good people and that really the idea and it's really this immediate emotive you know like with addiction people that are crying out they're saying I'm fine and I'm fine in my living in my waist and being sexually assaulted every night I'm just fine let me just smoke some more fentanyl everybody should know that that person needs an intervention so that they stop harming themselves in public. But the emotionalism and the

sentimentality that immediate appeal to, oh, no, it's somehow cruel, that it's somehow cruel to allow, you know, to enforce laws and mandate care for people. So on one hand, it does seem like this empathy of like, oh, we have to protect people. But I also think there is something, you know, darker and more selfish and frankly more hedonistic than that, which is, as you were saying i mean the the the ability to censor somebody is an incredible act of power and domination yes it's not something the weak the weak can't censor people i mean you look at any movement for human liberation like the weak don't have the power to censor the censorship comes from these really arrogant overly empowered overly powerful entitled elites displaying traits of frankly anti-social

disorder um with no empathy for the people that they're censoring and So I think that my views are that there's certainly plenty of people that feel that they're being empathic, but I think a lot of other people, it's will to power and nothing besides to paraphrase Nietzsche, where it's actually the pleasure of just controlling what people can say online. I mean, the people, these sensors have now, we've profiled them. I mean, we've written, you know, we haven't published all of it, but we try to understand the people that are doing this very deeply at a site. at a psychological level and they're just absolutely power hungry and they're completely arrogant like they're enclosed minded and frankly not very smart i mean that's the thing you forget about the totalitarians you know it's depressing because i think there's a lot there's a story that's the story that's getting told i won't say everybody knows by who but somebody there's somebody on the right that's sort

of telling a story about how terrible democracy is and how if we if we had an autocracy it would be run by somebody competent like Elon musk and everything would work great actually the history of totalitarianism is that it's the incompetent awful idiotic bureaucrats of course that are running things it's not like it's not Mozart and Gerta and Nietzsche that are like you know running things it's like these very crude dumb people and so you see someone like Nina Jankewitz or Renee duressa these are really power hungry very petty small people there's so much kind of just a kind of almost like a neediness there you see it in some of them a neediness for people to tell them how good they are and how much they care a lot of like you know

if you remember the movie misery the kathy bates character i sort of a lot of that kathy bates energy of you know i'm going to take care of you but it's actually i'm going to dominate so i think that when we i think that people sometimes sort of say it's suicidal empathy or it's pathological altruism and i know what they mean i think that what's underneath it is something darker more nihilistic that is just feeding hedonistically off the power of dominating and censoring and persecuting others that really isn't in service you know as you know we've you know as the foundational spiritualities and and philosophies of the west have aimed at that power be used in service of of beautiful values it's not it's not in service of that it's just in service of their own individual

expression of power. And like you said, you know, if it's, if it's to censor you on COVID or anti-Semitism or trans or migration or the Ukraine war, they don't care. Like they're always wanting to find new ways to censor because it's coming from something so deep, something so deep and frankly, pathological inside of them. It's the war impulse is so similar, killing people being the ultimate expression of power. You know, you can't create life, but you can end it. And there are people, and I would say Lindsay Graham is one of them, but there are many who just derive pleasure from the idea of killing people, not just because they're cruel,

but because it makes them feel alive. And I think there's something, you see it in school administrators. So I really feel like we're on the cusp of like something great. Charlie Kirk's Memorial on Sunday made me feel that way. I feel like it's not all darkness and like don't take the black pill. You know, there is light there. And so I feel that way.

But then you see, I have to say, video of Don Bacon, the Republican congressman from Nebraska, the most normal state out of 50s, saying, oh, yeah, yeah, I'm talking to Jonathan Greenblatt, who's like a gargoyle from ADL, which is like the most anti-human organization like I've ever dealt with in my life. And you feel like, wow, if Don Bacon is taking orders from the ADL and Jonathan Greenblatt, then like the fix is in. like it's a bipartisan conspiracy to strip people of their most basic freedom yeah i mean i think that for me also what comes up tucker and i i know that this is something that you are concerned about too is that i think you were saying it before like there's a there's a censorship and then

there's actually so many sides to the totalitarianism there's the censorship there's the disinformation and dehumanization that the state or these peristatal censorship proxy entities play. And then there's the secrecy. And so I think what we now know, and again, I've said very clearly and praised the Trump administration, they've actually been helpful in my own case in Brazil where I'm under criminal investigation

for the Twitter files Brazil. And so I'm very grateful to the Trump administration. I hope that's clear. But nonetheless, I think we can see that there are clearly some things that we're not that they really don't want us to know about and the Epstein one the Jeffrey Epstein situation is easily I think the most explosive and most famous one where everybody knows there's these files and everybody knows that they're the FBI and DOJ and everybody knows

that there's no legal barriers to releasing them and that there's all these excuses or everybody knows that it's not just Jeffrey Epstein's own personal pornography collection and that the story has kept shifting but you know it looks like there may now be enough votes in the House pretty soon to force a vote on it. I think Speaker Johnson could still try to stop that. But I think I'm heartened that the MAGA movement actually remain true to following that issue through to the end. But I think we've seen that there's, you know, frankly, a secret government that, I mean, we can, people will say that sounds conspiratorial. But I think if you realize what the Epstein files are and that it was covering up

almost certainly very likely a sex blackmail operation and by the way we didn't even have proof of the hidden cameras until a couple of weeks ago when the new york times published two photos of the hidden cameras one of them pointing right at a bed in epstein's new york apartment i think we know that and you know we had and massie was in you know congressman massey was in congressman massie was in congress last week and he said there was 20 names that he knows who they are that are in the files he gave us one of them CEO of barclays bank and then he kind of listed who the other ones were one of them was like a you know Hollywood producer rock star magician so we know all these things it I think it's a really important test I think it's really

important that all of us that are sympathetic to things the Trump administration has done that we continue to not let the Epstein issue go and then I think the other issue Tucker that I know you care a lot about is the UAP issue the president said after the drones over the drones over New Jersey the unidentified mostly identify drones over New Jersey that we were going to be able to find what that is i have a list of all of the of the key documents provided me by john greenwald of the document the uap documents that exist that have many of which have been released and have just been so heavily redacted they need to release these things they need to stop hiding this and i'll just end by saying on this

to culminate it all look the elephant in the room here is the cia you know you've got this wonderful reform leader in Tulsi Gabbard who is a unifying leader she has so much trust from people that were on the left yes so much trust from the maga community she's obviously a good person like anybody that has ever met her she is a good person that's correct and and she she by law congress after 9-11 made this law that she is the boss of the intelligence community that is what the law requires but we have this recalcitrant CIA where I mean come on guys like we have not seen significant change to personnel apparently only two of the people that worked on the bogus intelligence community assessment about Russia interference in 2016 elections only two of those

people are gone it's the response from CIA to us there I frankly found there what they told us to be just patronizing to the point of offensive in insisting, you know, is basically trust us, bro. It's all good now. The CIA's fine. The CIA is not fine. The CIA is hiding information that the American people paid for and have a right to know on a lot of issues. A lot. UAP, Epstein, Congressman Massey revealed that there is a CIA file on Epstein that needs to come out. And look, maybe CIA shouldn't exist. I mean, senator moinehan before he died and uh kennedy's historian why am i blank his name shlesinger yes chlesinger there's been various proposals to break up the cia you know

frankly it's a paramilitary organization ever since 9-11 it was supposed to be an truman wanted an intel organization we need good intel by the way congratulations on your brilliant documentary i saw the first part of it last night so now it appears if i'm understanding correctly that the CIA was probably behind the 9-11 attacks it was a botched CIA operation it sounds like I haven't finished your series but here you have this so I mean you kind of go so here you have an organization that's responsible for just the worst like regime change coups followed by dictators who tortured people CIA that you know infiltrated American student groups that used labor

unions to you know engage in regime change you know you know that spawn off people that were involved in the censorship industrial complex and lawfare may have been sounds like what you're saying you know that was behind or at least didn't stop or contributed to the 9-11 attacks and then they did the torture after 9-11 which not only doesn't work like creates bad information and is a stain on the moral character of the United States at a certain point you're like what is this dog of an organization doing being just unreformed and trampling on all of our basic, you know, freedoms. So, I mean, I, you know, I kind of go, I think we just need to tell people that we don't really govern ourselves as long as

you have this, you know, a mess of an institution called the CIA where a bunch of analysts kind of appear to run the world. As long as that organization remains unreformed and we don't really get true disclosure about all the things that we know are going on, then I think we should be pretty unhappy and pretty demanding of much more significant reforms than it appears the Trump administration is going to pursue. I'd settle for real oversight rather than, you know, Tom Cotton, who runs the Senate Intelligence Committee, is basically just an apologist for the CIA. There's no oversight at all. He carries water for the agency in ways that hurt this country. And it's, I'm not exactly sure why. Like, what is that? And I don't know the answer. People can speculate all they want.

I do want to just go back and thank you for what you said. It's all true. It's true. Okay. Good. I haven't seen the end of it, but I saw the first part. It's amazing, by the way. No, no, I'm not talking about our documentary series. I was just saying your analysis of CIA. I mean, how many people do you think in the White House right now know what the actual CIA budget is? You know, I'd be surprised you could find someone.

I don't, I've never met anyone who can actually, who can even, they can't tell you because it's classified. But, and I assume supposedly the House and Senate Intel Committee Chairman know what the full budget is, but I would be shocked if they actually did. I mean, it's its own country. It's autonomous. It doesn't have oversight. It doesn't have committee control structures. It just kind of does what it wants.

It lies about what it does. There's no way to know for a fact. I mean, it's a separate government within our borders, just like they had in Portland, Oregon at the, you know, the high. of George Floyd. But I just want to ask you about something that you said about the drone sighting or the lights in the sky over New Jersey last year and, you know, so many sightings that it's really no dispute that it happened. The question is, what is it?

And the president said that he would tell us we've never heard. What was that, do you think? I don't know. And, you know, they're having also very similar drone sightings now over in Denmark that actually shut down both Danish airports on Sunday. I mean, it's, uh, yeah, I mean, and why can't we know about it, you know, and, uh, but what's your sense? I know that you've done a lot on this. I, I've talked to you off, you know, off camera, just entry, because I, you're one of the few people who's judgment on this, I trust. There's so much deception on this question. I think parts of it, what's the term

they use? It's an op. Um, I think part of it is, part of the explanation is, but at its core are physical phenomena that have been recorded in such volume at such scale that like something real is happening and i and i know you don't really have the final answer on that but what is your sense yeah i mean i think look first of all the government is engaged in extensive disinformation on this topic and that's not that's not that's just all confirmed like right it's been well documented what they've done i mean there's a you know there's a there's an alien crash retrieval manual that is, you know, that is officially, according to the official story, a total fake, a total fabrication. But I mean, when you look at it, it is extraordinary in its quality of, like, if it is a fake, I mean, complete with like the names of the people who checked it out and those people having been checked out, who would do that? Like, why would you do that? Well, one story is that it was used as passage material to identify counterintelligence spies in the US intelligence. community, but nonetheless, there has been so much government misinformation.

There's also been efforts to, there's also secret, you know, technology projects. I mean, one of the guys that testified at the UAP hearing last week just said that he has seen successful reverse engineering of technologies. You know, there's a whole kind of Pentagon technological side of this that many other people have done so much better work on and reporting on the new. me jesse michael's being one of the leaders of kind of unearthing it i will say i don't think any of it could all be reduced to hard military hardware either ours or somebody else's i'm very confident that there's just way too many cases that don't fit that um i also uh think that jacques

valet has done really some of the most important scholarship on this i find myself and he just gave a presentation on he's like he's the french character played by francois trufo in close encounters of the third kind by Stephen Spielberg, a French researcher who's just sort of an international treasure of UFO, you know, cases. And, you know, he's actually gone a very similar direction that you've gone. And I find myself going there a little bit, too, which is that there is a spiritual element to this that I don't think is just purely attributable to technology, because the issue is such a gestalt issue, because, you know, if you look, like in a classic gestalt is it an old woman is it a young woman is this a spiritual issue sort of manifesting as sort of

some high-tech hardware or is it some high-tech civilization manifesting as something spiritual i find myself really gravitating towards these cases which is also where a valet encouraged a lot of new research one of which is my favorite is this english woman in the countryside who had a a UFO sighting in the 50s. And I would dare anyone to watch that. And she describes seeing, you know, she's like a very working class English woman. It's a beautiful interview with her done that somebody,

it's like BBC or somebody. And they just to describe what you saw. You know, she said, here's this noise. Her two boys are on the front yard. She sees a huge UFO over her house. He asked her to describe it. And she said, what can I say? It was like a Mexican hat, you know,

like a typical, you know, a fine saucer with a dome. her kids were there seeing it she's where she saw it she says there was two people inside and they were beautiful people with long blonde hair and sort of slightly bigger foreheads and sort of looking at her and it ends so interesting she says you know we we told people about this and then we were ridiculed and then she said but it's okay because I know it happened it's true and I think I dare people to watch that and come away thinking that she was lying I don't think she was lying. Yes. I also, as you know, I have interviewed a fair number of psychotic people living tragically on the street. And people in psychotic states, that's not the kind of story they

tell. In fact, I have, I even have, I've homeless people who I've been interviewing that are meth-induced psychotic, you know, and meth-induced psychosis, talking about aliens. And it's just a lot of word salad and garbled. It's like talking to somebody trying to explain a dream they had. It doesn't make sense. Yes. So I don't think she lied. I don't think she's capable. I think that most actors are bad actors. I don't think she's capable of having invented that and then persuading her children to lie with her. I think that she had that experience. I don't think she's psychotic. I don't really know if anybody knows if that if those beings come from a different planet or they're interdimensional or they're spiritual or if they have some other form and they're just

manifesting and holograming like that, I don't know. But I think that the conversation, you know, thanks to, again, people like you and Joe and others, has just widened so that we can see just what a big lie it's been that science has really properly accounted for reality. You know, this, you know, Science Magazine did a survey of scientists, including natural scientists and i think it was somewhere around 60 to 80 percent of natural scientists i'm talking physics and biology and chemistry we're not able to replicate famous studies in their field they admitted this in a survey and then they would ask them do you still trust your field of science and they

all said yes but they can't replicate basic scientific experiments they keep changing their mind on the creation stories at the big bang i think there's sufficient doubts about you know we about human origins and so but like that became that was so taboo that was so you couldn't talk about that in polite society but i do think now we are able to have those conversations and i do think it's really notable that at this political shift there is i think a spiritual a spiritual movement i mean i'm obviously really into it um other people in my life are not as excited about it but for me I think these experiences, you know, the evidence, you know, the spiritual side of it, the government cover-up, you know, are just huge areas that we should be doing so much more research and investigations and journalism on. I get a little frustrated because I think sometimes, I think the conversation right now in the podcast world and in the conversation is just a lot of people are repeating and speculating about stories that we've kind of

heard before or sort of know about, but we haven't put nearly enough pressure on the government to release or unredact the documents that we know exist, to come clean about what they appear to know and are unwilling to tell. There should be a real movement around this and there should be consequences for members of Congress because that's information that belongs to all of us. And if there's some evidence of non-human intelligence or a lot of evidence, my understanding, I'm very confident that there are thousands of high quality videos, photos, sensor data, radar data, a lot, a lot that the military is keeping from us and the CIA is keeping from us. And we should be really upset about that. And I think that for me,

I think that we can, there's just been a lot of conversations where people go around and round about with the data that we know but what we're missing is the fact that the government the government is sitting on so much more of it and i find myself wanting to do more to force it out and i'm getting frustrated um but i'm a little bit you know i think as you've seen i'm on the one hand very grateful to this administration and the strong things that's done you know on free speech and the disclosure it's done certainly disclosing so much more than the last administration but we still need a lot more There's still so much that needs to be released on Epstein, on COVID origins, the whole COVID pandemic response, on the weaponization of FBI, the continuing rot. I mean, someone at the CIA told us pathological rot at the CIA, and we need to know what's going on with the UAPs.

It's just the speculate, like you were saying before, it would be irresponsible not to engage in conspiracy theorizing and speculation, given how little information they give to. us. And if they were really so concerned about conspiracy theories and speculation and misinformation, then they should be releasing those documents. Well, of course, they foment conspiracy theories and race hatred because it's a distraction from what they're doing. I mean, when I was younger living in Washington, and I began to understand that the government was systematically lying across agencies about a couple of things, probably a lot of things, but UAPs were definitely one of them. That became obvious a while ago. And I remember asking, you know, like, what is this and never getting a straight answer, except people would say, look, it's not,

it's destabilizing. It would be destabilizing if the public knew and like, who wants an unstable country. You know, there are some things that people that aren't ready for, whatever the euphemism they used. But that was the explanation. As I got older, I began to, you know, talk to other people and have other thoughts. And one of them was totally possible that the government really does have something to hide is participating in things that people would not approve of or be shock to learn. And all of that gets to a question that's never occurred to me till right now, but, like, who named America's military headquarters after a pentagram? Like, who thought that was a good idea? And I know you've done a lot of research on that period, the war period. Like,

what was that? Well, yeah, I mean, this is, you know, I haven't seen it yet, so I can't evaluate it yet. And I don't know a lot about it. But yeah, I mean, there's some, there's a real darkness to You think? Area. Yeah, let's call the building that controls nuclear weapons, the Pentagon? Huh? I mean, it's sort of like right in your face, right? Or no?

Yeah, I mean, I just haven't looked that much on it. I do know that, like, a lot of the UFO stuff is very tied in with the occult. Yeah. And apparently, you know, Jesse Michaels, again, did a, apparently did a new documentary on a cult. I mean, I'm not vouching, if I don't know about it. but I like Jesse occult behaviors within NASA. So very concerning. I don't know what it means.

You know, I am shocked by how little curiosity there is at a society-wide level. I think that, you know, the intellectual life of this country, by which, I mean, not just the universities, but also the newspapers and the big media companies, that is how censorship was done over the last 80 years. The internet is almost to return to a pre-radio pre-broadcast period when people were really free to just print whatever they wanted. The internet is not there, but it's a lot closer to it. We finally get to kind of learn that actually there's all these anomalies around human evolution, around human history, around, you know, archaeological sites where things don't seem to add up right. and you start to get people that were called, you know, pseudo-archologists starting to kind of win some arguments publicly. I mean, there's one happening right now around Quebec-Tepi with this guy, Jimmy Corsetti,

where he's just shown that the people that are supposed to be excavating the site are destroying it, planting trees whose roots will destroy these ancient sites and also building these really grotesque roofing structures in ways that destroy the site. they're very weird and suspicious um there's just a lot of you know we know that a lot of the tesla information was missing uh that you know should have shown some very interesting things and then yeah i mean i think that the relationship with nuclear is one of the most interesting parts of this because these uapes they show up around nuclear sites i used to work on nuclear a lot And there would be these drones, these unidentified, they've seemed like objects, but unidentified phenomenon around nuclear power sites.

The people working at them were often very concerned around public perception of danger, and so they often didn't talk about them, but they've certainly been over Diablo Canyon, nuclear plant in California. But when the drones happened in New Jersey, well, we caught them in an open lie. I mean, they just said, John Kirby at one point said something like they had evaluated like 3,000 cases of drone sightings in like 48 hours, which is like absurd. There's no possibility they did it. And then we started looking, a set of people started looking and you discover that, in fact, there's been these drone swarms around U.S. military bases. I mean, not a couple either.

I mean, I think it was somewhere around two or three dozen military bases. And there's a lot of evidence that those drones are circling around those moments when there's nuclear weapons in the area. So, you know, if it's, I'm skeptical that it's Chinese and Russian because the drones are engaged in behaviors that I think are very difficult for anybody to do. But, I mean, if these objects are behaving in ways that, you know, do appear to be using a different kind of propulsion or anti-gravity, I mean, I'm. very skeptical that that's ours in the sense that it takes a lot it took a huge effort to create the manhattan project and to create nuclear weapons it was a massive massive endeavor and so to somehow easily get or to be able to easily hide reverse engineering i don't know how you do that um i'm really skeptical that we have it but it's absurd that we have to just sit around

and speculate about it like like we need there's basically no transparency instead we have a dod organization called Arrow, which as far as I can tell is part of a deception operation, consistent with the CIA's recommendations through the Robertson panel in the 1950s, that the main thing the U.S. government should do is supposedly debunk the UFOs and to ridicule the people that see them and research them and worse. There's a lot of threats made to people in this field. I personally find it one of the scariest issues. Trans and UAPs are the two paradoxly the scariest issues. And because it just seems like a lot of people really don't want us to know what's going

on with it. And President Trump said made noises like he was going to reveal something. And Tulsi Gabbard just made some noises that she wanted to get to the bottom of it. But otherwise, Tucker, they're just, they just seem like they really, It seems like they want to Jeffrey Epstein, the UAP files. Yeah, I don't think there's any. And if you're wondering if there's a spiritual component to the whole thing, if it's, if it's about technology and, you know, I don't know, Martians.

Right. Probably not going to be this kind of response to it. I mean, this just glows with intensity. Again, it's the Pentagon. So, yeah, there's a spiritual component to it, I would say. I've been scared off, too. It's like I don't even want to deal with it. But I'm grateful for you.

Mike Schellenberger, really, I'm so grateful you went into journalism. There are a few people with, you know, you can be doing on other things. They're not that many super smart people in journalism with, you know, true principles. And you're definitely one of the very few. And so I'm always grateful to talk to you. And I'm grateful you're doing what you're doing. So thanks, Tucker. Thank you.

And back at you. And congratulations on coming back to your famous monologues. and I was really delighted that you did it on free speech, and I hope you keep doing a weekly monologue. I think it's... Getting all spun up. Yeah, I enjoy it. Thank you. I hope we can have dinner soon.

Great to see you. The great Mike Schellenberger. We'll be back next week. Good night. Alp is a pretty new company, about a year old, but we have a surprisingly deep, and I mean subterranean flavor vault. We have a massive index, a library, if you will, of archived flavors,

all of which have been approved by the federal government. It's all totally legal. And so our archivists went down to the flavor vault last week and came up with a kind of sexy flavor, something I never would have thought of myself. They call it Spearmint. Introducing Alp Spearmint from the Flavor Vault. It's incredible.

It's like a spear right to the heart of the flavor zone, wherever that is. Available now, alpouch.com.