Will Cain Country - Anthony Pompliano & Jennifer Sey: Breaking Down President Trump's Economic Plan & Defending Women's Sports

Episode Date: March 6, 2025

Story #1: Will & The Crew discuss some hysterical clips that show the Democrats are clueless about their future. Also, is California Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) making a strategic shift further to the right? Story #2: Will President Donald Trump's economic plan work out? What is really going on with the tariffs? A conversation with the Host of 'From the Desk of Anthony Pompliano' & Founder & CEO of Professional Capital Management, Anthony Pompliano.  Story #3: Inside the pushback for defending women's sports with former Levi's President, Founder & CEO of XX-XY Athletics & Author of ‘Levi's Unbuttoned’ & ‘Chalked Up’, Jennifer Sey. Tell Will what you thought about this podcast by emailing [e-mail] Subscribe to The Will Cain Show on YouTube here: Watch The Will Cain Show! Follow Will on Twitter: @WillCain Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

One. I got about five things on my mind I want to hit. I don't even know how to tease them, but I'm tired of everybody using Russia like it's, you know, the new COVID vaccine. Gavin Newsom's actually pretty good podcast. And Democrats are getting really bad at politics. We might have just actually seen the state through the, Vampire's Heart. We might actually be seeing the death of the Democrat Party. Two, Anthony Pampleano on. Whether or not terrorists are actually going to work out for the economy under Donald Trump.

Three, Jennifer Say, on Riley Gaines, in this new study that suggests having transgender affirmation, reassignment surgery. actually makes you more prone to suicide. It is the Will Kane show streaming live at Fox News.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Always on demand by subscribing at Apple, Spotify, or on YouTube and Facebook. That way you can set a reminder. You're always with us. So I'm looking over my notes, fellas, and I'm trying to.

to figure out, you know, what I want to talk about. And I wrote down social. And I know it was two things. What are you laughing about already? Nothing. I know it was two things. But I can only remember one of them. I did.

So yesterday, I know one of them, yesterday on the Will Kane show TV show. We got to figure this out. Are we all going to be the Will Kane show? Like, everybody already mad at me that I say it too much. And now I have to be like, Wilcane TV show, Wilcane Digital Show. I don't know what's going on. I mean, we're the OG. 4 p.m. and the 12 p.m.

Yeah, I guess we could just do that on the clock. Yeah. Yeah, we are the OG. Well, on the television version, the 4 p.m. We had Dave on, Dave Portnoye from Barstall Sports. And, you know, they had put in, this is how TV works. Well, this is how TV is supposed to work. Unfortunately, I don't do TV the way it's supposed to work.

is like, you know, I can't speak to every show, but a lot of shows use a teleprompter and a script, right? And we do as well, way more than I want. So what I do is I leave it and I do what I want and then I come back. And then when you're doing a guest interview, it's not scripted, but it's like almost like bullet pointed or outlined or organized. And here are the things that you have and you can talk about, right? And they sometimes will tell the guest, hey, he may talk about this, this, for this.

Well, but to me, those are just suggestions. Like, I don't follow it. I don't follow it in order. And that can cause some hiccups. And I'm not airing dirty laundry here. This wasn't what I planned to do. Like yesterday, I tossed to a couple clips, and they didn't know where I was because I'm not following the script. And Dan, you've had to get really nimble.

That's probably the right word, right? Because you listen to me. Yeah, you have to listen to me. and I'll tell you, hey, I'm about to do this. But the point is, I don't follow a script, and I don't follow an outline, I follow a conversation. I am engaged and listening, and my through line is not what we all decided earlier in the day would be the flow of the show. The flow of the show is what's in my head and coming out of the guest's mouth. That's how it works.

Okay, that's how you have an interesting conversation. So, but Dave Portnoy knew that I may talk about the Mavericks, or I may bring up the implosion of the Mavericks, right? and I didn't I didn't for a variety of reasons bring it up so he brought it up because I thought you were going to ask me about the Mavericks right smart dude and and I was like no I don't want to talk about the Mavericks

because you're a Celtics fan I know what you're going to say so somebody on the social team cuts that and says and you guys put it out last night Dave Portnoy teases Will Kane about the big loss last night and I didn't even notice it

and I didn't even notice it and so you guys texted me And they're like, What big loss? Does anybody on your TV show staff, like, watch sports? Like, what big loss are you talking about? Like, what game? They just presumed, I'm assuming this is what happened.

They just presumed there was a big game last night and Dave was talking trash about the outcome instead of the total annihilation of my franchise over a 34-day period. So, yeah, it was more than a big loss. Too many to choose from. I've wrote down social. Maybe I wrote down social because, you know, if we're making some mistakes on social, they're not as bad as the mistakes being made by the Democrats.

Dan, roll the video. Oh, my God. Spotify or Apple Podcast Let me explain to you exactly what's happening Take down the volume a little bit Dan, just keep the video going What we're watching here Okay, have you guys

That's a win This is fun to actually have to explain it For the audio audience This is actually good This is good to try to explain it Everybody knows that you've played video games I think is the meme or is the whole viral trend?

Is it off Street Fighter? Like, Street Fighter is the one I picture. Or Mortal Kombat. Or Mortal Kombat? Yeah. Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat? It's the screen where you're choosing a character, which one you want. They're kind of like, you know, just like how they're going to fight.

Fight stands. It's a lot of games. So if anyone, okay, but look here, Dan at least understands. This stuff started with Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter. Like that, it's like saying it's a lot of games. Okay. But this, it's, it's, when you played one of those games back in the day in the arcade, and by the way, the arcade's awesome.

Like, you know, can we just take a minute? It's nothing against the Xbox. That's all great to be able to play at home and get online and play through friends. But there was something about going to the arcade. It's almost like a pickup game of basketball, you know? And then, like, you may play with your friends or it may be the stranger kid. And you're going to, hey, you want to play Mortal Kombat. And next thing you know, you're like, you're having a game to 21.

on Mortal Kombat. Anyway, when you're picking your character, you know, it's doing that sort of it's got a fighting stance and it's bouncing back and forth. Like you're a boxer about to start. But it's real repetitive. It's like you're bouncing at your knees and you're bouncing with your fighting hands. So people started doing that online, you know, in the last couple years and was it kind of a hot girl thing to do? I think it was actually more than, I don't know if you saw a lot of dudes doing it. Did you? No comment.

Like in the viral trend world? I've never, that doesn't show up on my... James has never seen that in his entire life. He had no idea what you're talking about. My algorithm is all politics and sports. Definitely not all politics. No hot girls. Definitely not hot girls.

Well, this long belabor description is that I'd say seven or eight Democratic congresswoman did it. Okay? And it says, choose your fighter. And it's got them. And by the way, it's not even like the young ones. There are some young ones, but there's some old ones in there, too. And they're doing this fighting thing.

And it's got their fighting stats at the bottom, like who they are, choose your fighter. And it's beyond embarrassing. It's horrible. It's horrible. Judy Chu. What is Judy Chu? 60 years old? Yeah.

And she just, it looks so awkward. And you're congresspeople. And the minority whip. I never heard, Catherine Clark. if we're being honest she looks like she's sitting on a toilet she doesn't look like she's about to fight like play that one again

and look at it and what do you tell me she's doing she's not fighting turn the volume down if you can I don't know if you can't but there's AOC yeah Representative Lauren Underwood youngest black woman in the car

there you go what is the what is she doing you see it? She's never fought before in her life you can tell that Susie Lee's got something It's so bad, man That might be the cringiest thing I've ever seen in my life Like, Dan, I'm not trying to be partisan

It could be the death of the Democratic Party I think it should be, to be quite honest with you As someone who is a little bit moderate left That that should end up And how did you get here? It's so fascinating to think How did you get here to this point? Because

If you think about what's going on their minds, right? Yesterday we had the conversation with Joey Jones. Well, you can't sit here and be the old man yelling at the cloud and you can't go, TikTok stinks. Like, you've got to participate in the world where the younger people are and consuming content. And you're going to have to recognize that maybe that content isn't the most thoughtful. I made the argument yesterday, well, politicians should seek to be the George Washington of TikTok. And all I mean by that is be unique. Don't go with viral trends. Find your way to do it like Cody Tucker. Like we've had Cody on the show. That's awesome. Cody's viral on TikTok and Instagram.

Instagram doing history in 30 seconds. Well, could a politician be interesting by giving civics lessons in 30 seconds, right? Like, could you go viral as Rand Paul doing a daily civics lesson in 30 seconds, right? Interesting. Instead of chasing, choose your fighter. And what I'm getting at is, I think it is interesting

how they got here. They saw Donald Trump become a pop culture phenomenon and go on to Theo Vaughn and go, Did he do Andrew Schultz? Yeah, I did Andrew Schultz. And be of the culture. But what they don't recognize is he was being authentic and driving the culture. Those guys, even though he was on their shows, were coming to him, not the other way around.

And these Democrats are chasing inauthentic trends that have nothing to do with the authenticity of being a leader. And I don't know. I think it's like dead. I actually think the Democratic Party has to be burned to the ground and then it has to rise from the ashes. At this point, I think it's done. It's dead. I did talk to the Democrat friends of mine yesterday

about our conversation about who they would vote for and who should run for the Democratic Party. Mr. Mayor Pete came up a lot. Pete Buttigieg was a big leader in the clubhouse for running for president. No way. Yep. Huge.

Big Detroit Lions fan. I thought of I thought about your Brooklyn brunch crew Oh boy Do you think there's any recognition Like I saw this stuff again yesterday Because Portnoy They put them out on the Fox News social

After he was on my show right And a lot of the comments are like Memes of Donald Trump And Vladimir Putin in bed together Smoking a cigarette And a lot of the comments are You know Get the Russian blank out of your mouth

It's a lot of that Honestly it is Is there any recognition on the left that the way that this Russia thing is being regurgitated is very, very similar to vaccines? In other words,

it's not, there's no depth of thought at all. It's a mantra and it's a little, and like, is there any recognition you're doing it again? Forget right or wrong. It's not about, well, not Russia's right, Ukraine's right, it's not that. I'm just, is there any recognition

you're doing it again? You're doing the mindless mantra thing again. There's absolutely no recognition. They don't realize what they're doing. And I hear a lot of it's like, oh, maybe, you know, Trump became a Russian spy back in the day and all these things. And they're throwing all these conspiracy theories out and crazy things, not realizing that they just don't care. Like you're saying, there's no recognition of what they're doing. It's wild. And I pointed out and they're like, well, you don't know, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. They don't care. There's no argument. There's no conversation we had. So you're right. it's real similar i'm looking at online reaction it's just and by the way the the vaccines just won't believe the science you know i started thinking like what do you think the overlap is on okay so people that said if you don't get the shot you should not get hospital treatment and you should you know lose your privileges in society i just wonder what the over the overlap is the the venn diagram overlap of that guy and you're a putin puppet is like is that a big overlap

on the VIN diagram? I think it is. It's a circle. The same people I know are the same people, so yeah, I would say so. From then and now. I think so, too. Yeah. At least in my own world.

All right. I got a few more things I want to talk to in the news today. Talk about let's get to those before. We have two guests joining us today. Anthony Pompeiano, who does a lot of business analysis from the desk of Anthony Pompeano. He's the brother of Joe Pompellano, who we had on our Friday edition of Canaan Sports. We're talking about tariffs and the effect on the economy. And then Jennifer Say, former executive at Levi's, who now has founded XXXY Sports, big on the trans movement.

That's all coming up. But let's get started with story number one. Here's a couple things I wanted to address. Speaking of Russia, did you guys, 10 full of Pat put this out, and I think this is fascinating. We've talked at length here together about the history of Ukraine and Russia, the expansion of NATO eastward. the analyzing Russia through the prism of a rational actor not a morally good actor but a rational actor can you understand the motivations of your quote unquote enemy if nato is expanding east would he feel insecure well chris murphy democratic senator who is doing a lot of the brooklyn brunch crew type of

lines admitted in part that the west played a role in the 2014 midon revolution that the west helped organize a coup of victor yonnikovic the democratically elected president who was russia uh focused russia sympathetic in 2014 like admitting murphy did that the you know we have the audio we could hear victoria newland then with the Obama administration talking about it, but he's admitting that the West played a role. The West means the United States as well, of course, that we helped organize a coup in Ukraine.

I mean, I think that's the kind of thing you have to recognize and understand and acknowledge if you want to understand the nature of this entire war. It doesn't give Putin justification, and you can't have a moral leap, a brain leap to that. But you have to understand the motivations of another side and go, wow, this is how we could end up here, so it might be part of our calculation

of how we arrive at peace, instead of simply Trump and Putin in bed, smoking a cigarette together. Today, today is the release of the JFK files, reportedly. Does anybody have any faith that you're going to hear anything in that? Nope. No, it's up. After the FD thing, zero.

I'm done with it. Nope. No interest. Right. Tenfoil. You excited? Not particularly He sounds enthused

I know, that is him enthused That is him enthused He's like really worked up right now Yeah he's really The JFK thing Patrick knows just because I put this I said if something comes out of this It's worth doing the entire hour

At 4 o'clock on this subject I would do the entire hour and I'll do it again tomorrow, but I don't have any faith. There will be anything in the JFK files that I'm interested in whatsoever. No faith. It's in part because of Epstein and also because we've played this game for half a century. A half a century you've been playing this game. And we're not going to learn.

I don't think we're going to learn anything more about John F. Kennedy, maybe ever. It's been deep-sixth. Do you think the younger generation even cares, like his age? Yes. You do? Yes, I do. If there was real information, right, James, you'd be all in. Yeah.

You probably know more about that than a 25-year-old should know anyway. Yeah, no, as an Irish fellow, I probably know more about the Kennedys than most of my own family members. So who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, James? Oh. Oh, Jack Ruby. See? That's pretty good. That's pretty good. For a 25-year-old?

I didn't think you'd know that. Yeah. pretty good can any of us name I can keep going really no I've gone pretty deep on this name the lawyer

name the lawyer in New Orleans who put the JFK assassination on trial no none of us could and the only reason we would is because of Oliver Stone what's the name of the guy that's the name of the guy

who shot the video of the JFK assassination oh yeah can you do that James no Zeprooter Abraham Zuprooter. Yeah. Huh. James, you never heard of the Zepruder film?

I mean, I've watched it a bunch of times, but he doesn't know his, his body worked with it. Honestly, I was more on the, I read Roger Stone's book, and Stone's conclusion was that Leonard B. Johnson did it. And that he worked with the CIA. Oh, well. I thought that was the most. Well, if that comes out today, if that comes out today, I'll do the entire hour on this. I'll do the rest of the week on it, if that comes out today.

I mean, look, any murder case. The first thing you ask is who has most a game. Yeah, yeah. But unfortunately, there's a lot of answers to that when it comes to JFK. And finally, I saw a clip. I didn't see the whole thing of Gavin Newsom. His new podcast with his guest was Charlie Kirk. And I'm going to tell you something.

He's pretty good at this. Interesting. It was pretty good. Interesting. Yep. And you know what? It opens up the possibility. of him being the guy to me.

Like this, to me, says, okay, I already knew he's a talented communicator. My problem with him is he was too talented, too slick, too slimy, too used car salesman. He's kind of authentic in this, and he's admitting to Charlie Kirk, how much influence Charlie has,

even on his own 13-year-old son, on Newsom's 13-year-old son. And it's conversational. And therefore, you guys know how much I talk about, this, it kind of comes off as authentic. And I saw that and I'm like, we've been having this open conversation about how you resurrect the Democrat Party and who could be it. And I don't think he's the savior. That's not my point. But in four years when you have nothing else, I'd take Gavin Newsom as my bet over Pete Buttigieg. All right, let's leave it there. And let's get to our

first guest when we come back. His name is Anthony Pompliano. He is, he tweets and covers and It cuts videos, a lot on business, and I want to talk to him today about crypto, tariffs, and the American economy under Donald Trump when we come back on The Will Cain Show. This is Jimmy Fala, inviting you to join me for Fox Across America, where we'll discuss every single one of the Democrats' dumb ideas. Just kidding. It's only a three-hour show. Listen live at noon Eastern or get the podcast at Fox Across America.com. Hey, I'm Trey Gowdy host of the Tregaddy podcast.

I hope you will join me every Tuesday and Thursday as we navigate life together and hopefully find ourselves a little bit better on the other side. Listen and follow now at Fox News Podcast.com. Listen to the all-new Brett Bear podcast featuring Common Ground, in-depth talks with lawmakers from opposite sides of the aisle, along with all your Brett Bear favorites like his All-Star panel and much more. Available now at Fox Newspodcasts.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Jennifer Say founded XXXY

after being an executive at Levi's for many years. She's going to join us a little bit later here coming up on the Will Kane show. But I'm joined now by the host from the desk of Anthony Pompiliano, the founder and CEO of Professional Capital Management, Anthony Pompeliano. What's up, Anthony? Not much. How are you? Good. Uh, so you got a brother named Joe who was just on the show.

How many brothers you got are you all in media? Who's Joe? Are you serious? No, we got, we, there's a five of us, and, uh, you know, we had a good time growing up. I'm the oldest of all five, so I had the, uh, the benefit of probably exerting more pain on them than taking it. But, uh, maybe that's changing these days. What number is Joe? Joe is, uh, the fourth oldest.

What numbers, Joe? Fourth. Okay. It's also second youngest, you know. Depends on how you want to position it. Yeah. Best looking, though. Best looking.

Is he? If you ask him, definitely. What's the age gap between the two of you? We're all two years apart. Two years apart. Okay. So what are we looking at? Looking at about six, seven, between six and eight years between you two?

Yeah. Did y'all play more? combat against one another? No, we played a lot of video games, a lot of Nintendo 64, GoldenEye and 007. Oh, GoldenEy was great. Great game. Sega Genesis. I used to play Sonic the Hedgehog.

And then, of course, as we got older, we played a lot of Madden football. I got to have the 21 rule. As soon as somebody goes up 21, you got to shut the game off, you know? Joe was a guest here on the show just last Friday. We talked a lot about the cross-section of sports and business. You focus a lot on business. You've got from the desk of Anthony Pompeiano, which we can see your videos up on X whenever we like. And I noticed you saying this recently.

I've got this tweet here. My prediction for the economy is that tariffs work and bring down prices. Inflation doesn't reappear, and we eventually get a balanced budget. Those are all bold, by the way. I think each and every one of them individually are bold, but three of them together. I mean, I think you're really out there. I hope you're right. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's been forever since we've had a balanced budget.

And right now, inflation's headed in the wrong direction. And, you know, tariffs are a real interesting factor on that right now. The markets clearly responded negatively. There was a rebound yesterday, but the markets responded negatively to the promise tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico. And Donald Trump acknowledged it saying there's going to be some rough waters, but tell me how you think we're all going to go through this process economically here at home of implementing tariffs. Well, first thing you have to remember is most of the people who are allocating capital in the market actually have no clue how the economic machine works.

And so if you kind of keep that as the backdrop for a lot of understanding of this, it begs the question, well, what do they believe that ends up not actually being right? In traditional finance, there's a whole bunch of things that they believe that are wrong, right? So the efficient market hypothesis, things like intrinsic value. Many of the core concepts in investing is misplaced or incorrect. And so then that opens your mind to, okay, well, let's look at from our first principle standpoint, what exactly is happening right now. The first thing is that we want to switch from an economy where our government revenue is coming from the citizens through income tax, and we want to switch back to it coming externally from tariffs. And obviously,

you know, America was built on this. We used to not have federal income tax. We had a 5% tariff on all imports. And it was only once we started to introduce an income tax, did we start to actually drop that tariff revenue? And so you can think of these two things. It's almost inverse relationship. As you increase income tax, you drop your tariff revenue. Well, if we're going to bring back tariff revenue, the idea is to then go ahead and drop income tax. And this is not, you know, some conspiracy theory. They're openly saying this, right? Howard Lutton gave an interview yesterday. And he says, look, we're trying to eliminate federal income tax. We're going to replace that revenue with the external revenue service. So it's a pretty powerful idea. We can come back to in a second whether it's possible or not. The second thing is how do you actually implement the tariffs and what are the impact? And I think this is probably the single biggest misconception that I've seen. I've been blown away after I went and I really looked into this, how wrong my thoughts around tariffs. were before I went and I did the work. And I think the general thought process is that tariffs are inflationary. Tariffs lead to higher prices and tariffs are bad. Those are kind of

three commonly held beliefs. And the idea is that you don't want tariffs because you want free trade. But as you look into it, we don't have free trade. The United States is essentially tricked ourselves into believing that free trade still exists. But pretty much every country in the world is either subsidizing their producers and helping their producers flood America with cheap products, so they're giving themselves an advantage over us, or they are implementing serious tariffs against us, which are punishing our producers of those goods. In places like Canada, there are tariffs that are 200 plus percent against American producers. Also, Canada is subsidizing the lumber production, and they're flooding America with this cheap

Canadian lumber, which puts our producers who have plenty of capacity to produce all the lumber we need. We just can't compete on price because it's being subsidized by their government. So the reason why that's important is there is no such thing as free trade. So if we continue to operate under the belief that there is free trade and everyone else is operating knowing there's not, we're at a disadvantage. And so if you go and you take a look in 2018, Trump already ran this experiment. He dropped the federal income tax from 39.6% down to 37%. And simultaneous to that, he implemented tariffs on washer machines, solar panels, and steel. And so I went and I looked and said, hey, everyone keeps telling me that the prices went up.

But actually in all three of those cases, the goods that were tariffed by the end of 2019, so within 18 months, all three items that had tariffs placed on them, their prices were lower than the pre-tariff price. And the reason is because when those tariffs got implemented, there was a short-term bump in price for about three to five months. But then American manufacturing kicked in. And so things like steel, we already had tons of steel production capacity. We just weren't using it. We were taking the steel from elsewhere. And so when we put the tariffs in place, we then jumped American steel manufacturing capacity to up over 80%. If you increase your production domestically, your prices fall.

If you look at something like washer machines, two different Korean manufacturers actually came and built plants here in the United States. They created 2,000 American jobs. We started to produce more washer machines here in the United States. Prices fell. So you go through these examples. How long did that take? But how did that long to take to that in the wash machines? It happened in less than 18 months.

Prices were lower. So in 18 months, so this is a fascinating thing you're laying out. Let's stick with those examples from his first administration. So, okay, you put in a tariff on steel, and you're telling me, well, we had excess capacity that wasn't being used. So the minute that tariff comes in and you have a drop in import steel, you think prices would go up. And they did for what you contend was three months, right? but you get the you get the American steel

capacity fired up we start pumping out steel I kind of get that like if you're saying there was excess capacity sitting latent you might have to hire people you might have to

I guess you had raw materials stocked up and ready to go but I kind of get that you could fire that one up in a short period time but to build a plant and start cranking out washing machines to the point that you could bring prices back down

that seems like it would take a while Well, what really happens here is I think there's one key difference between what I'll call the surgical tariffs in 2018, right? They're very specific products. There's when they put the steel tariffs in place, they explicitly said our goal is to get American manufacturing capacity up over 80%. Right. So they really understood exactly what the tariff purpose was. Now what we're talking about are these like blanket tariffs, so all goods. And so where that could be potentially negative is if we don't have the ability to crank up American manufacturing.

Right. And to your point, if we've got to go build these facilities, it's going to take longer than 18 months, if we don't have the raw goods. Or there are also things, I mean, you know, the quintessential example is always like bananas, right? No matter how hard America tries, we're probably not going to be the world's greatest producer of bananas. And so there's plenty of products that are going to still come in from other countries. And, you know, I think that the big lesson in the tariff conversation was just pretty much everything people said about terrorists was wrong. Prices did not actually go up in the, medium term, they went down. The government did get more revenue because people continue to, you know, solar panels is a great example. Solar panel adoption in the United States continued on the exact same pace that it had previously. We increased American manufacturing of those solar panels. We put a 25% tariff to start. Biden, before he left in 2024, he actually doubled the solar panel tariff from 25% to 50%

and China kept still sending their solar panels. So we were making more money. in the tariff. Yeah, we were making more money as a government. We created American jobs and it didn't touch the consumers. No, they went down. It didn't touch the consumer? Solar panel prices actually went down by the end of 2019. And now on top of that, then there was incentive programs that were implemented in the early 2000s. So that continued to drive adoption. Like there's, you know, one of the things about tariffs is they don't operate in a vacuum. You can't just look at tariffs and be like, tariffs are good, tariffs are bad. You also have to look at it, what else is going on in the economy.

But specifically in that 2018 experiment, I think what you saw was you were able to bring down federal income tax and you were able to implement these tariffs and the tariffs did not have the negative impact that people claim that they would. And so my whole thesis on this is Trump's used that as an experiment. The experiment worked. And now he wants to transition from, hey, let's experiment to he wants to enter a tariff era where he is going to go implement this at scale around the world. And he's going to try to bring that income tax down while he's implemented.

these tariffs. All right. That's a big answer and it's going to control the rest of our conversation because I have so many different places I want to go. No, I'm serious. But I'm going to go, I'm going to work my way backwards on the different things you said that made me curious. Okay. So you gave us some great examples on how they are not, at least there are situations where tariffs are not inflationary. They can become a revenue source and they're not going to rise prices on targeted goods. I think you left open the possibility and we're all going to have to consider how blanket tariffs affect goods um but i am so what i consider that is a little bit as a social argument for tariffs as much as an economic argument meaning the purpose of it is to help bring manufacturing back

to america create american jobs make us less vulnerable to foreign economies um but as a revenue source, I'm still skeptical, okay? Especially when you tie it to sunsetting income tax. And I appreciate the example that you brought to us from like, we're going to go with like 1910, right? 1905, when the federal government ran on tariffs. The federal income tax came in in like 16, I think. I think it was like 16. 1913, I think is when they first started. Yeah, something like that. Okay, 13. We're just a different beast now, Anthony. Totally different beast. And again, it's like war. It's like Russia and Ukraine. I'm not sitting here saying the beast is good or the beast is bad.

If you must know, I think the beast is bad. But the beast still exists. We've got this gigantic government that requires a certain amount of revenue. And I haven't seen anything that suggests you could raise enough in tariffs to replace the amount of money that comes in from income tax. Now, anybody listening is like, well, fine, starve the beast, cut income tax. And that's fine. You can do that. But one of two things then have to happen.

You're going to have to cut government spending, which we have never seen, and maybe we will under Doge, but we've never seen the federal government successfully execute. Never have they cut down government spending. So if they do the normal thing and don't cut spending, but sunset income tax and try to bring in tariffs and you can't cover the gap, you're going to drive up deficits. And deficits are going to drive up debt. And we're going to face that debt spiral at some point. I just believe we're at a different place that we were in 1905, and then I don't see how tariffs can allow us to replace income tax. So I agree that tariffs by themselves cannot exclusively replace the income tax. Back in November, I did a two-hour interview with Howard Lutnik, and I really pushed him on this, right?

Because he was saying kind of tariffs, and he's kind of walked through the thing, and I was like, walk me through the math. And one aspect that he brought up that I'd never heard any politician, anyone ever talked about before, but I actually thought. think, one, they're implementing it. They're not openly talking about it. But two, I think is a really good idea is he started talking about monetizing the balance sheet of America. And so his point was, we own land, we own a lot of buildings, we own a lot of minerals, we have a lot of intellectual property, we have the economy, we have all these things. We should be able to make money as a country that does not just include taking the money in terms of income tax from the people. And so, you know, if you look at who's been put into office, you have Donald

Trump. You've got Scott Bessent, you've got Howard Lutnik, right? You kind of go through all these people. These are business people. These are people who think a lot about how do I drive revenue, how do I invest? How do I create value? And so Lutnik's point to me was that he thinks that they can create $1 trillion a year in net new revenue by monetizing the balance sheet. Now, what does that look like? You can sell off a bunch. There's thousands of buildings that the United States government owns that nobody is in, just literally empty buildings everywhere. You got a lot of land. Okay, to be fair, real quick. I love this, Switzerland. But I want to be, I want to be fair as we go. The real estate, commercial real estate market is in the tank.

I just read about this. I want to do it. They're thinking about it. They've listed it as potential sales, all these federal buildings across the country. The problem with that right now is nobody wants downtown commercial real estate, including these hulking government federal buildings. I completely agree. So, like, each thing that we're going to talk about here, I think is like, hey, we potentially could do this. And then there's an asterisk of like, the details really matter. Right. So, like, to your point, selling these government buildings is now the right time to do it. Should they wait over time?

Should they take 100% cash up front? Should they figure out some way to, you know, finance it? Should they do seller financing and actually, you know, get the value over the coming years? There's a bunch of details that kind of need to be figured out. But I think philosophically, you could sell the buildings. Land. Okay. You could lease the land.

You could sell the land. You could drill on the land. Right. There's a bunch of stuff there. Minerals, kind of self-explanatory. Then you get into things like I. So, you know, one example that I think is interesting, and there's pros and cons, is the whole TikTok deal. So they're basically like, hey, look, we're going to approve some sort of transaction with TikTok, but you've got to give 50% of it to the U.S. government put into the sovereign wealth fund.

And I think on one hand, it's like, okay, if you put business people in the seat and you say, hey, make money, they're going to find all kinds of unique creative ways to do that. And getting 50% of TikTok is obviously one thing that they're considering. On the other hand, I don't think that we want the U.S. government to basically be extracting a pound of flesh every time someone wants to do a business deal, right? If all of a sudden there's an M&A activity and the government's got to approve it, but we're like, ah, you know, we'll approve it if you give us 2%. You can very quickly see how we get in a weird world there as well. But I think that their general thought processes, can we go and drive money or revenue from the balance sheet? So the reason why I bring that up is it's not just like, hey, implement tariffs, get rid of income tax. And the numbers equal each other.

Instead, what you're really doing, and you brought up government spending, is you've got to drastically reduce government spending. You've got to also add tariffs, and then you also need to monetize that balance sheet. But I think the key thing to kind of remember here is the reason why we have the deficits is we take all of the federal income tax and then we spend more. So if we get to a surplus or a balanced budget, then what you can do is you can start to say, hey, we don't need as much revenue. And so you could very quickly start to cut into that taxes. I think the debate, the controversy, the kind of open question is, how do we get to a balanced budget? And, you know, I was very critical of both candidates during the campaign process because I kept saying they're not even pretending. Neither candidate on the campaign trail promised that we were going to get a balanced budget.

You know, it used to be a thing when I was growing up that politicians at least lied. You know, they gave us the respect to lie to us. They were like, you know, I'm going to balance the budget. And then they never did it. But at least it sounded good. You felt like, hey, they cared enough that they thought this was a problem. Neither candidate on the campaign trail said that they were going to balance the budget. And so I was, you know, essentially mocking it, saying, like, we were at such a dire situation that they're not even promising anymore.

They don't even respect us enough to lie to us. But then once Trump got in office, all of a sudden, him in the cabinet started to say, hey, we're going to balance the budget. And it surprised me because that was not a campaign trail promise. And so I do think that, you know, it's this dynamic environment where you put a guy in as president. He knows that he's got, you know, kind of two years. What is the legacy that you want to optimize for? The crowning achievement would be to finally get a balanced budget after, you know, 20 plus years. I don't know if it's possible, but I do think that the odds are way higher that they can get to a balanced budget than maybe people give them credit for, mainly because I do think

that there is way more savings on the government spending than people want to, uh, to acknowledge. And a great place where you can see that is like entitlement spending. That is really kind of this like kind of holy grail. You can't touch entitlement spending. But maybe the only way that you could actually go in and touch the entitlement spending is if you went in and you said, hey, we found a bunch of fraud. And so we're going to get rid of the fraud or like the waste. And so we're going to keep the promise to people.

But now all of a sudden we found some of that entitlement spending that we can get rid of without actually offending anyone. And so that to me is really interesting. We just don't know what the numbers are. So, okay, the numbers on the balance budget, and I have a couple more places I want to go with you. I don't want to be sensitive to the fact that Jennifer say is in the waiting room to come join us here in just a little bit. But the numbers are interesting. Like, okay, if Lutnik believes there's a trillion dollars in ways to monetize the balance sheet, that's interesting.

When Musk says, what is Musk's current number? He believes we can get a, did he say a trillion dollars in savings? He said a trillion back in February. but he did so a $2 trillion deficit we have a $2 trillion

deficit and he acted like you could cut it in half through what they're finding at Doge I mean can you or can you not that's inspiring

if he's telling the truth and he's accurate right well the way I would think about the way I would think about that is technically we are spending like whatever

$6 trillion $7 trillion depending on kind of when you count from so he's not saying that you can cut 50% of government spending he's really saying

that you can can cut, you know, less than 20% of the spending, which would cut in, you know, be 50% of the deficit. So I think that's the other piece is, you know, cutting 50% of government spending sounds insane. I don't think that's possible. But if you can go from- No, he's saying cutting, he's cutting a trillion out of $6 trillion.

At a $6 trillion, correct. So it's like, you know, when you say, hey, we're going to cut 15% of government spending, I think people think that's way more realistic than, you know, describing it as like, we're going to cut 50%? People hear 50% of government spending. Okay, 50% of the deficit. Which, by the way, okay, now there's a story out right now that the senators think there's a way to use a 1974 bill rescission where if he can identify the cuts, they can vote by a simple majority in the Senate to claw back or cut out $500 million. My point is, whether or not that's true or not, it gets inspiring that you get to these kind of numbers.

But there's a point I want to get to it. This comment actually helps address. So this is a comment from a user right now who's watching us. S&J's mom will the entire point is that we cannot continue to do the same thing we must make radical changes you keep saying we never which is the entire point can I just say this you I don't know if this person is looking for enemies and I think a lot of people in the right are constantly looking for enemies to get in the way of what they think should get done and there are times to do that but that seems to be a hobby and a national pastime of the right right now the enemies are the only reason

that we never get anything done when the truth is the thing that gets in your way is incompetence and reality that's the two things that get in your way okay now you still need to be a dreamer and you still need to be radical and we're going to do big things here and i love doing big things and i love being radical i do but looking at a century's worth of evidence you're you're an idiot if you dismiss a century's worth of evidence okay i don't care if you're in a mom and pop shop or you're the federal government. If you have a hundred years worth of evidence, pay attention. Pay attention, okay?

It's powerful. There's a reason there's such thing as brand equity, like a brand that's been built up for 30 years. That's more powerful than the one that was launched yesterday. Why? That's been going for 30 years. My point of talking about what we've never done is to show exactly how hard it is to do. And you have to expect more than promises.

Even from guys that you like, like Musk, I like Musk. I think he's doing amazing things. do I think he's really going to be able to find a trillion dollars? I sure hope so, but I think we should all have a healthy level of skepticism that he can find it and cut it out. So all of this could be radical and the moment they write about 500 years from now in history,

or it could be the same way it's gone for the last 100 years, one or the other, right? And that's what I'm trying to suss out with you. One more thing, I almost called you Joe, Anthony. You said something at the very beginning, and I wanted to come back to it. And I was fascinated by it, that you have come to reject first principles or revisit them and reject things that you believed about the economy.

And like, you brought up, too, the efficient market theory and intrinsic value. And I'm going to be honest with you. I bristled when you said that. And I'm really like, you said it. You said since then. That's why you said it. You wanted me to? You wanted to be radical?

You don't believe in the efficient market theory? No. I mean, look, on both of these, right? like efficient market hypothesis basically is the market is efficient well if the market was efficient then there would be no alpha there would be no way to generate outsized returns there would be

no kind of over rotation or overreaction to news it should be an efficient market totally and so you know then by the way this is not like hey I'm real quick isn't the pushback on that this is like democracy is democracy the absolute best form of government

no it's the best that we know is capitalism the best way to do an economy economy, we can't say yes or no. It's just the best that we know. The markets are the most efficient way to do an economy. That doesn't make them efficient. Don't you think that's fair? There's not a more efficient mechanism, but that doesn't make it perfect. Yeah, markets are the best way, but the efficient market hypothesis argues that it is truly efficient, right? So that's wrong. And then intrinsic value is my favorite one because this one really upsets people. But if you think about it, intrinsic value is what is something worth objectively? And value is all subjective. So

if you and I look at the same asset and ask you, what's it worth, you tell me a number. If I go to somebody else and ask them, what's it worth, then they tell me different numbers. Take a stock, right? If I said to you, what is the intrinsic value of Apple? You'll run some calculation. You'll tell me what you think it's worth. And I got to ask somebody else, what's the intrinsic value to tell me something different. Ask another person, they tell me something different. And so there's no such thing as intrinsic value because ultimately it is a subjective thing. You have a different criteria. There's also things where you may say, well, I use a discounted cash flow model and five other people use a discounted cash flow model of a stock. You all are running using

the same methodology, but you come to a different answer because you make different assumptions about growth rates or, you know, various other components. And so the reason why I always say- Some people are right and some people are wrong. Well, that is one way. But intrinsic value, everyone should look at it, should be objective, right? And so the reason why I... No. Yeah, of course. Well, but you're not discounting for stupidity in other things in human motivation, like greed, like short-termism.

It's 2025. No one's stupid. Everyone is accepted. No, okay, so the problem I have with that, and I'm not a genius, I'm only, I know enough like I slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night, I know enough to get me into trouble. I'm a big fan of Warren Buffett when it comes to investing. And if anybody all of a sudden is like, yeah,

Warren Buffett likes Bill Gates. Okay, fine. Again, I think he's probably proven to be the biggest genius when it comes to markets over the last half a century. And he believes in value investing, that there is true value. Now, is it intrinsic?

It's objective value. The objective value can be determined. The market is not a reflection of that. The market is a voting mechanism. That's all it is. So it's a viral trend. it's a fad that's all the market is it's a quick flash poll but you look into a company's books their assets their liabilities their cash flow their brand equity over a long period of time all

these things and you can project that out with some reasonable level of certainty not certainty because again it's life but you can find what is close to an intrinsic value and his goal is to find the ones where the market is inefficient right where the voting mechanism is is off. Everybody thinks this is only worth this. I can see the objective value. It's actually worth this. And over time, well, he's become one of the richest men in the world. And I actually like the way he's done it more in terms of proof of markets than the guy like Mark Cuban, who starts Broadcast.com and makes a billion dollars, and Broadcast.com is gone. So I think that's a little bit of a rebuttal to intrinsic value. Do you not? Well, I think that

value investing is never going to go out of style, right? Basically, you're just buying things for less and they're worth. And that's a pretty good strategy. If you keep buying things at a discount, obviously, you're going to make money. The idea around intrinsic value itself is, I think people would just be better off saying, here's what I think it's worth. Like, here's the value, right? It's the intrinsic component, because, again, value is subjective. And what you value is different than what I value. And the market can change over time, right? You know, it's hilarious to me that we went through this AI stock kind of crash when the China model deep seat came out. So, nothing changed about the American companies.

It's just that all of a sudden now everyone thinks, oh, we should sell a little bit and these things should be worth less because China has a better model. And so that's like a great example of value is subjective not only to the person, but also to the environment. And so these things change quite a bit. But if we kind of get back to the idea of tariffs and things like that, the reason why I bring up things like intrinsic value

is you have to go and do the work. You have to go and actually look at this stuff from first principles, A lot of the things that you've been taught in economics class end up actually being incorrect. And what I saw is by looking at the tariff situation, that in 2018, the tariffs that were put there actually led to lower prices. Those lower prices ended up creating quite a compelling story as to why we should go and use more tariffs. And I think that's what he's doing. I think that's really interesting. I love the stories you told us about washing machines and steel.

And I'd love to see it work out the same way as what you described. I'd love to see blanket tariffs work out the same way those targeted tariffs did from the first administration. And I love that you did the deep dive. You can go check him out, by the way. He's doing all this from the desk of Anthony Pomfleano. He's on X. Check him out. This is a, you know, this is actually, I loved this conversation.

Started out rough on the video games and who is Joe. But we figured it out, and I think this is awesome. I really do. Anthony, thank you so much. Thanks, Will. All right. Let's check in with the people. really quickly. Let's see if Wayne says tariffs will be a winner for America. Tommy Bennett said

Canada is going to become the 51st state, thanks to Trudeau. Doom guy, brutal 92, said the Dems are playing with fire. I think he's talking about that viral video. And then Amelia Frank says, but if other countries raise tariffs too, how much would that bring down prices as America is the biggest importer globally? All right, there we have it. I'll tell you what. Let's talk about one particular business. How about XXXY, which makes clothing focused on sane gender ideology? Somebody has been pushing back on this trans move for quite some time. Former executive at Levi's Jennifer Say, joining us next on the Will Kane show.

Following Fox's initial donation to the Kerr County Flood Relief Fund, our generous viewers have answered the call to action across all Fox platforms and have helped raise $6.5 million. Visit go. Fox forward slash TX flood relief to support relief and rebuilding efforts. It is time to take the quiz. It's five questions in less than five minutes. We ask people on the streets of New York City to play along. Let's see how you do. Take the quiz every day at the quiz.

Then come back here to see how you did. Thank you for taking the quiz. From the Fox News Podcasts Network. Hey there, it's me. Kennedy, make sure to check out my podcast. Kennedy saves the world. It is five days a week, every week. download and listen at foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you listen to your favorite podcast.

It's the Will Kane show streaming live at foxnews.com on the Fox News YouTube channel and the Fox News Facebook page. Hit subscribe at Apple or Spotify or on YouTube. Jennifer Say is the founder and CEO of XXXY. Athletics. She's the author of Levi's Unbuttoned and Chalked Up. And she joins us now on the Will Cane show. She's in New York. She's in studio. What's up, Jennifer? Hi, Will. How are you doing? Good. It's been a while. Yeah. How's it going at XXXY? How's it going? It's going really well. We're about to turn one at the end of this month. We're only one, which is a baby. Even in startup land, that's a baby brand. But the business performance has been outstanding. I think people are really. relieved to have a brand they can buy that has great product and actually represents their values, truth, you know, we're the only athletic brand standing up for the protection of women's sports. And we've had undeniable impact on the issue. I mean, the ground is moving beneath our feet. I think more and more people are willing to say out loud what we all know

to be true. And I think we're part of that. We're certainly not the only one's part of it, but I think we are a part of it and we're proud of that. It's hard, right? I mean, It's got to be, set the issue aside, just starting a new company like that. Oh, boy. And you're competing against Nike and, I mean, I could say Under Armour, but they've had their ups and downs and every other athletic. Adidas, Lulu Lemon. They're sort of like the athletic brands that have a very sort of strong male consumer

base and more of a masculine vibe overall. Those are the kind of sports and competitive athletic brands. And then you have a whole crop of brands in the fitness space. That's like the lulus and the aloes. They're not really about competitive athletics. They're about fitness and yoga. And those are really the brands that have taken off with women in the last 20 years. Right.

And we're doing sort of something different because we are about competitive athletics and competitive athletes. You know, very purposefully, I mean, certainly people wear it for fitness activities, but our brand point of view is definitely about being competitive. A lot of our athlete ambassadors are D1 college athletes, that kind of thing. And they're all athletes that have spoken up for the protection of women's sports. No other brand will platform women that do that, but we certainly will. We're proud to have them. But yeah, it's tough.

A startup, goodness gracious, I did not think I'd be doing this at this point in my life. It's a lot. I know. And you've seen it from the other side. You've seen what big guys do to small startups. But you've also been on the big side as well. and you know how they can ignore the threat of a small guy. So it's a double-it.

And by the way, sometimes you also understand they're incapable. Even when they, look, I'll tell it from this side, like ESPN ignored and left open the space of podcasting. Yep. Then, and they're the biggest brand in sports. And then people start to do really well, bar stool, whoever it may be. And then ESPN recognizes it. And then it's going to do something to try to address it. And that's threatening because they have all kinds of money they can throw at it.

Yeah. But then you realize they're actually institutional. incapable of doing something to keep up with that's something that's new and radical. A challenger that moves fast and is really agile and doesn't give a, we'll just do whatever they need to do. Yeah, what you described in media is exactly the same thing in business. You know, I think in the beginning, the big guys feel like, well, none of that does matter. That's, you're just a little gnat, you know, and then suddenly it starts to encroach on the business. I mean, look at what's happening with Nike right now, huge stock hit just this week.

product innovation, lagging behind all the things they used to win on, and you have these upstart brands, which aren't even small anymore, like Hoka and On, these are like billion-dollar entities, Viori, that are chipping away. And usually for the big guys, they pretend it doesn't matter. Then they know it matters, but they don't want to acknowledge it publicly because that would seem weak. You know, that would be beneath them to kind of acknowledge a small upstart brand. And then they panic.

And they try to kind of adopt some of those behaviors, the agility, etc. But they can't do it. It's too big. And then they end up buying them up. That's the last phase is they buy them. Right. Have you thought, okay, let me ask you two business questions that I'm interested in. Yeah. And then we're going to talk about some of the issues for a moment. Allo came out of nowhere for me. They all kind of do come out of nowhere. Lululemon did and then Viori did. But for some reason, for me, alo absolutely like out of nowhere. And all of a sudden my kids are, you know, I guess they're talking about it. I've heard I know why did that happen that way what they do right well I think part of it is

because they haven't come out of nowhere I mean they've been around a while but why would you pay attention it's you know I think mostly I don't even know if they make men's you know so it's a women's targeted brand um is it yeah I think they do make men's they might make men's but it's very female focused whereas Viori started as a men's targeted brand but I mean unless you're really paying attention to all this stuff? Why would you? I don't know. Why would you notice? I mean, I didn't really, I hadn't really noticed Viore until I got into this sector. You know, I knew every jeans brand, having worked at Levi's for 23 years, but I didn't know the athletic space all that well. I do. By the way, Jennifer, jeans have got to be crushed as a, as a market. Like,

I can't get my kids to wear jeans. That's how old are your children? How old are they? 13 and 17? Yeah. I mean, they didn't grow up wearing. wearing jeans, right? They grew up wearing sweats, track pants, leggings. If you guys, jeans are uncomfortable and dress up. Dress up, isn't that too funny? Yeah, it's tough out there. I mean, obviously, the actual dress-up category just completely, it was dying, but then since COVID has just, I mean, look at what you're wearing, look at what I'm wearing, like nobody's wearing a tie in a suit anymore. Nobody is wearing a suit or a dress or any of it. I mean, there were people that

thought in the industry that post-COVID people would want to get dressed up again you know pillar to post but they're not dressed up as jeans to your point um the athletic category took off during COVID obviously was already on the rise um but you know some of these other categories they just didn't come back and you're right kids I mean my kids are the same they don't even own jeans my youngest children they've never worn a pair of jeans well you don't let me think about that I was at a practice then I with a dad and he was wearing tennis shoes and jeans and he He goes, look at me, I'm so stupid. And I didn't occur to me, you can't wear tennis shoes with jeans anymore.

And like another is like, yeah, that's Jerry Seinfeld. That's over. Like you can't. What are you supposed to wear? I started thinking. Athleteasure. Like some tailored sweatpants of some kind or whatever's in style now. Baggy ones are inside style now.

Right. With tennis shoes. But like the jeans tennis shoe combo, I wear boots with jeans most of time. So I get around it. But if I want to wear tennis shoes or something like that. You wear track pants or sweat. I guess. I don't know. I don't wear a lot of those. It's kind of killed the jeans. Rotation.

Yeah, I mean, look, if you... Which is good for you. If you get sort of, you know, boringly technical about it, the jeans category is still growing, but very modestly, we're talking like 1% a year, whereas the athletic apparel category is 6, 7, 8% a year. So much faster growth. I mean, that's taken over what we all wear, and it's acceptable to wear to work. It's acceptable to wear all over the place. And brands like Viori, they make sort of super comfortable pants that are made with like workout material but look like pants. Like they look like actual trousers. Why would you not wear those?

They're super comfortable. So, you know, that's what men are wearing. They wear them on the golf course and they wear them to work. And it's tough out there for, you know, a khaki business or a denim business. They're just not seeing the growth. But it could swing back. Okay. Here's the second business question.

As you described that cycle of an online. entrepreneur and how the big guy ignores you, then tries to threaten you, and then ultimately buys you. And you can tell me you don't care, but every entrepreneur does care. With a business where one of the potential outcomes is an exit, right? That is sell it. Yeah. You leaning into your values, which is a right thing to do and helps you find your market,

right? Because it helps you find your consumer. Does it lessen your potential for an exit? Like when you sit there and you go, well, these guys won't bias, that guy won't bias, because you are so value-based. Yeah, I mean, look, it lessens potential for other things. I mean, wholesalers won't carry us. I mean, you think Nordstrom is going to carry a brand like ours, Nordstrom based in Seattle, even though from a price point on a product perspective, it's totally right for them. But that's okay.

I want to own and run a direct-to-consumer business because then you can control the brand. does it limit that that kind of out like a purchase now that the world is shifting under our feet you know i think everybody 80% of americans agree that women sports should be for women only crazy thought that is um and you know most people won't say it yet but there are enough people that were relieved to see a brand like to see my brand xxx y athletics and buy it and wear it to the soccer game and every time somebody does that it moves the overton window So just a little bit more. I'll tell you, when I wear it, excuse me, to the soccer game on the weekend, every time a mom leans in and she says, I agree with you.

She whispers it. And it's like I can see it in her eyes. It's like it's given her the permission structure to now say that out loud. Something she believed to be true. All along. She was maybe a D1 athlete herself. So I think the world is moving fast. I mean, I don't know if you saw the Gavin Newsom thing this morning.

Did you see that? Are you talking about with Charlie Kirk, his podcast? Yeah, the podcast. Like, I mean, just the fact that I don't, look, I can't stand Gavin. I lived in California for 35 years, never voted for the man. But the fact that, one, he's sitting down with Charlie Kirk, which means he's sort of legitimized. Like, you know, a year ago he wouldn't have done that. He would have said that person is too racist.

I won't talk to them. But he said on the podcast, I think his inaugural podcast, his first one, he said, obviously, it's not fair for boys to play in girl sports. He's obviously a very influential figure in the time. Democrat Party. He's, you know, the governor of the biggest state. Now, he didn't really take it one step further to say, I will uphold the executive order. I don't think he'll do anything about it just last weekend. A male athlete won the long jump and the triple jump at a big competition in California and holds the state record there. So, you know, he's sort of talking out of both

sides of his mouth. And I certainly don't think he's doing it out of any sort of moral or principled stance. I don't think the fellow has any principles. But he is politically astute and he sees which way the wind is blowing doesn't he yeah it's an 80-20 proposition at best for them you know right well it's a thing called better there's i could i was going to say there's a have you ever heard of parato's principle i first heard about it from tim ferris when he wrote the four-hour work week and all this but it's the idea that almost everything in the world breaks down into 80 20 right business 80% of your yeah 80% of your sales is being driven by 20% of your sales force um anything in life 80-20 is a pretty good but it's pretty fascinating that that issue is 80-20 or worse for them

right 20 is their ceiling on the idea that boys should be competing in girls sports and by the way do you think it's a lot different Jennifer like you focused on the sports angle I did this on my show yesterday I found this fascinating that Oxford study that's come out now it's a that they did a study 100,000, 107,000 is the, is the population pool of the study, Oxford medical study. And they found that the rates of depression, suicide, and everything else for people who've had gender reassignment surgery, which is sex changes, went up in every single category for males and females. And by like double. So if you were depressed and you got the surgery, 11% were depressed before, 23% depressed afterwards. Suicide. People, 6% were thinking of suicide, suicidal ideation,

12% after surgery. So it's not helping. It's not doing the exact thing that they're so. That's the sales point. Like I watched the Obama Bros. Podcast, John Lovett and Bill Maher, and that was his argument to Bill Maher. It was, you're saving kids from suicide. But what we're learning is that's bullshit. Right. And there's no examination of why they're depressed before. Why is there suicidality? Is it being, I mean, if you ask kids all the time, I mean, you have young children. I think it's crazy that kids are given these surveys all the time. Every time they go to the doctor, are you depressed? Do you ever think of killing yourself? Like, have you seen these surveys? These little, I mean, I don't let them do it with my kids anymore. I hardly take my kids to the doctor.

If it can be helped, I mean, you're like planting the seed in their heads. Anyway, that's a and aside, but none of that is examined. And all of these children suffering from so-called gender dysphoria have other comorbidities. They're depressed. They're anxious, anorexic, autistic. Why aren't we exploring that? We go right to, well, let's just, you know, put them on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones and cut off their parts and mutilate their bodies. How could they not be more depressed afterwards? But I have also seen a lot of commentary, which I'm sure you've seen, that this study is bogus and there weren't enough, you know, participants, which seems crazy if there were over a hundred thousand. A hundred thousand. That's enough.

That's enough. But yeah, it's certainly not, look, this whole thing is a house of cards, the whole sort of gender ideology movement. It is at odds with itself. It is founded upon no real logic. Sex isn't binary. And yet, if you think you're the opposite sex, you have to switch to the other sex. That would show that you think it is binary. Like, none of it makes any sense. It's just completely illogical. And it's going to implode on it. but I will say they're really good at getting the language and the ideas into culture and they do it very quickly. I mean, I can't tell you how many people have written me in the last two days who are sympathetic to the cause but kind of not sure where they fall on, you know,

which side of the line, you know, because since the Senate voted not to progress the protection of women and girls in sports bill on, was it Monday, I think it was Monday, people are writing and saying, well, didn't the bill say that there'd be genital checks? If we do this, if we decide that we're going to pass a bill that says we're going to protect women's sports, it's just for women. They're going to do genital checks. People, the Democratic Party, AOC being sort of the lead horse here, is saying that will lead to genital checks and that it's in the bill. Right. And everybody parrots it and repeats it. I've had moms at the soccer field say it to me.

It's ludicrous. Nobody wants genital checks. And the other line that they get out there is they say this is going to be harmful to girls who are gender non-conforming, who are more masculine. Everybody's going to question their identity. You know what? Right. We are not the ones doing that. You guys are the ones doing that.

The other side, the gender ideologues are the ones saying, if you're a boy and you don't like playing with trucks, maybe you're a girl. And if you're a girl and you like sports, maybe you're a boy. That's not us. We love tomboyes. We love all of it. So they're really good at the marketing of their messaging. up ideas. Do you, you still live in California? No, I live in Colorado, which you could say is just as bad. Not much better. It's a lot better. It's a lot better. Well, where do you

live in Colorado? Okay, you're going to beat me up on this. I do live in Denver. But I will, I will tell you, it's still nowhere near California. I lived in California for 35 years, and I know Colorado is problematic, but it cannot hold a candle to San Francisco. go still at this point. But anyway, there's a, there's sort of a libertarian. There's a reason I ask you. Okay, ask me. Yeah. Go ahead. I'm curious, because I didn't know if you did this through a California bubble. It's a Denver bubble. Okay. Sure. So you and I talked through that like, okay, puberty blockers, et cetera, et cetera, and how awful that is. What would you do in this situation, Jennifer? And I'll answer it too, if you want. Okay. You have a kid and I totally agree with

you that there's a total ignorance and a lack of curiosity about the comorbidity. that lead children down this path depression anxiety bipolar whatever it may be right there is underlying issues and you treat the symptom by going oh well maybe you're a boy trapped in a girl's body or whatever vice versa instead of having real interest in what the deep air issue is right yeah okay so we both acknowledge that so when you get to that and you encounter a kid i'd be really curious your kid or somebody else's kid who's going through this first first Forget the medical stuff. Do you humor their face?

Do you humor their, my name is X now? I'd like these pronouns now. What do you do? Well, I won't talk about other people's kids because I don't, I have no say in how they're raised. With my own children, no, I would not humor it. I mean, would I humor? If my daughter was anorexic and weighed 70 pounds at 16 years old and thought she was fat, would I humor her and tell her, yeah, you probably should.

exercise more and eat less? No, I would not humor her. Right. I would speak to her kindly and in a reality-based fashion. If my child demanded that I called him a different name, I would say, I'm not going to do that. You have a name. It's a name I gave you. If you want to do that with your friends outside the house, but I'm not doing that. What about your friend's child? Well, I don't have any friends anymore, Will. Because maybe this is why, because you wouldn't do it. Well, there's a lot of reasons why it starts with a C and it ends with an Ovid. That was the beginning of the no friend phase for me, COVID.

I do have friends or former friends that have children that have transitioned surgically. Yeah. We're not, you know, they don't like my views and we don't really talk anymore. Gosh, I don't know. I don't have it. I do have a friend now in Colorado who has a child that is, quote, unquote, transitioning. I don't know. I know what I would do with my own children. And I've done it. I won't use pronouns. It's hard. It's hard. I won't use the, I have not. It's always such a record scratcher when everyone else in the social circle is doing it. And then you don't. And you use the original pronoun or the original name. and it comes off as though you're being an intentional asshole and you're not that's not the motivation you're trying to be rooted in reality and the empathy is acknowledgement that this isn't

actually the healthy step and healthy choice but then the problem is you're you're seemingly indicting a parental choice and now we're well beyond the trans issue now we're now we're on anything you you you know why would you question whether or not I should give my kid the COVID shot. Why would you question whether or not my kidney the spanking? Why would you question whether or not, you know, once you start questioning someone else's way of parenting, man, you're in a whole new world. It's a whole kettle of fish. I agree. I mean, I think I won't do the pronoun thing. I won't recite my own. I certainly won't use incorrect ones for another person. And I've become sort of a hardliner on this because I think these ideas were smuggled into the

culture through the language. And we all did it to sort of be nice in the beginning. But once you say, that Will Thomas is a she, and once you say Will Thomas is a woman, how do you say Will Thomas can't compete in women's swimming or go in the women's locker room? You sort of can't. You kind of screwed yourself over. The ideas have been smuggled into the culture, and so we have to kind of push back and rest the truth back from this language. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect. I don't think it's kind or respectful to indulge somebody's delusion. I think you can do it. And look, anything we do and believe what we believe is viewed as unkind or fascist or Nazi at this point. But that doesn't mean I have to actually act like one. I can behave with kindness

always, with calmness. It's pretty easy when you're in a room with someone to not use pronouns. I mean, who refers to like, I wouldn't call you he while I'm sitting here talking to you. So, you know, I find you can do it without being in someone's face about it. You use their name. but you ask about the sort of new name versus the quote-unquote dead name. I don't know. I mean, I'm curious. Name is easier. Name is easier than pronouns because you can call yourself whatever you want.

Okay, you're not Cassius Clay. You're Muhammad Ali now. Right. Okay, fine. That's what you are. That's what you are. Yeah. You've changed your name.

You've changed your name. But the pronoun is a separate category because you don't have control over objective reality. That's right. but the name if it goes from you know a male name to a female name is sort of distorting reality and in many instances these kids are minors if you turn 18 and you want to change your name legally fine you're 12 and you live in my house your name is Mary or whatever it is you know so I'm kind of a hard liner on that one um as well uh because I think it all contributes like this people used to think oh, the social transition, it's harmless.

It's not harmless because once they're on the path, those that turn back, it's a very, very small number. Now, we see, I think what ultimately will end a lot of this is the detransitioners. There's just going to be way too many of them. We won't be able to ignore them any longer. Right. Because if there were so many kids rushed into this,

kids who were suffering, it, you know, exploded during COVID. Kids were suffering from isolation. They were extremely online. They found comfort in these crazy places. But there's, you know, so there's so many children who are going to detransition. And it takes some time, so we're not there yet. You know, I think it's on average is five to ten years. Long time.

All right. So you've built this brand X, X, X, X, X, Y about telling the truth and asking people who are ready to support the truth to use that instead of these other brands that don't reflect their values. And I'm glad to hear it's going really well. Yeah, it's been like a rocket. It's crazy how it's just taken off. And people, I do, they're just so relieved to have a brand that they don't have to sacrifice quality, fit, style, performance, any of that stuff. Because there's a lot of times in this startup space, there's people who have an idea,

but they don't actually have the experience to bring it to life. But I've got over 30 years of brand building and clothing experience, and we put great product out. Everybody loves the product, so they come back for more, which is awesome. X, X, X, Y. All right, Jennifer, it's great to hear from you. It's been like a year, and so I'm glad to hear how it's going. for being with us today and congrats to you awesome oh thank you yeah it's exciting i'm watching i love

it i i really appreciate it i have this weird reaction when people compliment it right now because i i want to be like well we got a lot of work to do because i really want it to be a certain way and it's but it's like any startup you know what i mean it's like any startup uh it's gonna be a while you got i acknowledge the way it started yeah it's awesome i'm really really happy for you deserve it um you got acknowledge the wins and keep pressing forward to do even better that's what I always say but you have to acknowledge the wins which I forget to do sometimes because I'm just like always pushing forwards but you know for your team you need to acknowledge the wins good on you all right Jennifer thank you so much I appreciate it yeah thank you well there she goes Jennifer say

check them out at XXXX Y for um competition gear athlete your athlete leisure that's how you say that word right athletic wear leisure but she raleigh gains uh is one of their big um brand spokesman and uh high level competitor there obviously which was one of the best swimmers in the ncea check them out xxx y all right it's been a fun show today appreciate you hanging out for so long um hope you will download rate and review give us a five-star review and download at spotify or apple and we will see you again next time Listen ad free with a Fox News podcast plus subscription on Apple Podcasts. And Amazon Prime members can listen to this show ad free on the Amazon Music app.

I'm Janisteen. Join me every Sunday as I focus on stories of hope and people who are truly rays of sunshine in their community and across the world. Listen and follow now at foxnewspodcast.com.